1975-07-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
Because the present imbroglio about jurisdiction over telecommunications threatens to lead to conflicts, the consequences of which could be serious for the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the government immediately order that a federal-provincial conference be held on the constitution for the purpose of sharing definitively provincial and federal jurisdiction over telecommunications.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43. Inasmuch as the renewed attempt by Imperial Oil to effect a transfer of the crude oil cargo from the Esso GOA to the Imperial St. Clair at the entrance of Halifax Harbour today poses unprecedented and unnecessary risk to the environment, made all the more real by their failure to effect such transfer yesterday under almost ideal conditions; and, in light of the imminent exhaustion of existing fuel energy supplies which will bring about real havoc in all segments
of the economy of Atlantic Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That this House instruct the responsible authorities to bring an end to this very dangerous exercise and instruct the principle negotiators to return to the table with the Atlantic Pilots for the purpose of resolving the very narrow 3 to 4 per cent differences between the two parties.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the motion to be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the collateral matters being revealed during the course of Chief Justice Estey's inquiry into the financial affairs of Air Canada and the increasing evidence that the top executives of our national air carrier are either unable or unwilling to follow the enabling statutory guidelines which set out Air Canada's specific authorization and terms of reference for doing business as a Crown corporation authorized by this Parliament, the latest such instance, Mr. Speaker, being a confidential agreement with the Tourism Minister of Lebanon for the promotion of Air Canada in that country, a matter which has diplomatic overtones, the unusual nature of which is well illustrated by the quote from John McGill, Vice-President of Air Canada, who allegedly said: "I don't understand the mores and morals of the Middle East"-obviously, Mr. Speaker, it is not only the Middle East that the executives of Air Canada do not understand-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport, entirely apart from the report of Chief Justice Estey which will be tabled in due course, that there is now sufficient evidence that the minister make immediate changes at the top level executive structure of Air Canada to assure that management conducts the airline's affairs in a way that will be businesslike, and within the statutory authority granted by Parliament and in accordance with accepted international procedures, so that Air Canada may be a credit to Canada in every respect.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 18, 1975
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State, in the absence of the Secretary of State, relating to the sale being negotiated by West Germany to Brazil of a very large package of nuclear facilities, materials, reactors, enrichment facilities and separation plants. In view of the controversial nature of this sale and safeguards surrounding it, can the Acting Secretary of State or the Prime Minister say whether the government of Canada has inquired from its friendly ally, West Germany, what the safeguards are relating to this arrangement?


Mr. Trudeau:: The hon. member wishes to direct his question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, not the Secretary of State.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I think the Leader of the Opposition inadvertently directed his question to the wrong minister, but I will answer it. I gather it was directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. The government has had some discussions with Germany about co-operation in applying safeguards. We have had very good cooperation on that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My supplementary question is directed to the same minister or to the Prime Minister. Has the government of Canada, through its responsible minister, whoever he may happen to be, inquired from our friendly and presumably responsive ally, West Germany, as to the safeguards surrounding this contract for nuclear facilities and materials?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my understanding that the German government believes it is establishing safeguards that are in full accord with international standards.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I am being offensive in asking the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs to answer my question. Has the government of Canada inquired as to specifically what these safeguards are that West Germany proposes for this arrangement? I ask this question particularly because the United States has protested against those safeguards being indequate. I therefore ask whether the government of Canada has even inquired as to what specifically these safeguards are and, having obtained this information, has it made any comment on these safeguards to our ally, West Germany?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think I did attempt to answer this question. The government of Canada has had discussions with the government of Germany about the safeguards that it does apply on the supply of its technology to all countries,

including Brazil. We have no reason to believe that they are not fully in accordance with international standards.


ADMISSION BY EXXON TO UNITED STATES SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES-SUGGESTION CANADA REQUEST COPIES OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since Imperial Oil of Canada, in conjunction with the hearings of a committee in the United States senate, acknowledged recently that they had given more than $1 million to three political parties in Canada, and since Exxon, the parent firm in the United States, has acknowledged that millions of dollars were given by them to political parties in Italy for the express purpose of obtaining tax concessions and other legal benefits, would the Prime Minister request our embassy in the United States to obtain for Canada all documents and testimony on this subject from the U.S. senate subcommittee looking into multinational corporations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly relate that question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
John Edward Broadbent: Considering that a senior official of Imperial Oil of Canada acknowledged at a recent stockholders meeting in Toronto that his company has been giving money for a number of years to political parties in Canada supporting this company's political philosophy, and considering that the Election Expenses Act came into force only last summer, would the Prime Minister undertake on behalf of this party to make public the total amount of money the Liberal party has received from Imperial Oil and other oil companies during the period from 1968 to 1975?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have answered that type of question many times and indicated that it was in order to ensure that present and future donations were known that the Liberal party brought in the election expenses legislation a few years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Parliament did that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course; the first version of it was blocked by the opposition, but finally we got a version through about a year or so ago. We do not intend to apply this legislation retroactively.
July 18, 1975

Oral Questions


INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: I was
asking the Prime Minister if he would follow the example of the Social Credit Party, which stated yesterday in a straightforward way the amount of money it had received in the past from Imperial Oil Company. However, in view of the fact that Senator Church's committee in the United States discovered from internal Exxon documents that political contributions were covered up in Italy by charging them to bookkeeping accounts labelled "fuel to power plants, natural gas imports, licences, taxes and deferred tax payments," and considering that Imperial Oil has only paid in taxes to the Government of Canada in excess of $12 billion in revenue in the past five years, an effective tax rate of only 6 per cent, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he would inquire under the Inquiries Act and investigate all the financial operations of Imperial Oil of Canada during the past five years.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I fail to see why the Leader of the New Democratic Party is talking about what happened in Italy. I suppose he could talk about what happened in ten or twenty other countries where Exxon operates.


John Edward Broadbent: It is a multinational, remember.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But if the hon. member wants to know about the Canadian practice, we answer across the floor of the House.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Considering that the price of sugar is not subjected to any control in Canada, and because unexpected price fluctuations of this commodity tend to create confusion in the minds of the people concerning the true role the government should play in this area, could the minister indicate to the House, for the information of consumers, the reason behind the price instability of this commodity?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking this question as notice and will refer it to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, so that he may reply to it when he returns to the House.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement of the Postmaster General in Halifax that the federal government may have a moral obligation to cover any deficit incurred by the 1976 Olympics, would the Prime Minister clarify whether this view reflects current government policy with respect to the Olympic financing needs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the moral obligations of the Postmaster General are those the government states in its policy, but I have not seen the statement of the Postmaster General. He is a very moral man, and he pleads that way in cabinet.


Mr. Baldwin:: When was morality ever related to the Liberal Party?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the reference of the Prime Minister to morals, would he inform the House if indeed he shares the view that there is a federal moral obligation to finance the debt, and if so, how does he reconcile this position with his former "inretractability?"


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Try that word again.


An hon. Member:: It is a medical term for "retract".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to reconcile anything with my intractability.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the Postmaster General qualified his comment by stating that the deficit would only be covered if a majority of Canadians supported the action, would the Prime Minister indicate how such majority support might be determined? Is it planned to have a referendum and if so, as this is a matter of financing, would the Prime Minister also hold a referendum on the ten cents per gallon gasoline tax and see if a majority of Canadians support that?


John Napier Turner: Next time, try it phonetically.



AIR CANADA


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I would address my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the latest

July 18, 1975
Oral Questions
evidence that Air Canada has again moved into a quasidiplomatic area by virtue of a recent promotional arrangement with the Lebanese minister of tourism, Mr. Khanamarian does the Prime Minister not agree that our airline is being operated in a bizarre and questionable way outside, in some respects, the authority given to Air Canada by the statutes passed by parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the member is apparently referring to some evidence which is being given before Judge Estey at a commission of inquiry. I have not been following that, but I do have confidence that Judge Estey will do his job properly.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his answer. I also have great confidence that Judge Estey will do a very good job in his inquiry. I should like to put a supplementary. In view of the secrecy involved whereby Mr. Khanamarian's position as Air Canada's representative was not to be made known either to his cabinet colleagues or to the rest of the business community in Lebanon, would the Prime Minister not agree also that Air Canada's position in this matter would justifiably be looked upon as dishonest and there would be resulting diplomatic repercussions, since this rather shoddy deal involves our national air carrier and could bring disrepute not only to the Minister of Transport but to his cabinet colleagues, particularly the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see what line the hon. member is following. There has been a request for an inquiry into this matter. I think the minister anticipated the request and announced that an inquiry would be held. The opposition is frequently asking for a commission to inquire into many things. We have set up the inquiry. Let us see what it says. I do not think the hon. member should be conducting a parallel inquiry.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the tender call for the charter of two vessels by the federal fisheries and marine service for exploratory fishing for swordfish during the months of July and August, could the minister indicate the reason for this exploratory work and inform the House if the United States food and drug directorate has lifted the import ban on swordfish as imposed some four years ago?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: In
the absence of my colleague the Minister of State in charge of Fisheries, I will take notice of that question and inform the hon. member.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. In view of the economic importance of this industry at this time to

Atlantic Canada, and in view of the tremendous economic difficulties being faced by the fishing industry, in Atlantic Canada, would the minister again contact her counterpart in the United States in the hope of reactivating this important industry, since the Japanese and certain European countries are still catching and eating swordfish without any obvious effect on their health?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that the Minister of State (Fisheries) is at the present time trying to devise a policy and help out the restructuring of that industry. The concerns of the hon. member are certainly being taken into account in that over-all restructuring of the industry. I will, however, take this matter up with my colleague.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the minister's statement in the House on Wednesday, July 15 regarding the slowdown of the construction of the Mackenzie highway and the speeding up of construction of the Dempster, Carcross-Shagway and Liard highways, can the minister assure the House that the construction of the Mackenzie highway will proceed in such a manner that there will be no cutback in the native training in that area?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of our major concerns. We are doing our utmost to assure that, if there is any phasing down on the Mackenzie highway, there will be opportunities available on the Liard highway to take up the slack for the native people.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one put by the hon. member for York-Simcoe to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of statements made by Quebec Municipal Affairs Minister Victor Goldbloom to the effect that the province will attempt to renegotiate with the federal government further financial aid for the purpose of reducing the ever-mounting Olympic deficit, can the minister advise this House if the government has been approached in this regard?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: No,
Mr. Speaker.
July 18, 1975



COMMEMORATIVE GOLD COINS-STEPS TO PROTECT PUBLIC FROM CONFUSION AND COUNTERFEITING

Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General? As there will be some confusion, owing to the minting of two similar gold coins bearing different weights of gold, and as there are indications that there will undoubtedly be attempts to confuse the consumer with foreign counterfeits, will the minister advise the House of the steps he intends to take to protect the Canadian public from counterfeit coins, and from the obvious confusion which the two gold coins will create?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the confusion will occur only in the minds of those lacking intelligence to distinguish between two distinct coins. If you want to buy coins, the safest way to protect yourself against counterfeiting or fraud is to know the people from whom you are buying the coins. Fortunately, the gold coins will be sold by chartered banks, accredited agencies and outlets across Canada and around the world. These outlets I think will provide maximum protection against fraud.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I want to make something clear to the hon. member for York-Simcoe. When answering a reporter's question he suggested we had a moral obligation to share in the Olympic deficit. I said that while we may have a moral obligation, we have no legal obligation. Next time the hon. gentleman asks a question of concern to the Postmaster General, I wish he would put it directly to the Postmaster General so that I can inform the House of his normal bias against Olympics in general.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the finding of the Food Prices Review Board in its most recent report on bread and milk that:
The substantial price increases in milk and bread over the past two years probably caused considerable hardship to many Canadians, especially those with fixed and limited incomes .. .
And given that this hardship is being incurred despite measures the government has already taken, namely, its current subsidy on skim milk powder and the two-price wheat system, will the minister now take action to reinstate the subsidy on fluid milk and also place a substantial consumer subsidy on brown and white bread?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.



BREAD-INQUIRY WHETHER DECREASE IN COST OF SUGAR TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN SETTING PRICE

John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister been monitoring
Oral Questions
the increases in the price of bread and, if so, can he assure the House that the dramatic decrease in the cost of sugar is being accurately reflected in present prices since, in the February, 1974 Food Prices Review Board report, the increasing price of sugar was used to justify increases in bread prices.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Food Prices Review Board has a very clear mandate on this matter and I think it is taking its responsibilities in an admirable fashion.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. I know that he has been busy recently with other matters. I ask him if he will, when he has time, consider the advisability of halting the proliferation of new stamp issues, in view of Canada's diminishing reputation with philatelists who, after all, give the Post Office its only profit by buying unused stamps, and in view of the high cost of tooling for new stamp issues.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I know that because of the Olympics, we are issuing more stamps than usual. I think the hon. gentleman will agree that the two recent stamps, one in honour of the Calgary Stampede and the other commemorating L. M. Montgomery of Anne of Green Gables are among the finest stamps in the world.



OIL-CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR ASSURING SUPPLIES TO EAST COAST REFINERIES

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister? It has to do with security of sources of oil for Atlantic coast refineries. I directed this question to the Prime Minister the other day, as the two principal refineries in Halifax, the Imperial Oil refinery and the Texaco refinery, will run out of crude and other light oils for refining some time next week. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what he has been advised by officials with respect to contingency plans for security of crude oil or other energy fuel supplies for the metropolitan area?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if I might be allowed to answer, we have contingency plans to assure that there will be no shortage of crude oil. There will be a transfer from large to small vessels. This operation was supposed to start yesterday but did not because of sea conditions. It is now supposed

July 18, 1975
Oral Questions
to start today. We have made arrangements so that the refinery will not be short of oil.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment. Will the minister take the simple expediency of bringing to an end the very dangerous exercise being carried out at the mouth of Halifax harbour which, under almost ideal conditions, failed yesterday? Will she bring to an end this potential horror near Halifax Harbour? Will the minister get together with her colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, and get the harbour pilots and the Atlantic Pilotage Authority back to the bargaining table for the purpose of resolving this 3 or 4 per cent difference so that we can again have orderly conduct in the ports of Atlantic Canada, bringing to an end this exercise in madness off Halifax harbour?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, those whose responsibility it is to get the parties together are trying very hard to do that. The Department of the Environment has a representative on the committee which is issuing these waivers and looking at the passage of tankers at this time. However, we do have a strike, and the environmental concerns are taken into account when giving permission for passage of ships. We are doing our best under the circumstances.



TRANSPORT


J. Michael Forrestall: I will direct my final supplementary to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that every time the two ships were tied together yesterday they broke apart, and God only knows what would have happened if they had been pumping oil at the time, will the minister advise how much crude oil reserve exists in the Imperial Oil plant and the Texaco plant in the port of Halifax and Dartmouth? How much is there? When will they run out? What will happen to the security of energy sources if in fact the Esso Goa and the Imperial St. Clair are not able to effectively transfer that oil?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there are many questions contained in the hon. member's question. First, I must say that the Department of Labour is working hard to get the parties together. Second, we are working with the Department of the Environment so that if any move of that kind is made, it will

be made in the safest way. We have advisers there and we will not be taking any risks. If there were no transfers yesterday, it was because we thought it constituted a risk. They did not take that risk. The Department of the Environment so advised us yesterday because of the condition of the sea. However, it can be done. It has been done many times in the past. All the companies and technicians say that it can be done very safely. We do not want to take any risks. If something happens, I am ready to take the responsibility for it. With regard to the reserves of oil, I do not know exactly what it is. I will inquire and inform the hon. member on Monday. There is enough until Monday and I will advise the hon. member of the exact amount at that time.



POSSIBLE USE OF INTERPROVINCIAL POWER GRID TO OBTAIN POWER FROM NEW BRUNSWICK TO ALLEVIATE SHORTAGE IN NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I pour some oil on troubled waters-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Jardine McCleave: -metaphysically but not physically. My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the acting minister. Will the minister check to see whether any power shortages looming in Nova Scotia can be made up by using the interprovincial power grid, that is using New Brunswick power, since that grid was paid for by federal money to deal with emergencies?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of those representations on behalf of the minister and secure an answer for the hon. member.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My question is for the Minister of National Defence. I know that he was asked about a decision on the LRPA program a few days ago. Can he now assure the House that a decision will be made on or before August 1 at which time the firm tender prices advanced by Lougheed and Boeing will expire?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as I told the House last week, this major purchase for National Defence is now actively being considered by cabinet. It will be before cabinet next week.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, it has been considered by cabinet since May, 1968. We fought and won a war in a shorter time than it is taking the cabinet to make up its mind on the LRPA and come to a decision. Can the minister advise what escalation factor there will be in the
July 18, 1975

contract bids if a decision is not made before August 1? What rough percentage?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I obviously cannot prejudge any cabinet decision. If we should have to go beyond August 2 and we have both competing manufacturers in the race, there will be no escalation in price.



AGRICULTURE


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact we have had some serious problems in marketing our sour cherry crop, what if anything is the minister doing with regard to marketing this crop? Further, is there any truth in the news media reports that there has been an increase in the price of eggs?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of speculation about the increase in the price of eggs, but no decision has been made under the new formula. I would report that Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are still selling below cost of production. With regard to the cherries, we have a program to make sure that this crop does not go to waste. We hope the trade will purchase these. If not, we will purchase them to the tune of 11 million pounds maximum. We hope this will ensure that none of the crop will go to waste.



COMMUNICATIONS


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the Quebec Minister of Communications expresses the very decided view of the provincial government, which wants absolute control over cablevision, and since that issue is likely to cause disastrous constitutional unrest, is the Prime Minister considering reviewing the government's attitude on that matter or ordering in the near future a federal-provincial conference to determine the respective jurisdictions in that field?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday for the hon. member for Joliette. I told him I did not intend to convene a constitutional conference to turn over federal powers to provinces. I also said that Quebec's premier did not ask for such a constitutional conference.
As hon. members know, there is one question pertaining to this matter which is now in dispute and will end up in court. We may get a court ruling on the constitution from that court but it is the contention of the federal govern-
Oral Questions
ment-and I hope our view is shared by the Progressive Conservatives and the Social Credit Party of Canada- that the federal government has jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to broadcasting.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another supplementary question: first, I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister that he seems to place himself above the constitution, and I do not think jurisdictions can be determined as easily as that. In any event, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether or not he has received any communications from the premier of the province of Quebec on this matter, since the records are now in the hands of the Quebec premier, and whether or not he will, upon the premier's request, summon a constitutional conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the hon. member that the government did not place itself above the constitution. On the contrary, we have first proposed administrative arrangements for the last two years now that the Minister of Communications has been calling for those conferences. We have also pointed out there was a doubt as to the constitutionality of our bringing the case jointly to the Supreme Court. We did not place ourselves above the law. What we did say is: let the Supreme Court interpret the constitution. The province of Quebec did not accept either suggestion. As for the last of the question, the answer which I gave yesterday is still no. Premier Bourassa has not consulted me since he was handed over the records by Mr. l'Allier.

[DOT] (U40)



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister or to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding reports that the Canadian government is negotiating an agreement with a private firm in Italy for licensing the construction of CANDU reactors in that country? I want to ask the minister, first, whether this report is correct and, second, what safeguards will be imposed, in view of the fact that the private company is not a sovereign power but is subject to the policies of the country in which it is located and that it is not accountable in the way a government would be. What safeguards is the government proposing to put in place in the event that it grants this far-reaching power to manufacture CANDU reactors for export to other countries after a given period of time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a question of the same kind was directed to my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, either yesterday or the day before. He gave a fairly detailed answer, but I would have to study very carefully the question the hon. member has put

July 18, 1975
Oral Questions
in order to determine whether there is anything additional by way of information that is required.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I
heard the answer given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It does not explain how the Canadian government can insist on adequate safeguards with application to a private company which has the power to manufacture CANDU reactors in another country and export them. I want to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs this question: if the main safeguard, in the view of the government, is supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency, is he satisfied, in the light of the fact that by the end of this year there will be some 650 nuclear reactors in 38 countries while the International Atomic Agency has less than 70 nuclear scientists on its staff, that this type of inspection provides adequate safeguards against the misuse of plutonium produced from nuclear reactors? Is the government satisfied that this type of inspection provides Canadians and the world with adequate safeguards?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Several questions have been directed to me by the hon. gentleman. As the House is aware, Canada has been trying to get international standards upgraded, so I can say we are not satisfied with the standards which now prevail, in that sense. As to the precise form of the safeguards we have applied to this technology to a co-operating company, I must take the question as notice and get an answer later.



SUGGESTED SUSPENSION OF SALE OF CANDU REACTORS PENDING IMPROVEMENT IN INTERNATIONAL SAFEGUARDS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: thank the minister for his reply, particularly when he says the government is not satisfied with the present international safeguard standards. In view of the fact that agreements similar to the one which is now being negotiated with Italy are also being negotiated with Rumania and Argentina, I ask the government whether they are prepared to stop either the licensing or the export of CANDU reactors until such time as they are satisfied with the international safeguards.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot answer that question positively because I am very much impressed, as I think we all are, by the facts which have been put forward by the hon. gentleman, namely, that nuclear energy is being spread all over the world and it is absolutely essential that we should not find ourselves caught, as we did recently, by reliance on one source of power which is concentrated too much in one area. So I support my Prime Minister by saying we believe it is important that the advantages of nuclear energy be available throughout the world in order to improve standards of living in other countries. This is something with which I would hope the NDP would agree.



WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL SALES TO RUSSIA

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the current wheat sale from Canada to Russia and the fact that we sold some 74 million bushels of wheat to Russia in the past few days-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: I do not think the Liberal party would want to take credit for a crop failure in Russia, so I do not know what they are applauding about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: You would have been over there announcing it from Moscow!


Jack Burnett Murta: In view of possible further grain sales, especially to the United States, I want to ask the minister whether the Wheat Board is still continuing to hold negotiations with Russia with a view to further grain sales from Canada to Russia in the very near future.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: I presume that when the hon. member referred to grain sales from Canada to the United States he was talking about sales made by Canada to Russia. Just as this sale was evidence of the extremely good relationship between Canada and the U.S.S.R. with regard to trading in wheat, that relationship will stand us in good stead in the course of further negotiations. The Wheat Board is, in effect, constantly in touch with buyers in the U.S.S.R.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Yesterday, my colleague, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley asked a question about the fragmentation of union power within the Public Service. The minister replied, as reported at page 7657 of Hansard:
There is a general disposition to try to achieve this type of objective. I might say we have achieved something along these lines already. I have indicated in the House before that Mr. Joe Morris, President of the Canadian Labour Congress, has already met with people in the grain handling area to achieve this type of consultation.
My question to the minister is this: with respect to the instance to which he referred yesterday, is that as a result of the formation of the Canadian Labour Council which the minister discussed in the House previously, and if not, was it merely an ad hoc arrangement made by members of his own department trying to obtain the good services of Mr. Morris in this direction?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: It was due
to several factors, the principal one being that when the CLC made its presentation here a few months ago the
July 18, 1975

Prime Minister indicated that this might be a beneficial way for discussions to proceed. That was a great help in promoting this particular policy. The various elements which are working together on this council have considered this to be a high priority. Both these factors had a good deal to do with the initiative which was taken in this direction.



POSSIBLE ROLE OF PROPOSED CANADIAN LABOUR COUNCIL IN SETTLING DISPUTES OUTSIDE FEDERAL JURISDICTION

John Allen Fraser: As the minister is aware there are a number of work stoppages taking place in the country at the present time which are outside federal jurisdiction. It has been some time, now, since we have discussed the Canadian Labour Council. How soon can we expect this council to come into being? In what way will the council, as envisaged by the minister be successful in assisting us in dealing with these work stoppages and difficulties of negotiation that are outside the federal jurisdiction, but which are very important to the economy of Canada and the wellbeing of relations between management and labour?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, I take it, his party has always stood firmly for these policies, namely that we should not interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. There are 10 other labour departments in this country. All I can say is that when you have effective and influential members of management and the labour movement meeting at the federal level to try to cope successfully with problems at the federal level, hopefully they will come up with constructive solutions that will have a beneficial spin-off on labour problems in this country.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. When the Minister of Justice was replying during the adjournment debate on July 15 to my question concerning Dr. Henry Morgentaler, he indicated he believed that if there were a number of similar counts against an accused, and if the accused is found guilty on one, then the accused ought to plead guilty to the other charges. Would the minister now assure the House that he was wrong in so indicating, that in fact he believes that an accused ought to have full rights to a trial on all charges if the accused so desires, and that he was not trying to indicate a new government policy of coercing an accused into pleading guilty?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check Hansard on that. If it shows the word "all", I should have preferred to use the word "often" and that is what I intended. I think, in fact, that is the word I
Oral Questions
used that night. It is, in fact, a very common practice, and that is all I was referring to.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is in respect to the CBC program "Spotlight". May I ask the minister whether some of the statements that he made do not, to his mind, seriously jeopardize the credibility of the joint committee studying the green paper on immigration; and if the minister has already decided on the relocation of immigrants in less densely populated areas by offering incentives, can he explain what these incentives are and what the policy of the government is in relation to those incentives?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think, as the hon. member knows, I have been doing my best to respect the integrity of the process by not prejudging or pre-empting any decisions of the committee which the government hopes to get before too long. I cannot recall any statements made in the program, which as the hon. member knows was an interview, that would breach that commitment.
As far as the redistribution of people across the country is concerned, this has been talked about a great deal, not only by myself but by others, and I must honestly tell the hon. member and the House that no, we do not have any predetermined idea that this has to be done or how it would be done. I believe I have said on occasion that this is an area that has to be explored. I hope the hon. member would agree that I cannot be muzzled in any response that I would be called upon to make in reply the questions about these matters.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that the minister was expressing different options as opposed to specific policy decisions that have already been taken?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The only firm commitment that has been made by me on these matters is the statement of the four assumptions that we suggest we would like to hold to-the non-discriminatory aspects of our immigration policy, the family reunion, refugee considerations, and dovetailing of the assessment of entry to Canada with economic, social, linguistic and cultural matters, all of which have been stated quite frequently and were in fact contained in the green paper.



SUGGESTION FOREIGN WRESTLERS ENTERING CANADA WITHOUT WORK PERMITS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the consistently high unemployment rate in Canada, and in view of the fact that

July 18, 1975
Oral Questions
Canada's greatest athlete Gene Kiniski, has protested the fact that professional wrestlers from India, Europe and the U.S.A. are entering Canada without work permits for the purpose of staging wrestling matches and depriving our Canadian athletes of jobs, would the minister have his departmental officials check out these so-called aliens so that Canadian wrestlers will find full-time employment and not start collecting unemployment insurance?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will try and wrestle that one to the ground! Without knowing precisely the application of the work permit to that category, I believe there are certain exemptions that apply to professional entertainers. However, I will certainly take with the usual respect the hon. member's representation on behalf of his friends in that business and see what can be done.



HOUSING


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for housing. Has the minister any indication of the amount of funds actively committed this year by the province of Ontario to support non-profit and co-operative housing units?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the province of Ontario has allocated some $200,000, none of which has been committed. In so far as CMHC is concerned, we have committed something over $100,000 for core funding of the non-profit groups. With reference to non-profit housing itself, we have commitments or active programs under assessment of just over $60 million in Ontario.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Last week the Ontario government announced that it would not supply the roads and other infrastructures needed for the proposed Pickering airport. On that occasion the minister told the House that he would be conferring with Mr. Rhodes, the Ontario Minister of Transport, as to the full meaning or implication of his statement or the letter that he had written. May I now ask the minister when he expects to see Mr. Rhodes, and when will he make an announcement to the House, if it is still sitting, on the results of his interview?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I did propose to Mr. Rhodes that we meet next

Tuesday. That was not convenient to him and he proposed July 29, so I am trying to arrange a meeting for that day.



PICKERING-SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ELLIOT RESEARCH INDICATING MAJORITY OPPOSED TO PROJECT-MINISTER'S POSITION

Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the attention of the minister been called to a poll conducted by Elliot Research Limited in March, 1975 showing that in metropolitan Toronto 54 per cent were opposed to Pickering airport as compared to only 34 per cent in favour? In view of the fact that the minister promised he would not proceed with the airport if the people in the area did not want it, has he taken into account the result of this poll?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the poll and I should like to see an analysis of the data and figures, if the hon. member would forward them to me.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the disturbing fact that the tonnage of freight going through the port of North Sydney to the great province of Newfoundland has dropped very seriously during the past few weeks, resulting in fewer jobs being available, would the minister be good enough to use his good offices to check with Canadian National and see whether they are diverting freight through other ports to Newfoundland?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire into this and give an answer early next week.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs and is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. In terms of clarification, is it the position of the government that the delay in supplying reactors to countries like Korea, thereby slowing down their energy development sufficiently long in order to work out safeguards, would create more problems and difficulties and be of more concern to the world than the fact that providing these reactors might indeed add to nuclear proliferation around the world? The point that I want to get clear is this. Why does the government believe that it is doing something
July 18, 1975

morally correct by making them available, when in fact a delay of a year to work out safeguards would surely be of less significance than the possible damage that might be done if these sales went ahead?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that while we are dissatisfied with the international standards we, for our part, have been applying stricter standards than anybody else.



SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS TO KOREA AND ARGENTINA- REQUEST FOR TABLING OF SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENTS

James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs the following question: Given the fact that this is a matter of enormous importance not only to Canada but to everybody in the world, why will the government not table in this House those standards and allow them to be debated? I am referring to the standards in the Argentine contract and in respect of South Korea and not to the general safeguards which the minister brought down last year. I refer to the specific safeguards which will make the government confident that it has safeguards which will make it impossible for Canada to be known as one of the great spreaders of nuclear weapons.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did put forward very specific safeguards that we apply to all contracts. The hon. gentleman has not disputed these. He just wants to create the false impression that Canada is participating in traffic which I am sure is not supported by the Canadian government. He is trying to make cheap political points out of the efforts of the government.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs would know that in all the time-it is not a long time-that I have been in the House of Commons I have never tried to make cheap political points. Let me say that I find it really quite intolerable, as I believe do most Canadians, for the government to say it has fine safeguards but is afraid to table them in the House of Commons and tell the Canadian people what those safeguards are.



BILINGUALISM


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday the hon. member for Edmonton Centre asked me whether it was true there were directives allowing civil servants to go to France with their families to learn French. I want to report to the House that there is no such directive. Civil servants are not allowed to go abroad to
Reports of Committees
take advantage of language instruction programs. To learn French or English, one must stay in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice that I would be raising a point of order relating to answers that ministers have been providing the House relating to nuclear contracts abroad. However, since my point concerns not only the House leader but also the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacDonald), it might be preferable if I put if off until Monday when perhaps the other minister will be in the House.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) suggested that the other night I had said that under certain circumstances defence counsel ought to plead their clients guilty, and I indicated I would check Hansard but I thought the word I meant to use was "often". I find, on checking Hansard, that the word shown is in fact "often". I regret that the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton has left the House, and I would like to ask him at the earliest opportunity to confirm that he had asked the question carelessly, without checking Hansard, and did not attempt intentionally to mislead the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I rose on a question of privilege to point out that in answer to a question put by myself, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) had indicated that in his budget speech there had been a forecast of real growth in the economy of between zero and 1 per cent. I indicated yesterday that there was no such forecast in his budget speech and said I hoped the Minister of Finance would correct the record. He replied that he would send me the reference. I still have not received the reference and I wonder if the minister could be given an opportunity to correct the record.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is perfectly correct. Those number were given in the speech I made at the federal-provincial conference which was tabled in the House by my parliamentary secretary, and the budget reflected those figures.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, in both official languages-Mr. Sharp.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on the National Capital Region, in both official languages-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
[Stage Direction]
July 18, 1975
Foreign Investment Review Act [Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), in both official languages, correspondence with the Premier of Manitoba concerning publicity arrangements in respect of shared-cost programs with his province.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I am tabling today copies, in both official languages, of three documents: first, the regulations and, second, the guidelines concerning implementation of the new business provisions under the Foreign Investment Review Act. In addition, I am tabling the new "Principles of International Business Conduct."


STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON PHASE II OF LEGISLATION
Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, hon. members know that the first part of the Foreign Investment Review Act, governing takeovers of Canadian business enterprises, was proclaimed into force on April 9, 1974. When the bill was before parliament I undertook, on behalf of the government, that the second part of the act, phase II, relating to the establishment of new foreign-controlled businesses in Canada, would not come into force until the government was satisfied on two scores.
The first was that the government should have gained some experience in the actual administration of the review process under phase I. We have now had well over a year's experience and we are satisfied that the review process is working well.
The other commitment was that phase II would not be introduced until there had been further consultations with the provincial governments. During the past year there have been several meetings with representatives of all provincial governments. Those meetings have involved very full discussions on the administrative procedures for consultation on individual cases between the federal and provincial authorities, and I am pleased to say that there is general agreement that the procedures which have evolved are sound and workmanlike.
Accordingly, the government has now, by proclamation, fixed the date on which phase II is to come into force. That date is October 15 of this year. The lead time we have

provided will give investors and their advisers the necessary opportunity to become familiar with the phase II guidelines and regulations. It is also intended to avoid disruption in investment plans which are now being developed.
It should be noted in this regard that investments which are under way on October 15 are not reviewable under the act to the extent that they are established businesses. To show that a business was already established by October 15 it will not be necessary to show that the business was fully operational on that date. Where there are one or more employees, together with contractual obligations or other definite commitments relating to the new business, those factors should be enough to show that the new business has been established and is therefore not subject to review.
In the administration of phase II of the act we will, of course, continue to follow the procedures that have been developed for close consultation on individual cases with the provincial governments. We will also ensure that there is effective co-ordination between the Foreign Investment Review Agency and other departments and agencies of the federal government.
In this regard I would like to advise investors who intend to apply for incentives under the Regional Development Incentives Act, and whose investment proposals are also subject to review under the Foreign Investment Review Act, that they should discuss their plans first with the appropriate provincial or regional office of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I want to assure hon. members that there will be no unnecessary delay in investment programs important to the development of designated regions of the country through duplication of administrative procedures.
I should again like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of the Foreign Investment Review Act is not to block foreign investment from any source or to discourage it but, rather, to ensure that such investment is of significant benefit to Canada. Since its beginnings Canada has had to rely heavily on foreign investment to help us develop this country. Clearly, it has been beneficial. We shall continue to need a great deal more investment in Canada by our friends abroad if we are to develop our full potential as this government is determined to do.
A mere glance at the guidelines concerning related business will clearly indicate that great care has been exercised to ensure that there will be no interference with investment for the maintenance and expansion of the ongoing business in Canada. This was clearly parliament's intention when the act was passed into law.
Mr. Speaker, the House is aware that ownership and control of enterprises engaged in the extraction and processing of uranium are matters of important concern to the national interest and to Canadians generally. The government's intention to limit nonresident ownership in this industry is well known. The government is considering alternative measures to consolidate this policy with respect to the ownership of uranium mines within the general ambit of our policy regarding foreign ownership and control of the Canadian economy.
July 18, 1975

Mr. Speaker, I am also tabling, on behalf of the government, copies in both official languages of new "Principles of International Business Conduct." These are not to be confused with the guidelines concerning related business under the Foreign Investment Review Act. They are intended as an updating and a replacement of "Guiding Principles of Good Corporate Behaviour in Canada" which were announced by the late Hon. Robert Winters on March 31, 1966. Like the earlier set of guiding principles of good corporate behaviour, the new set of principles reflects broad government policy regarding the activities and responsibilities of foreign-controlled business enterprises in Canada. They thus provide an added indication of the sort of benefits the government looks for in assessing investment proposals under the Foreign Investment Review Act. But they are directed towards all foreign-controlled enterprises doing business in Canada, whether or not they are involved with the Foreign Investment Review Act.
The basic content of the 1966 guiding principles has been retained. However, we have to recognize that new developments have taken place and that these developments should be reflected in the revised principles. In 1966, the government was especially concerned over certain financial aspects of the activities of foreign subsidiaries in Canada because of particular balance of payments measures which were introduced at that time by the United States. The guiding principles did not lay particular stress on the need for subsidiary companies to have more autonomy or sufficiently underline the need to identify more closely with Canada economically, socially, and culturally.
A major omission from the old principles of good corporate behaviour was that they made no reference to the conditions under which foreign or foreign-controlled technology and know-how may be transferred to a Canadian subsidiary. These can often serve to inhibit the local subsidiary from operating at its full potential. To emphasize our interest in the technology-related activities of foreign-owned subsidiaries, we have added a new principle, number 14, and we have tied it in with the observance of the preceding principles.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for providing us with a copy of his statement a few hours ago. The opposition endorses the principle of less foreign ownership in the Canadian economy and agrees that quick action is necessary to monitor the amount of foreign investment we have in the Canadian economy, but we wonder why the government and the minister are making an announcement at this particular time of the proclamation of phase II.
We have been told that the minister had to wait until he had reached some agreement with the provinces on the operation of phase II, and until he knew whether phase I was working and how it was working, before he was prepared to go ahead with this new proclamation. On the latter score, that is whether phase I is working, I am not surprised that there has been a delay, because it was not until more than a year after the proclamation of phase I that the foreign investor, the Canadian public and members of this House had any indication of the specific criteria to be applied in the evaluation of proposed foreign
Foreign Investment Review Act investment. It would have been preferable had the agency become familiar with these criteria somewhat sooner.
On the first point, that of provincial consultation, I wonder whether the minister is prepared to assure the House that his consultations with the provinces had greater scope than making them aware of what he intended to do. I hope the minister will take the time to assure the House in more definite terms that all the provinces across Canada agree with the imminent proclamation of phase II.
I am sure the minister was faced with a difficult balancing act in deciding on the proclamation of phase I in October. The need for proclamation is there, but the full act comes into force at a time when Canada is suffering from recession and is plagued with one of the most significant balance of payments problems it has ever had. After listening to the minister, I conclude that he is quite satisfied that the critically needed foreign capital inflows will not be disrupted by the proclamation of phase II, and that phase II will not damage the business confidence required for the large volume of equally critically required new capital investment.
I hope the minister will also find the time, perhaps today at the conclusion of the remarks of the various spokesmen on this issue, to indicate more fully that he has had discussions with his colleagues, with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in particular, and that there is no concern about the implementation of the proclamation of phase II at this time with respect to our serious balance of payments problems.
Although I have not had the opportunity to study the guidelines concerning related business in detail, I find at this stage that they are relatively non-controversial, although there are one or two peculiarities. For instance, vertical integration is classified as related business expansion under guidelines 1 and 2. Thus, we find the government again doing what they do so often, taking action on the one hand which is contravened by action on the other, because we see that they will now apply vertical integration through the Foreign Investment Review Act, while they created a royal commission on corporate power to study this problem to find out whether it is a good thing for the Canadian economy. Guidelines 4 and 5 also seem to be in some disagreement. Guideline 4 permits expansion if the same technology is used, and guideline 5 only if the technology is new and Canadian.
We are also pleased to see some comment in the report about the policy with respect to ownership of uranium. However, we hope the government does not believe that by looking at this ownership issue they have, in fact, solved the problem or indeed put forward a solution that is adequate for all Canadians as to how we are going to deal with the export of this most important product.
The minister has also provided us with an expanded set of criteria under which the significant benefit test is to be conducted. We can only say we hope the minister has made up his mind clearly and distinctly about this matter, because the hallmark and characteristic feature of the present government is to do something one day and change it the next. If we are to have the sort of investment we need in this country, the business community must have confidence that the government knows precisely what they will do.
7714

July 18, 1975
Foreign Investment Review Act
Much of the need for this legislation would be reduced if the government were only to take a more positive attitude toward business in this country. Foreign ownership regulations are really only a short-term answer to the over-all problem of foreign investment and the development of the Canadian economy. The real answer to our problems lies in the generation of a healthy Canadian business climate, and the minister must know that his job is not complete until he has measures installed which will accomplish this end and until he has produced what Canadians have been looking for for a very long time, namely, some sort of industrial strategy to guide the development of the Canadian economy.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, when the Foreign Investment Review Act was debated in the House, the NDP supported it because it represented an improvement over the then existing situation with respect to foreign investment, that is to say, over a situation in which there were no controls in this major area. We reserved judgment on the act, however, as it was clear from the way in which it was worded that the attitude of the government to foreign investment and the regulations implementing the act would be the crucial determinants on the issue. We now know, if there were any doubts before, that the government had no real intention of limiting or controlling foreign investment in Canada.
Our support of the Foreign Investment Review Act was on the basis that it would encourage rational control of investment in the Canadian economy so that Canadian resources would be developed in such a way that the maximum benefit would go to the people of Canada as a whole and not to foreign-owned, multinational corporations. The prime benefit had to remain here, and not abroad. However, as the operation of the first phase of the act demonstrated beyond doubt, this was not the purpose the government had in mind for its own bill. Its purpose was simply to stem the criticism of Canadians legitimately concerned that the Canadian economy was being more and more controlled by outside governments and outside corporations. There is no discernible pattern in the agency's activity since the passage of the bill in relation to takeover approvals, which have run at the rate of some 80 per cent of all applications.
The guidelines for takeover are so vague as to be worthless. The reason for this is that the government does not intend to plan in a rational way investment patterns in Canada. Every time this government gets into trouble, under any circumstances, in the economy it runs off and asks foreign companies to bail it out: witness recent speeches-and by "recent" I mean in the last six months- by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), both at home and abroad, assuring foreign investors that they would have no problem at all in embarking upon ventures in the Canadian economy. Hence the expressed reason for the delays in proclaiming part II of the act.
The regulations under part II clearly demonstrate that the government's real position will not be found in the royal commission set up by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to investigate corporate power, which is a sham if

ever there was one created in Canadian politics. The real attitude toward the power of corporations in Canada, and particularly multinational corporations, is to be found in what is included in the regulations just tabled by the minister and, more importantly, to be found in what is not included in those regulations.
The statement of the minister is a blatant and shocking attempt to reassure foreign investors that the government has no serious intention of interfering in the slightest in their investment decisions. I wish to quote briefly from the minister's statement as follows: "I should again like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of the Foreign Investment Review Act is not to block foreign investment from any source or to discourage it but, rather, to ensure that such investment is of significant benefit to Canada. Since its beginnings Canada has had to rely heavily on foreign investment to help us develop this country. Clearly, it has been beneficial."
Later the minister said: "A mere glance at the guidelines concerning related business will clearly indicate that great care has been exercised to ensure that there will be no interference with investment for the maintenance and expansion of ongoing business activities in Canada." That sentence in particular is one of the understatements of the century in Canadian politics, and one of the great understatements of the underlying economic philosophy of the Liberal Party.
Under the regulations, the list of exclusions of new foreign-owned businesses which do not need government approval to start operating is exhaustive: it is difficult to imagine any foreign investor who would have to apply for approval before establishing a new business. But of even greater importance is what this second phase does not review, the vertical integration of multinational corporations. The list of exclusions encourages the future development of vertical integration in our economy. What are the problems associated with it? Let me list the problems for the Canadian economy and, therefore, for the people of Canada, with further vertical integration. First, such integration allows transfer pricing between related companies which can artificially increase prices in Canada. Second, it reduces tax liabilities and encourages tax dodges at home and abroad. Third, it continues the trend to have research and development done outside Canada, making us increasingly technologically dependent on other countries but particularly on the United States. Fourth, it encourages the importing of machinery from foreign-based multinationals with plants in Canada. Fifth, it discourages the export of machinery and technology which would compete with the American parent company.
The exclusion of any concern over vertical integration means, to the New Democratic Party that the government has bypassed the most important aspect of the foreign domination of our economy. This is presumably a summary of the position that will be taken by this Liberal government until the next election, when it will probably trot out some other vague, unspecified and general commitment to deal with the problem of foreign ownership. But I hope that finally the poeple of Canada will shed whatever illusions they may have about the determination of this government to do anything about regaining economic independence for Canada. The battle against for-
July 18, 1975

eign economic domination has not yet begun in this country.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in his statement the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) mentioned that he was pleased with the good feeling and understanding which existed during his consultations with the provincial governments. We were thus spared the disgraceful scenes which occurred during the last weeks between the federal Minister of Communications and his provincial counterparts, especially the Quebec minister. However, I think that the interests were not the same. In the communication field, domestic interests are involved while the interests which concern the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in foreign investments are especially foreign interests of multinational companies which are much greater. It is then easier to agree on such matters.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I was struck by points in the minister's statement, particularly when he assures foreign investors that their applications for regional development grants would be considered and processed rapidly. The minister wants to assure hon. members that there will be no undue delay in the investment program necessary to the development of designated areas in Canada because of red tape duplication.
We know how slow the department or officials of the Department of regional Economic Expansion are in considering or accepting applications for grants from Canadian companies or businesses. I remember a case when a contractor or businessman applied for a $40,000 grant. It is not all that much. All possible complications were made to delay the awarding of the grant probably to discourage that businessman. We are a lot nicer to foreign investors than we are to Canadians who want to create new jobs and offer people the consumer goods they are asking for.
We know how things go generally regional development grants awarded to foreign companies who come to invest in this country amount to about 35 per cent. And those foreign investors get another 55 per cent from the local market so they have to come up with only 10 per cent of their own money in Canadian investments. That prompts us to say that somehow they are being paid to put us out. We know that about 80 per cent at least of our industries, and particularly those which are most important and profitable, are in the hands of foreigners.
Mr. Speaker, rather than say we are happy to promote foreign investments in Canada we should strive instead to encourage Canadians to own our own industries and businesses so we will know better what Canadian consumers want. I think one is best served by himself. That is what I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The statement itself was of some length, as were the replies. I would think that four questioners ought to suffice, in light of those circumstances. I propose to see the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Foreign Investment Review Act
Gillies) and two other questioners and perhaps conclude the matter in that way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, when the minister referred to consultations with the provinces, he referred to acceptance. Is that confined to acceptance in terms of the machinery being established? Could he tell us how many provincial governments have objected in whole or in part to part II at the present time?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the answer cannot be given in precise terms because the position of the provinces varies. They are not easily classified into categories. I can say, for example, that a number of provinces, particularly the Atlantic provinces, do not agree with the Foreign Investment Review Act in principle at all, phase I or phase II. That is quite clearly their position. Other provinces accept it, and the need for the second phase. I know of one province out west that was particularly concerned about the timing of phase II and tied its concern to working out the necessary consultative arrangements. We were able to satisfy them on that. In general, I can say that there are a number of different views in the provinces with respect to phase II.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister could tell me briefly what provinces objected to part II altogether? What provinces, in addition to the Atlantic provinces, objected to part II completely?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any other province saying that they felt we should never proceed with phase II. There were concerns on the part of other provinces about the timing of phase II.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How many provinces?


Alastair William Gillespie: I cannot give the precise number. I have indicated that one province tied its conditions to the question of working out the consultative arrangements.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell the House whether he has any impression that the proclamation will have any serious positive or negative effect on the Canadian balance of payments situation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will have any significant effect on the balance of payments question. Let me put it in this context: we are faced with a deficit in our current account this year of probably between $4 billion and $5 billion; perhaps closer to $5 billion. Foreign investors do not invest in Canada, or anywhere else, because we are running a deficit in our balance of payments account; they invest because they see industrial opportunities. That will be the basis in the future, as it has been in the past. When foreign investments are made, they will not be motivated, in other words, by a desire to help Canada finance any deficit in its current account.
The second point that I should like to make is that all deficits in the past that I am aware of have relied far more heavily, in terms of the financing of the current account deficit, on portfolio investments, that is to say, debt, borrowings of municipalities and provinces, institutions and corporations in foreign markets. I would expect that
7716

July 18, 1975
Criminal Code
would be the way we would finance the major part of our deficit this coming year, as we have in the past.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister why he is excluding the vertical integration of multinationals from the screening under the act. It seems to me this is the biggest area of foreign enterprise. When we were dealing with the act in committee about two years ago, we tried to nail the minister down on this question of the regulations and he refused to make any commitment on it. Take, for example, a foreign-owned food company: would it be allowed to establish a farm machinery company and not be screened for doing so, and then in turn be able to supply the food to retail or wholesale outlets? Are there any regulations when it comes to vertical integration and, if not, why not? This seems to me to be a major loophole in the regulations.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I commend the regulations to the attention of the hon. member in relation to the particular example he used of a food company going into the tractor business. If he were to read the regulations he would find such a company would not meet the conditions of relatedness. That kind of an arrangement, in my view, would in all likelihood be seen as an unrelated activity and therefore screenable.
As an example, we could use the constituency of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). There we have a very large automobile manufacturer, General Motors. A few years ago that company decided to build a battery plant. That is a form of vertical integration. I do not know whether the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is against that kind of investment. It seems to me, in the nature of things, that anybody in the automobile manufacturing business is likely to be more efficient if they can integrate back. I think the constituency of Oshawa-Whit-by is a good example of that process at work.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister why it took so long to proclaim this part of the act. We understood that it would be proclaimed long ago.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it took longer than I would have wished-and I have stated that on other occasions- for one reason: it was a consultative arrangement. As the hon. member may remember, the provinces sent me a telex at the end of the year, asking for further consultations. We had a series of consultations with officials of the provinces, including Manitoba. I do not think it would have been right to introduce the second proclamation without having completed that consultation process to the full satisfaction of the provinces concerned.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-407, to amend the Criminal Code (punishment for murder).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the purpose of this bill to amend the Criminal Code is to abolish, once and for all, the death penalty, the taking of human life by society. At the same time, however, these amendments are intended at last to provide the Canadian public with some real assurance of safety and security by dramatically increasing the mandatory term of imprisonment, without parole consideration, to 25 years for a much broadened category of murder. My colleague for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and I also believe that these proposals will provide criminal elements with the kind of deterrent they will understand.


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

Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-408, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, this bill will remove a serious discrepancy in the Criminal Code as it relates to abortion. It will provide for an appeal procedure in the case where a medical board or therapeutic abortion board has issued a permit to terminate a pregnancy. No other section of the Criminal Code denies recourse to such procedure.


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

Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Saint-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy):
That pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 99, the petition of the Royal Canadian Legion, not filed within the period specified in Standing Order 90, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, along with the second report of the Clerk of Petitions presented to the House on Thursday, July 17, 1975, so that the committee may make the recommendations it deems necessary.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
July 18, 1975

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 441, 2,001, 2,102, 2,315 (Supplementary), 2,406, 2,507, 2,523, 2,550, 2,606, 2,630, 2,644, 2,685, 2,688, 2,698, 2,699, 2,771, 2,803, 2,824, 2,836, 2,853 and 2,873.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 2,090, 2,170, 2,232, 2,477 and 2,764 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what specific date prior to July 8, 1974 were instructions or recommendations made to the effect that Cabinet Ministers should clear policy statements through Senator Keith Davey and (a) by whom and how were such instructions or recommendations conveyed and what is the complete list of names of all those receiving them (b) who, specifically, made the decision that this should be done and for what purpose (c) what, if any, is the exact nature of the Prime Minister's involvement therein (d) how many referrals were made to Senator Davey as a result and, in each case, by whom, on what dates and what specific matters were involved?
2.	Have any government policy statements been taken up in any way before they were issued with Senator Davey since July 8, 1974?
3.	Is it government policy to have an unelected Member of the Senate in any way examine government policies before they are announced to the elected representatives of the Canadian people in the House of Commons and, if so, what is the justification for this?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. See
opening sentence in reply to Question 119, Hansard February 4, 1960, page 756.
2.	No.
3.	No.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Is there any dollar amount affixed to procurement under the production sharing agreements between the Department of National Defence and its US counterpart?
2.	How involved is the economic and inter-governmental process with requirements of military procurements?
3.	How critical is the balance of payments impact of defence procurements?
4.	How is the procurement effort guided in terms of appreciation for the present and future potentials of the economy in fields of research, development and technology of military requirements?
5.	To what general need is the defence procurement mechanism appropriate for Canada?
6.	To what extent is there Canadian direction and control of the major military systems procured by the Department of Supply and Services?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and
Order Paper Questions
Commerce, National Defence, and Supply and Services as follows: 1. Canada/United States Production Sharing Arrangements were originally worked out in 1959 by the Canadian Department of Defence Production and the United States Department of Defense. Responsibility for the Canadian side of these arrangements was transferred in 1968 to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. There is no dollar amount affixed to procurement under the Production Sharing Arrangements but the long term goal is to achieve a rough balance in reciprocal defence procurement.
2.	As part of the equipment acquisition process, much inter-governmental and inter-departmental discussion takes place to ensure that the most cost effective and economically attractive arrangement is arrived at consistent with meeting the military requirements. The Department of Supply and Services is responsible, as far as it is economically practicable to do so, for maintaining a Canadian production base adequate to supply the material requirements of the Department of National Defence. Cooperative supply arrangements, through NATO or other intergovernmental arrangements have helped to lessen the cost of developing and providing complex or unique equipment.
3.	In relation to the overall value of transactions entering into the Canadian balance of payments calculations, the value of defence procurement transactions is minimal (estimated to be less than Vi of 1 per cent). The value of such transactions, however, is one factor considered in the selection and acquisition process.
4.	Technical specialists in the Department of National Defence and the Department of Supply and Services maintain close contact with all Canadian centres of research and development in industry, government and the universities to ensure we are fully informed of all developments which could meet military applications. Similarly effort is directed where possible and practical to concentrate on fields of technology and products which offer the broadest commercial, and therefore employment benefits to Canadian industry: for example, advanced communications systems, and new aircraft engine designs.
5.	As long as Canada has defence forces, there will be a need to procure equipment to support these forces. The defence procurement mechanism is appropriate for Canada in as much as it strives to: (a) Procure in Canada these items which are technically and economically feasible to produce, (b) Take advantage of defence equipment developments in other countries, and where such equipment meets DND requirements, procure abroad, thereby, reducing costs to DND by eliminating costly development.
(c)	Cooperate with our allies in programs of mutual interest in an attempt to eliminate costly duplication of effort and take advantage of economics of scale in production.
(d)	Offset defence procurement from abroad, in so far as practicable by promoting the export sale of defence equipment produced in Canada. Canada has developed expertise in the development and production of defence equipment in certain specialized high technology areas such as transport aircraft, aircraft engines and parts, navigation and communication equipment, flight simulators, sonar equipment as well as sub-assemblies and components. Procurement of such equipment in Canada for export assists

July 18, 1975
Order Paper Questions
in maintaining the defence industrial base, as well as assisting manufacturers to penetrate civil markets with products whose manufacture utilizes the expertise and technology acquired in the production of defence equipment.
6.	While Canada may, from time to time, select for technical and economic reasons military equipment and systems which have been designed abroad such systems once acquired are under Canadian direction and control.


Mr. Beaudoin: For each UIC regional or district office in Quebec, what is the (a) total budget (b) breakdown of the budget (c) the number of employees by category?


Robert Knight Andras: 1975 Budget
Total
Activities	Salaries	Non-salary Expenditures Total	Man YearsLongueuil	1,999,875	426,870	2,426,745	192Montreal South-East	1,311,657	339,642	1,651,299	123Laval	650,794	177,549	828,343	63Montreal North-West	1,561,328	296,320	1,857,648	152Quebec East	1,214,925	291,953	1,506,878	115Montreal South-West	1,547,348	405,045	1,952,393	148Levis	1,352,259	329,994	1,682,253	131Baie Comeau	650,374	285,418	935,792	63Chicoutimi	715,841	217,382	933,223	69Sherbrooke	1,542,437	327,834	1,870,271	142Trois-Rivieres	1,436,961	408,536	1,845,497	139Hull	979,607	265,036	1,244,643	95Alma	683,041	316,450	999,491	66Drummondville	684,844	200,273	885,117	67Quebec West	916,163	279,813	1,195,976	89Chandler	686,748	152,581	839,329	65Rimouski	968,577	322,147	1,290,724	94Riviere-du-Loup	508,558	165,906	674,464	48St. Jerome	1,598,182	370,067	1,968,249	153Montreal North-East	906,499	227,856	1,134,355	88Montreal North-Centre	943,402	223,708	1,167,110	91Montreal South-Centre	1,105,878	290,194	1,396,072	113Rouyn	730,509	179,660	910,169	70Regional	7,410,816	3,503,768	10,914,584	623Regional Computing	Services	2,234,667	1,272,880	3,507,547	237Total	34,341,290	11,276,882	45,618,172	3,236
This budget is currently under review due to changes in the economic situation.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,315-Mr. Cossitt: (Supplementary)
What are the names of any members of families of the Prime Minister or Cabinet Ministers who have held passes at any time on Air Canada since April 20, 1968 and, in each case, on how many occasions have such passes been used?
Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: Records of passes issued by Air Canada are retained for only two years following the year of pass issuance, in accordance with Canadian Government requirements. Records for the years 1973 and 1974 are currently held by the airline. A list is attached of family members of Cabinet Ministers who were issued individual member passes during 1973, 1974. The wife and children of the Prime Minister hold term or "annual" passes with no restriction on the number of times they may be used. It would be a difficult task, requiring an inordinate amount of clerical time for searching, to determine the number of occasions these passes have been used. Trip passes are rarely returned for cancellation and it is usually assumed that they have been used. 1973, Pass Issues-Wives of Cabinet Ministers: Mrs. R. K. Andras, Mrs. W. Allmand, Mrs. S. R. Basford, Mrs. E. J. Benson, Mrs. J. Chretien, Mrs. J. E. Dube, Mrs. A. W. Gillespie, Mrs. H. Gray, Mrs. D. Jamieson, Mrs. M. Lalonde, Mrs. O. E. Lang, Mrs. L. Lamoureux, Mrs. J. Marchand, Mrs. P. Martin, Mrs. J. Munro, Mrs. D. Macdonald, Mme. A. Ouellet, Mrs. G. Pelletier, Mr. M. Sauve, Mrs. R. Stanbury, Mrs. E. Whelan; 1974, May 15, 1975 Pass Issues-Family Members of Cabinet Ministers: Mrs. R. K. Andras, Mrs. W. Allmand, Mrs. S. R. Basford, Mrs. J. Buchanan, Mrs. J. Chretien, Mrs. B. Danson, Mrs. J. E. Dube, Mrs. H. Faulkner, Mrs. A. W. Gillespie, Mrs. H. Gray, Mrs. S. Haidasz, Mrs. D. Jamieson, Mrs. J. Jerome, Mrs. O. E. Lang, Mrs. J. Marchand, Mrs. P. Martin, Mrs. J. Munro, Mrs. D. Macdonald, Mrs. B. Mackasey, Mme. A. Ouellet, Mrs. G. Pelletier, Mr. M. Sauve, Mrs. R. Stanbury, Mrs. E. Whelan.


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


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Justice and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: (a), (b), (c) and (d), None, (e) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation retained the lawyers listed below to handle mortgage documentation for loans approved in 1971 to 1974 in the Northern part of York County and the Southern part of Simcoe County. (Townships of King, Whitchurch, East Gwillimbury, North Gwillimbury, Adjala, Essa, Flos, West Gwillimbury, Innisfil, Medonte, Oro, Tecumseth, Tosorontio, Vespra.) 1971, Ross B. Linton, Newmarket. R. Noel Bates, Barrie. 1972, 1973, 1974, Harvey J. Bliss, Toronto. John A. Coates, Toronto. R. Noel Bates, Barrie. C. L. Wilson, Q.C., Barrie. Legal fees in connection with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation direct loans are paid by the borrowers, and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers. The following lawyers were retained to handle legal actions
July 18, 1975

for 1971 to 1974 for loans approved for the Northern part of York County and Southern part of Simcoe County: 1971- 1974, D. M. de Monte, Q.C., Toronto. MacKinnon, McTag-gart, Toronto. D. S. Sugg, Barrie. Where actions are settled prior to trial, the costs are paid by the borrower and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has no records of the amounts. The basic geographical units for the compilation of CMHC data are the municipality and county, and not Federal electoral constituencies. The data are governed by individual loans approved under the various sections of the National Housing Act, and not by the places of those who provide professional services.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	In the past ten years, how much has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion paid to enterprises in the Constituency of Temiscamingue?
2.	How many projects received grants and, in each case, what was the amount involved?
Order Paper Questions
Tourism
*Wild-life surveys	65,000	65,000Development of Pioneers Park	65,000	65,000***Ville-Marie camping	350,000	38,000Sub-Total	480,000	168,000Mines	*Alluvial research	471,865	471,865* Geophysic research	682,500	639,995electromagnetic surveys	495,000	310,978Structure, stratigraphy and correlation	62,500	29,623of volcanic rocks	Sampling of stream sediments	120,000	34,300Sub-Total	1,831,865	1,486,761/ ndustrial Dcvelo pmcnt	** Cost-benefit study of CIP plant	2,128	2,128Technical assistance to small and	21,055	21,055medium-sized enterprises


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1 and 2. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has paid money to enterprises in the Constituency of Temiscamingue under the ARDA program and through its regional development incentives program. As regards ARDA II, no request was made between 1965-66 and 196970. The total paid during the years 1970-71 and 1974-75 under the ARDA III program for agriculture and forestry projects was $4,000,239. The amount paid for projects connected with tourism, mining and industry under the ARDA III program during the period 1970-75 was $1,677,944. The total amount of grants offered and accepted under the industrial grants program (RDIA) was $9,794,955. The grand total amounts to $15,473,138.
ARDA II Program No request 1965/66-1969/70
ARDA III Program Agriculture and forestry-1970/71 -1974/75
Agriculture	Fed. share approved	Already paid[DOT][DOT]Financial aid-farm expansion	733,791	733,791Stimulation of diversification of	155,000	70,479production	*Conseil Keg ion ale de Developpement	10,000	10,000Abitibi-Temiscamingue	*Aid to beef-cattle producers	9,750	9,750Agricultural development plan	100,000	100,000Technical assistance	287,500	193,634Land use adjustment	492,500	326,138Consolidation (milk)	258,400	206,720Sub-Total	2,046,941	1.650,512Forestry	Access roads to forestry resources	1,080,000	983,005*Master plan for forestry development	15,500	14,110* Replanting, scarification	231,500	125,029*Silviculture	591,100	591,087*Private wood-lots	850,000	492,082*Forest inventory	144,500	144,414Sub-Total	2,912,000	2,349,727Sub-Total	23,183	23,183Grand Total	7,294,589	5,678,183
'Projects covering more than one county in North-Western Quebec. "Projects covering the province.
"'Projects covering Temiscamingue only.
N. 11. For the projects covering more than one county, the figures shown apply to the whole area served by the project (i.e. all the counties).

Incentives Offered and Accepted
Bradley Bros Limited-Noranda	$	18,400
Bradley Bros Limited-Noranda	14,150
Cooperative Forestiere du Temiscamingue-Bearn	653,588
Geli-Son Inc.-Evain	18,200
J. Cossette Soudeur General Limitee-Rouyn	48,875
Noranda Mines Limited-Noranda	3,522,000
Northern Timber (1971) Limited

Rouyn	30,000
Northern Timber (1971) Limited-Rouyn	29,000
Phil Gaudreault & Fils Limitfee-Rouyn	31,250
Quebec Hardwoods Inc.-Temiscamingue	117,456
Salaison Rivard l.imitce-Rouyn	132,001
Tembec Forest Products-Temiscamingue	4,872,250
Temisko Inc.-Notre-Dame-du-Nord	272,065
Wood Preservation Industries-Rouyn	35,720
Total	$ 9,794,955


Mr. Cossitt: Since April 20, 1968, what was the total of public funds spent at the (a) Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive (b) Prime Minister's summer residence, Harrington Lake, for (i) supplies, including food (ii) alcoholic beverages?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See
Appendix "Q", Issue No. 36, dated May 20, 1975, of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. The supplies

July 18, 1975
Order Paper Questions
column includes food, cleaning materials, non alcoholic beverages, etc. The sundries column includes, among other items, alcoholic beverages for official entertainment purposes. Over the past seven years, the purchase of alcoholic beverages for purpose stated averages $2,055 per annum. It should be noted that the expenditures listed in Appendix "Q" referred to above have been paid annually from government funds since fiscal year 1951-52.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What are the reasons for the high losses and the low rates of return on constructed investment realized by CN Hotel (a) Beausejour, which lost $388,491 in 1973 and $96,588 in 1974 (b) Fort Garry, which lost $186,091 in 1971, $265,868 in 1972, $157,460 in 1973 and $160,218 in 1974 (c) Macdonald, whose rate of return has ranged from 0.2 to 0.5% during the past four years (d) Nova Scotian, which lost $277,120 in 1974 compared to a $178,267 profit in 1973?
2.	Is it expected that the hotels will become profitable enterprises and, if so, on what date?
3.	What steps are presently being considered towards achieving profitability?


Jean Marchand: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. (a) During the first two years special expenses were incurred associated with the opening of this hotel, (b), (c), (d) The unsatisfactory results of these three hotels are directly attributable to the increased competition from new hotel construction by others and from improvements to the CN hotels to keep them competitive with the new properties.
2.	Except for the Fort Garry, on the basis of present estimates all hotels are expected to become profitable within the next two or three years.
3.	General and specific promotion of the hotel chain, completion of renovation programs, and expansion of certain revenue producing facilities.


Mr. Forrestall: Has the government given any consideration to increasing the budget of DND for the purpose of servicing the requirements of other departments in remote sensing field using the DASH-7 and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what is the result of the consideration?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The government has considered but has not yet decided the desirability of having DND provide remote sensing services, using the DASH-7, to other departments.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	What amounts have been allocated annually by the government to the operation of CBC for the English and French networks since their inception?
2.	What average percentage of the taxpayers' income tax do the amounts represent?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
The government approves the allocation of annual funds to the CBC, but this is a total amount for the capital and operating costs of the Corporation and is not divided into specific amounts for French and English language activities of the CBC. The figures listed below include the amounts from receiving licence fees, broadcast licence fees, excise tax on receiving sets and parts and grants. For the period 1965-74 inclusive, loans received for capital construction were included, but excluded were the amounts provided in operating grants for the repayment of the loans.
($000's)
1937	742	1956	29,4291938	1,897	1957	37,5651939	2,652	1958	41,6311940	2,906	1959	57,3801941	3,140	1960	58,5601942	3,485	1961	64,8721943	3,702	1962	76,4661944	3,788	1963	79,0451945	3,783	1964	85,7101946	3,774	1965	100,1191947	3,906	1966	107,5171948	4,798	1967	141,4131949	5,135	1968	157,9131950	5,481	1969	166,5741951	5,572	1970	185,6351952	12,091	1971	165,0001953	11,975	1972	182,1521954	23,285	1973	218,7831955	28,014	1974	179,413
2. The figures were taken from the Public Accounts of Canada. They include personal income tax, corporations' income tax and taxes on dividends and interests.
Year
Personal
(*000's)
Corporation Dividends
Total
Income Tax
%
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1,185.6	1,027.7	66.2	2,279.5	1.291,400.5	1,268.3	76.4	2,745.2	1.361,499.8	1,234.8	64.3	2,796.9	1.481,353.5	1,020.6	61.2	2,435.3	2.351,566.6	1,142.9	73.4	2,722.9	2.101,711.2	1,276.6	88.2	3,076.0	2.111,792.7	1,202.0	112.3	3,107.0	2.461,744.6	1,182.8	129.2	3,056.6	2.581,865.1	1,259.0	124.5	3,248.6	2.632,103.3	1,523.8	143.7	3,770.8	2.652,142.5	1,606.2	170.0	3,918.7	2.742,473.8	1,593.2	203.6	4,270.6	3.312,849.6	1,670.6	220.5	4,740.7	3.333,356.4	2,030.0	205.0	5,591.4	2.984,085.1	2,612.0	248.5	6,945.6	2.674,696.5	2,218.5	258.2	7,173.2	2.305,582.0	2,183.1	287.7	8,052.8	2.267,172.8	2,653.5	291.8	10,118.1	2.167,925.8	3,411.0	323.7	11,660.5	2.39
Fiscal year ending March 31.
July 18, 1975


Mr. MacKay: 1.	In the years 1973, 1974 and 1975, were any contracts awarded by the Department of the Solicitor General to Securex Limited of Montreal and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) for what periods (c) for what specific services?
2.	In each case, were tenders called and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, who were the other firms who submitted tenders and did Securex submit the lowest bid?
3.	Were any contracts awarded to Securex terminated before the expiry date and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Nil.


Mr. Forrestall: Does the government, as a matter of policy, require departments other than DND to contribute towards the capital cost of purchasing aircraft which will be operated by DND but will be available for use by departments in the pursuit of their respective objectives and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, on what date was the policy announced and where may it be obtained?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No.
DND aircraft are provided primarily to meet the operational requirements of the Department and are financed from the DND capital budget.


Mr. Forrestall: Will the government require departments other than DND to contribute towards the capital costs of acquiring a replacement for the Argus aircraft and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so (i) which departments (ii) on what basis (iii) what is the present estimate of such contribution, if any?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Current policy is to finance procurement from the capital budget of the department having the primary need for the aircraft. In the case of the replacement for the Argus Aircraft, the government is now considering the desirability of charging to other departments the costs of additional DND aircraft procured to meet their needs.


Mr. Woolliams: Who authorized the production of the movie "Sweet Movie" in which the Canadian Film Development Corporation invested $115,000 (a) where was it filmed and produced (b) were the participants Canadian actors and actresses and, if not, what nationality were they (c) in what cities in Canada, if any was it shown?


Hon. Hugh James Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation
Order Paper Questions
as follows: "Sweet Movie" was produced by two independent companies: Mojack Films (a Canadian Company) and V.M. Productions (a French Company), (a) France, Holland and Canada, (b) Some Canadian actors and actresses were included in the cast; the majority came from Holland and France, (c) In Montreal.


Mr. MacLean: 1.	Has the Canadian Film Development Corporation an investment in the film "Sweet Movie" and, if so, what is the amount of such investment?
2.	Was the investment approved by the Advisory Committee to the Corporation?
3.	What are the criteria applied when judging the suitability of a film before it is chosen to be subsidized or invested in by the Canadian taxpayer?
4.	Is the nondiscriminatory policy of the Corporation so extreme that it is impossible for them to distinguish between cinematic artistry and perversion?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: 1. Yes. The Corporation does not disclose the amount of its investments in individual feature films.
2.	The investment was approved by the members of the Corporation.
3.	The members and the staff of the Corporation take into consideration the scenario of the proposed film, the previous experience of the proposed producer and director, the cast, the budget, the distribution arrangements and other financial details before it decides to invest in any project which is proposed to it.
4.	See answer to 3.


Mr. Landers: With respect to the government's commitment to complete the forest products terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick (a) on what date will Treasury Board sit down with the National Harbours Board and complete the financial details (b) will tenders be called?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The government has not made a commitment to complete the forest products terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How much government tax money was used by the Canadian Film Development Corporation for the production of the movie "Sweet Movie"?
2.	Is this an example of how the permissive attitude of government is wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on insane, filthy productions?
3.	When is this policy of the government going to stop?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. I
am advised by the Canadian Film Development Corpora-
7722

July 18, 1975
Order Paper Questions
tion that it is not its policy to make public the amount of its investment in an individual film.
2.	To attempt to answer part 2 would be to accept the premise on which the question is posed, which the government does not do.
3.	See 2.


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 the Secretary of State for duties relating primarily to the implementation and administration of (i) Bill C-ll, An Act respecting the national anthem of Canada (ii) Bill C-20, An Act respecting citizenship?
2.	In each case, what was the date of the original employment or commencement of contract?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. (a) (i) and (ii) Nil. (b) (i) and (ii) Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to section 214(2) of the Criminal Code, have the three inmates at the British Columbia Penitentiary involved in the disturbance between June 9 and 11, 1975, that led to the death of Mary Steinhauser, been charged with capital murder and, if not, for what reason?


William Warren Allmand: From the information available at this time with reference to this particular case, it appears that the decision as to whether these persons will be charged and as to what charges will be laid against them is under consideration by the crown attorney.


Mr. Herbert: During the calendar year 1974, of the 19,773 appointments by the Public Service Commission to bilingual positions (a) what percentage of the 10,900 (55.1%) appointees who claimed French as their preferred working language (b) what percentage of the 8,873 (44.9%) appointees who claimed English as their preferred working language were considered competently bilingual upon appointment to the bilingual positions?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: (a) Of the 55.1 per cent appointees who claimed French as their preferred working language, 95.5 per cent were bilingual upon appointment to the bilingual positions, (b) Of the 44.9 per cent appointees who claimed English as their preferred working language, 68.8 per cent were bilingual upon appointment to the bilingual positions.


Mr. Elzinga: Of the $159,288 given to the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada to operate "Canada Together", a programme of visits to Ottawa by Senior Citizens, how much was distributed to each province and territory in 1974?


James Hugh Faulkner: The
provincial breakdown of the $159,288 given to the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada to operate "Canada Together" in 1974 is as follows: British Columbia, 78 participants, $16,032; Alberta, 61 participants, $12,538; Saskatchewan, 46 participants, $9,454; Manitoba, 43 participants, $8,838; Ontario, 266 participants, $54,672; Quebec, 195 participants, $40,078; New Brunswick, 29 participants, $5,961; Nova Scotia, 33 participants, $6,782; Prince Edward Island, 8 participants, $1,644; Newfoundland, 13 participants, $2,671; Yukon, 1 participant, $206; Northwest Territories, 2 participants, $412; Total, 775 participants, $159,288.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howie: From April 1, 1974 to February 21, 1975 in the Department of Transport (a) how many consultants were hired (b) what were the terms of reference, time and length of the work assignment (c) what amount was paid to each?
Return tabled.


Question No. 2,170-Mr. Leggatt:
1.	Does Mr. R.P. Bourne, Assistant Deputy Minister, Police and Security, Planning and Analysis, have regular meetings with representative of the RCMP?
2.	Does Mr. Bourne exchange information with the RCMP which his group has collected on individuals or groups?
3.	(a) Which departments have a security group (b) to whom do such groups report (c) what are their specific functions?
4.	(a) Does Police and Security, Planning and Analysis, have overall responsibility for government security procedures (b) can they override departmental security measures?
5.	Have Mr. R.P. Bourne and Col. W.J. Dabros ever served together in the Armed Forces and, if so (a) in what locations (b) what were the duties of each?
6.	(a) What was Mr. P. Wallace's previous employment before joining Police and Security, Planning and Analysis (b) what are his specific duties now?
7.	What was (a) Mr. R. Gaudet's (b) Mr. R. Harris' (c) Mr. J.R. Armit's previous employment before joining Police and Security, Planning and Analysis and, in each case, what is his present area of responsibility?
8.	Did Police and Security, Planning and Analysis, ever collect information on the Seamen's International Union and, if so, what was this information?
9.	Did Police and Security, Planning and Analysis ever collect information on any of the people charged in the recent dredging contracts and, if so, what was this information?
July 18, 1975

10.	In the briefing held in Vancouver on May 25, 1972, delivered by Mr. R. Bourne and Mr. John Starnes, did Mr. Robert Bonner, former Attorney-General of British Columbia and Mr. Hugh Martin of Mar-well Dredging Company attend and, if so, what was the purpose of their attendance at this meeting?
11.	Did Col. W.J. Dabros relinquish his appointment as Director of Security on August 4, 1974 and, if so, what is he presently doing?
12.	What personnel service contracts will be outstanding as of April 1, 1975 from (a) National Parole Board (b) Canadian Penitentiary Services (c) Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
Return tabled.



LEGAL AGENTS RETAINED BY CMHC OR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. Beatty: 1.	What were the names and addresses of lawyers in Ontario given work by CMHC or the Department of Justice for the fiscal year (a) 1973-74 (b) 1974-75?
2.	In each case, what was the total amount of money paid to each individual in each fiscal year?
Return tabled.



CANADA'S ASSISTANCE TO UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES

Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	For the past five years, to which under-developed countries has Canada given assistance and, in each case (a) what was the amount of the contribution (b) what was the amount of the loans (c) what was the interest rate?
2.	What type of technical assistance has been extended to such countries (a) what was the amount of the contribution in each case (b) what was the purpose of assistance?
3.	What type of academic assistance has been extended to such countries (a) what was the amount of the contribution in each case (b) to what academic levels was the assistance directed?
4.	What were the amounts of Canada's contributions to such countries through international associations or agencies of which this country is a member?
Return tabled.


Mr. Stanbury:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to object to the request of the parliamentary secretary. I take exception to the manner in which question No. 2,764 is to be answered. I point out that the question is of considerable public interest. The very purpose of asking that question was to have placed on the public record the manner in which various countries of the United Nations are keeping their commitments for the agreed, universal sharing of costs of the United Nations peacekeeping effort in the Middle East. The figures will demonstrate that even the great powers are tens of millions of dollars in arrears under their obligations to finance these peackeeping operations.
Canada is one of the very few countries of the world which contributes to these forces. It is our obligation to our own taxpayers, to those of other countries and to the participants in these forces to bring to public and world attention, and particularly to the attention of this parliament, the degree of good faith with which countries have undertaken those obligations to finance the forces and the progress they are making in keeping up those financial commitments.
Order Paper Questions
I draw to the parliamentary secretary's attention the fact that a similar question, No. 2,438, relating to the state of affairs as of April 30, 1975, has not been answered. The question being answered relates to the state of affairs at the end of May, 1975. My question No. 2,909 relates to the state of affairs at the end of June. I give notice that I intend to continue placing similar questions on the order paper so that there will be an opportunity to know at the end of each month what is the state of affairs. This month, at least, I believe it is important for the answer to be treated in the normal way. It is not excessively long in relation to many answers which have appeared in Hansard in the past and I ask that it be treated in the usual way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can withhold his agreement when the parliamentary secretary asks if his question is to be treated as an order for return. We have been over this difficulty previously. Sometimes hon. members are not fully forewarned that questions which are to be transferred and treated as orders for return are their questions. In the circumstances, perhaps the proper solution would be for hon. members to consent to treating the answer to the question which was deemed to have been made an order for return as if it had been read and, accordingly, to consent to its being transcribed in Hansard in the usual way. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editor's Note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]



UNITED NATIONS FORCES-ACCOUNTS

Mr. Stanbury: As of May 31, 1975 (a) what amount was owing by each country in arrears of payment of the special United Nations assessment for maintenance of the UN Emergency Force and the UN Disengagement Observer Force in the Middle East (b) how much has Canada received on account of its contributions to these forces (c) what amount is owing to Canada on this Account?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (a) The arrears owing by members of the United Nations in respect of assessments for the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force in the Middle East, as of May 31, 1975, are shown on the attached list, (b) As of May 31, 1975, Canada had received $3,636,548 from the United Nations as reimbursement for personnel and air support costs incurred in connection with peacekeeping operations in the Middle East, (c) Canada has submitted bills in the amount of $3,902,414 in respect of personnel costs and material and services supplied to the United Nations. The United Nations has agreed upon a formula of $500 per man per month, of which it has made payments on account of $400 per man per month for the first six months of the operation and $200 for the second six months. It is not possible to give a definitive figure for the total amount owing to Canada, since negotiations are continuing between the troop contributors and the United Nations Secretariat on the qualifications for specialist pay and the modalities of reimbursement for the provision of certain material and services by Canada.
29669 -6'/2

July 18, 1975
Order Paper Questions
United Nations Emergency Force-1973 (including the United Nations disengagement observer force)
Unpaid contributions of member states as at 31 May 1975
	(In US dollars) For the For the		
For the	six	threeyear	months	monthsended	ended	endingOctober	April	JulyBalance due:	24, 1974	24, 1975 :	24, 19751	$	*1. Afghanistan	-	-	4002. Albania	3,198	1,603	8023. Algeria	7,983	6,413	3,2064. Argentina	83,733	66,532	33,2655. Australia	-	824	288,0006. Austria	-	112,0007. Bahamas	-	1,202	8028. Bahrain	-	' -	8029. Barbados	-	-	80210. Belgium	207,900	420,000	210,00011. Bhutan	-	-	40012. Bolivia	3,198	1,603	80213. Botswana	996	800	40014. Brazil	123,138	61,722	30,86115. Bulgaria	-	11,222	5,61116. Burma	-	-	1,20217. Burundi	1,596	800	40018. Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic	91,080	184,000	92,00019. Cambodia	3,198	1,603	80220. Canada	-	-	636,00021. Central African Republic	3,198	1,603	80222. Chad	1,596	800	40023. Chile	13,972	11,222	5,61124. China	5,072,572	2,542,643	1,271,32125. Colombia	6,348	12,826	6,41226. Congo	3,198	1,603	80227. Costa Rica	3,198	1,603	80228. Cuba	11,517	8,818	4,40829. Cyprus	-	-	80230. Czechoslovakia	176,220	356,000	178,00031. Dahomey	1,596	800	40032. Democratic Yemen	401	800	40033. Denmark	-	-	126,00034. Dominican Republic	1,996	1,603	80235. Ecuador	1,996	1,603	80236. Egypt	-	-	4,80937. El Salvador	3,198	1,603	80238. Equatorial Guinea	3,198	1,603	80239. Ethiopia	-	-	40040. Fiji	794	1,603	80241. Finland	-	-	84,00042. France	-	-	1,354,53543. Gabon	1,996	1,603	80244. Gambia	1,996	1,603	80245. German Democratic Republic -	-	244,00046. Germany, Federal Republic of	-	1,420,00047. Ghana	-	3,207	1,60348. Greece	12,697	25,651	12,82549. Guatemala	2,994	2,405	1,20250. Guinea	-	600	400
Total
*
5.603 17,602
183,530
288,824
112,000
2,004
802
837,900
5.603 2,196
215,721
16,833
1,202
2,796
367,080
5.603
636.000
5.603
2.796 30,805
8,886,536
25,586
5.603
5.603 24,743
710,220
2.796 1,601
126.000
4.401
4.401
4.809
5.603
5.603 400
3,199
84.000 1,354,535
4.401
4.401
244.000
1,420,000
4.810 51,173
6,601
1,000
Balance due:	For the year ended October 24, 1974	For the six months ended April 24, 1975	For the three months ending J-uly 24, 1975	Total51. Guyana	$	$	* 802	* 80252. Haiti	1,596	800	400	2,79653. Honduras	-	1,301	802	2,10354. Hungary	-	-	13,226	13,22655. Iceland	-	4,000	4,00056. India	-	-	48,095	48,09557. Indonesia	-	-	7,615	7,61558. Iran	-	-	8,015	8,01559. Iraq	4,989	4,008	2,003	11,00060. Ireland	-	60,000	30,000	90,00061. Israel	-	-	8,416	8,41662. Italy	1,792,800	1,440,000	720,000	3,952,80063. Ivory Coast	1,996	1,603	802	4,40164. Jamaica	794	1,603	802	3,19965. Japan	-	1,430,000	1,430,00066. Jordan	802	80267. Kenya	717	802	1,51968. Kuwait	-	3,607	3,60769. Laos	1,596	800	400	2,79670. Lebanon	2,994	2,405	1,202	6,60171. Lesotho	-	-	-	-72. Liberia	794	1,003	802	3,19973. Libyan Arab Republic	17,590	8,818	4,408	30,81674. Luxembourg	-	-	8,000	8,00075. Madagascar	-	s-j,	766	76676. Malawi	400	40077. Malaysia	-	2,805	2,80578. Maldives	1,596	800	400	2,79679. Mali	996	800	400	2,19680. Malta	-	-	802	80281. Mauritania	-	1,184	802	1,98682. Mauritius	1,996	1,603	802	4,40183. Mexico	34,123	68,937	34,468	137,52884. Mongolia	794	1,003	802	3,19985. Morocco	5,916	4,810	2,404	13,13086. Nepal	-	800	400	1,20087. Netherlands	-	-	248,000	248,00088. New Zealand	-	-	56,000	56,00089. Nicaragua	1,996	1,603	802	4,40190. Niger	-	-	284	28491. Nigeria	9,979	8,016	4,007	22,00292. Norway	5,155	172,000	86,000	263,15593. Oman	-	-	802	80294. Pakistan	5,555	11,222	5,611	22,38895. Panama	-	-	802	80296. Paraguay	3,198	1,603	802	5,60397. Peru	2,777	5,611	2,805	11,19398. Philippines	-	-	7,214	7,21499. Poland	-	-	252,000	252,000100. Portugal	119,700	60,000	30,000	209,700101. Qatar	-	-	802	802102. Romania	11,903	24,048	12,023	47,974103. Rwanda	1,596	800	400	2,796104. Saudi Arabia	2,404	4,810	2,404	9,618105. Senegal	-	800	400	1,200106. Sierra Leone	-	-	802	802107. Singapore	-	-	1,603	1,603108. Somalia	1,596	800	400	2,796109. South Africa	249,000	200,000	100,000	549,000110. Spain	39,281	79,357	39,678	158,316111. Sri Lanka	-	-	1,202	1,202112. Sudan	996	800	400	2,196113. Swaziland	3,198	1,603	802	5,603
IMr. Cullen,1
July 18, 1975

Excise Tax Act


Gerald William Baldwin: Let's not have blackmail. Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
For I lie year ended October
For the
six
months
ended
April
For the three months ending July
24, 1974	24, 1975	24, 1975 Total
Balance due:

114.	Sweden	-	_	115.	Syrian Arab Republic	3,198	1,603	802	5,603116.	Thailand	10,977	8,818	4,408	24,203117.	Togo	3,198	1,603	802	5,603118.	Trinidad and Tobago	3,198	1,603	802	5,603119.	Tunisia	1,996	1,603	802	4,401120.	Turkey	11,506	23,246	11,623	46,375121.	Uganda	396	800	400	1,596122.	Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic	338,580	684,000	342,000	1,364,580123.	Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 2,	968,027	5,996,014	2,998,007	11,962,048124.	United Arab Emirates	1,996	1,603	802	4,401125.	United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	1,227,403	1,227,403126.	United Republic of Cameroon	1,996	1,603	802	4,401127.	United Republic of Tanzania	396	800	400	1,590128.	United States of America 5,	720,946	11,557,467	5,778,734 23,057,147	129.	Upper Volta	1,596	800	400	2,796130.	Uruguay	5,987	4,810	2,404	13,201131.	Venezuela	31,936	25,651	12,825	70,412132.	Yemen	1,596	800	400	2,796133.	Yugoslavia	13,490	27,254	13,626	54,370134.	Zaire	1,996	1,603	802	4,401135.	Zambia	108	1,603	802	2,513Total Balance due:	17,302,724 24,260.678 19,739,448 61,302,850


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I overlooked the motion standing under motions on the order paper in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp).


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to second it.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the motion is to stand. May we consider the motion as having been called?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, why should it stand? I believe, if the minister were to ask for unanimous consent, it would pass now, without debate.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as long as we pass Bill C-66 and Bill C-2, we will agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No way!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, July 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 7416).
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the House long on this matter. I will have other opportunities during the days that lie ahead to participate one way or another in this debate.


An hon. Member:: You mean in the weeks ahead.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am pleased to observe members on the government side intervening. I have listened to some of their contributions and read others. Although they are totally unconvincing as to logic and fact, and although their findings, arguments, submissions and conclusions are asinine, it is interesting to note that they are being driven by the wave of outrage and indignation from their constituents to take part in the debate. That wave of outrage and indignation is finally compelling them to become involved in the debate and answer some of our logical observations. In these warm and mellow summer months we may observe that this will be a debate in which both sides of the House participate. Until a few days ago that was not the case.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And we have lots of time.


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not intend to deal, basically, with the substance of the excise tax. That subject has been dealt with by other hon. members. It has already been demonstrated beyond doubt that this is a wicked, iniquitous measure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Nor will I associate myself with the completely false suggestion made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that this measure involves certain elements of energy conservation. That is one of the most stupid, one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard advanced in this House-and I am not forgetting the many demonstrations of stupidity and ignorance from time to time on the part of the front benches opposite. I wish to direct the attention of the House to one phase of this bill which has been neglected. Hopefully, I can do this before one o'clock. I refer to the matter of exemptions and the question of who should receive rebates.

July 18, 1975
Excise Tax Act
A cursory examination of what has happened with regard to this measure shows the improvisation, the hasty, ill-conceived, badly prepared and poorly digested nature of this bill which the Minister of Finance took to cabinet with the paste still dripping off it. It was a scissors-and-paste job if there ever was one. I formed those views on examination of the ways and means motion purely for the purposes of comparison. I dealt with this partly the other day in argument to Mr. Speaker. Paragraph 3 of the ways and means motion, (a) to (g) inclusive, lists seven areas where there should be exemptions. I ask hon. members of this House to observe the classes of people who are entitled to apply for and receive exemptions and rebates.
When we examine the original bill, not the reprint ordered by Mr. Speaker, clause 5(4) on page 3, in describing the categories and classes of people and corporations entitled to a rebate refers to paragraphs (a) to (j). In other words, when this bill came before cabinet, in addition to those classes that appear in the ways and means motion there were four other classes which the minister had recommended to cabinet as being available for rebate from the payment of the tax and had included them in the bill. This is quite plain, because clause 5 dealing with the amendment to section 47.1 of the Excise Tax Act has paragraphs (a) to (f). Paragraph (f) is the one which Mr. Speaker ordered to be thrown out. This leaves only five groups.
I point this out simply to establish that the people and corporations suggested as being entitled to a rebate were included so hastily that when the bill came before cabinet there was that degree of uncertainty about it. Cabinet or a cabinet committee obviously changed it materially, throwing out four of the categories and substituting the one which was included in the original bill, namely, those people and corporations covered by section 149 of the Income Tax Act.
I wish to take one minute to show the absolute absurdity of suggesting that those classes enumerated under section 149 of the Income Tax Act be covered. I will read very briefly from the headings in that particular section:
-a municipality in Canada-
That is fine. It was set out in the original ways and means motion and, of course, was carried forward by this section of the Income Tax Act.
-an agricultural organization, a board of trade or a chamber of commerce... a charitable organization ... a corporation that was constituted exclusively for charitable purposes ... a trust all the property of which is held absolutely in trust... the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, incorporated by chapter 75 of the Statutes of Canada... a corporation that was constituted exclusively for the purpose of providing low-cost housing accommodation ... a corporation that was constituted exclusively for the purpose of carrying on or promoting scientific research ... a labour organization or society or a benevolent or fraternal benefit society or order... a mutual insurance corporation ... a limited-dividend housing corporation ... a trust or corporation established or incorporated solely in connection with, or for the administration of, a registered pension fund or plan-
It goes on ad nauseam. I suggest that at the time the hasty insertion was made in cabinet of this particular clause from the Income Tax Act in place of those clauses which the cabinet had thrown out, absolutely no thought

was given to this most important matter of who should be entitled to receive rebates of this tax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: This goes to the root of the matter. This is a tax of several hundred million dollars. Several classes of people should be entitled to receive rebates of the payment of that tax. Surely, when the Minister of Finance comes to this House he should have something better prepared than he had with regard to this particular question. It was a contempt of this House of Commons for the minister to come here with a bill in the form it was, asking this House to approve it. The bill should not have been brought into this House unless and until the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) had put together a properly conceived program for those people entitled to rebates and the method to be adopted for paying them. Anything else should not be acceptable to this House and is not acceptable to this party.
In conclusion, I say to those who are attempting to blackmail and shove this bill forward by saying that no rebates can be paid, that that is not the case. Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act shows that there is now in place in the Statutes of Canada a method by which rebates can be made without this legislation being passed. I do not suggest the use of that particular procedure any more frequently than need be. However, when we are being blackmailed and told we must pass this bill promptly because there is no way in which people can get rebates, I say that is not so; I give the lie to those who make that assertion and say there is a method by which it can be done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in introducing the excise tax of ten cents a gallon for private automobile use of gasoline, the government has clearly indicated its failure to develop a comprehensive energy policy or even outline the bare bones of what might take place in the future. It is a tax which it will be difficult to impose fairly; it is a tax which is almost impossible to apply without "working a fiddle", as the saying goes; it is a tax which is so unfair that it does not include all those who travel, and at the same time does not allow the inclusion of those who have no alternative form of travel such as rapid transit. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, if it is a tax designed to serve in the conservation of the environment, then it should apply to airplane travel as well as to the automobile.
Canada shares, along with Australia, the distinction of being the only industrialized country to increase its consumption of petroleum products last year. In the United States, the use of petroleum products dropped in 1974 by
July 18, 1975

4.5	per cent over 1973. This was at a time when we were reducing exports to the United States to conserve our own dwindling supplies and, to make matters much worse, when we were faced with a massive balance of payments deficit of upward of $6 billion, imports of petroleum making up a good percentage of this deficit. The use of petroleum products in the United States is currently being reduced but our use of petroleum products is increasing particularly in areas which are dependent upon offshore supplies.
In Canada there was an over-all rise of 1 per cent, with gasoline consumption rising by 2.8 per cent and gas diesel oil by 4.1 per cent. The consumption of fuel oil dropped by
8.6	per cent, which may well have reflected the mild winter or an effort at conservation on the part of individuals. The decline in the United States was the first in 32 years and it is said to result from the combined effects of product scarcity induced by the Arab embargo, warm weather in the early months, energy conservation efforts, higher product prices and a slowdown in the economy. Most of these factors apply to Canada, but prices were not so high and there was no lead toward conservation.
Today we received the announcement of the second phase of the foreign investment review legislation whose effect will be to further increase our balance of payments problems by discouraging investment in this country. There may well be good reason there should be selective investment in this country, but we do need to remember that we have a balance of payments deficit of $6 billion this year and it is forecast confidently that it will amount to at least $4.7 billion in 1976. Analysis of these figures suggests that Canadians are more aware of the need for conservation of our limited natural resources than are our governments. The crucial shortage in Canada in the energy field is leadership, both by the federal government and by other governments.
Mr. Speaker, this tax is directly brought about by the decline of exports to the United States, with resulting lessening of the yield of the tax to offset the cost of increased imports for Quebec and the maritime provinces. In effect, the government is charging the motoring public world prices for oil which amounts to 25 per cent or so of our total usage. But none of this tax will go to the producing provinces and none will go to the industry to find new sources of gas and oil. Indeed, the yield of this tax may well be used to fund Petro-Can by which the government intends to further intrude upon provincial rights and further intrude on the private oil industry. The minister could well have found enough money merely by withdrawing the activities of Petro-Can and Information Canada; by this means he would have found enough money to pay for the subsidy to eastern consumers.
Nevertheless, if there is any merit in this tax it would be that it signals a retreat from the position that there can be for any length of time a two-price system for oil and gas in Canada much below the world price, or at least the North American price. The use of the two-price system, particularly for diminishing resources like oil and gas, only encourages wasteful use, and industry becomes uneconomic. When finally it is exposed to world trading, it feels the blows; there is diminished activity in exploration and a
Excise Tax Act
lessening of the drive to find alternative sources of energy or to use those alternative sources.
The Science Council of Canada pointed out that we use the equivalent of 55 per cent of oil in energy, making us the second highest per capita users in the world. The factors listed as responsible for this high demand are our climate, our sparse population, a historically low price for energy, and our high standard of living extending to a proliferation of gadgets and benefits.
By resorting to this tax, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) can only further antagonize the producing provinces as well as the consuming provinces. The producing provinces in the west might well complain that their diminishing resources are being sold at lower than competitive prices for which they will receive nothing in return. The producing provinces rightfully have a grievance here, even if they have been too greedy in their demands on the new value of oil. Alberta decided to take two-thirds of the new value of oil and gas, while Saskatchewan and British Columbia decided they should get almost all, with little or nothing for the producers.
The federal government's decision that Canadians should be insulated from much of the increase in OPEC costs was to hold western oil at a level of $6.50 per barrel. In November of 1974, the federal government put into effect a drastic move proposed in May of that year. It disallowed as an expense to oil, gas and other mineral producers every penny of the stiff royalties and other collections being taken by the provinces. The double-taxation measure levies income tax on resource companies in respect of money they do not receive. It drains away a sizeable part of the cash flow left to Alberta producers and leaves Saskatchewan and B.C. in an even worse position than before the OPEC price boost.
Alberta has made some move toward continuing exploration and development, but Saskatchewan and British Columbia have made only minor concessions. Ottawa is now in a spot of its own making. The export tax revenue has been sharply reduced as the government has overpriced Alberta and Saskatchewan oil in the United States market while restricting western production to the current 500,000 barrels a day, the low capacity in order to stretch out reserves for future eastern Canadian needs, and the Minister of Finance now has to charge ten cents a gallon to all the motoring public to maintain his eastern subsidy. All these manipulations by the federal and provincial governments-and the November budget was one of the worst factors-have meant reduced capital for exploration and development.
The increase in the field price of $1.50 per barrel, in the absence of some important changes in producer provinces and federal policies, simply adds to government revenues and leaves little for the industry. It is estimated that royalties and tax in the Alberta production would absorb 75 per cent of any price increase, and Saskatchewan and B.C. production would actually result in governments taking more than 100 per cent.
The recent budget changes of the Minister of Finance will not materially affect the incentive to producers to continue exploration. The Canadian petroleum industry now faces a jungle of rules and regulations, incentives and rebates. It is becoming the most complex system in the

July 18, 1975
Excise Tax Act
world with its mish-mash of federal and provincial schemes. The $1.50 increase per barrel was estimated to return to the industry anything from zero to 40 cents, depending on how you figured it.
The plight of our oil industry can be summed up in a letter written to the shareholders of Madison Oils Limited by its president. Madison Oils is a small Canadian oil company, 99 per cent owned by Canadians, in which all governments have said they are interested. The president said:
The year 1974 will be remembered by all involved in the Canadian oil industry as the year in which the industry got caught in the midst of the dispute between the provincial governments of the oil producing provinces and the dominion government... a dispute in which both parties appear to have completely lost sight of the fact that in order to survive the industry must be allowed a return on investment commensurate with the risks taken.
Governments have abandoned long-standing approaches to taxing the industry and in their haste to grab the profits have also imposed double taxation on the industry. In Madison's case the production from two properties in Saskatchewan produced 5,124 barrels of oil during the period 1st January, 1974, and 30 April, 1975. This sold for a total of $30,970. Madison paid operating costs of $5,860 and royalties and other payments to the Saskatchewan government totalling $13,400-leaving the company with a mere $11,710-38 per cent of the gross. On top of this, since the oil is exported, the dominion government, via the "export tax" shaved off about $5 per barrel, taking a total of almost $26,000 and raising the price to the buyer to a total of approximately $57,000 on which basis Madison's share amounted to just over 20 per cent. Owing to the new double taxation rules the payments to the Saskatchewan government, lost to the company, are considered taxable income ... so that for income tax purposes Madison is subject to tax on $11,710 plus $13,710; taxed at 45 per cent the payment due is $11,300- which were Madison in a taxable position (due to past losses we are not)-would leave Madison with $410 and the dominion government with $37,300. Had pre-1974 patterns continued we would, on the same oil, sold at the same price to the buyer, have been subject to royalty at 1214 per cent or so with the following result... total return, $57,000, operating costs, $5,860, royalty $7,125-leaving Madison with $44,815- instead of the pre-tax return of $11,710 which we received-a difference of $32,000 which would have permitted us to drill and complete one well somewhere, with the possibility of a discovery bringing us new income.
I think that sums up what this government has done to the oil industry. In the report of the Energy Board on Canadian natural gas supply and requirements recently tabled in the House, the board, which is a government appointed group, had this to say at page 84:
-a lack of adequate growth in deliverability resulting from low finding rates and from a lack of incentive for producers to explore for and develop new reserves because of inadequate and uncertain netback. Producers have moved drilling rigs and personnel to the United States and other areas where opportunities at this time appear to be more attractive. The decline in exploration and development activity starting two or more years ago is now being reflected in fewer reserves being available to maintain deliverability.
Further, they say:
An essential component of a solution to the problem of deliverability would appear to be a known system of pricing and a stable system of royalties and taxation adequate to provide producers with the incentive to carry out vigorous exploration and development programs.
Further, at page 86:
A further problem relates to the competition of the United States in particular, and the energy-short world in general, for drilling rigs, skilled personnel and investment funds. The uncertainty and lack of economic incentive on the Canadian scene in the past two years and the large exploration and development program under way in the

United States under more favourable incentives, have caused an exodus of equipment, men and money south of the border.
This tax has been made necessary only because the government has mismanaged the oil industry, and it is a tax that is most unpopular. It hits one segment of the motoring public that uses oil but is unfair in that it penalizes individuals who might live in areas where there is no public transport and who need their automobiles for daily commuting. It will bear more heavily on those who live in rural areas and must of necessity use their automobiles for even daily living, like trips to the grocery store.
If it has any value whatsoever, it must mean that the government should move within reason toward the world price for our highly valued oil and gas that are so very desirable. A two-price system has not prevented us from entry into a recessionary phase from which we may well be a long time emerging. Even today the industrial index has not bottomed out, and all indications are that Canada will lag far behind the United States in returning to a full-time industrial position.
During this coming recession it may well be necessary to raise the price of oil and gas to world levels, or even above, in order to encourage exploration and development of our energy sources. But, most of all, the federal government along with the provincial governments have not worked out a taxation structure that will likely ensure us a reasonably secure supply in the next few years.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, on budget night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) introduced a special excise tax on gasoline purchased for personal use. This ten cents a gallon tax is imposed on the producers and importers of gasoline and will be passed on to the consumer in its entirety. Provision will be made to refund the full amount of the tax on gasoline used for farming, fishing, construction, mining and most forms of commercial transportation.
There are a number of objectionable features to this tax with which I shall deal in a moment, but I suggest we cannot simply look at the tax alone. We have to look at the full range of proposals to change taxes which the minister has made and which I maintain will go a long way, by the time they are implemented, to wipe out most of the improvements in our social security system made by Liberal and Conservative governments over the last 25 years.
Let me make reference to some of the proposals of the minister. The hospital insurance plan, which was first begun by the province of Saskatchewan under a CCF government, was made a national plan really by a Conservative government which agreed to pay 50 per cent of a universal hospitalization plan that was implemented by a province. The minister has given notice that as soon as he can, the federal government will cease to pay the 50 per cent of the cost of hospitalization which it has paid since the commencement of the plan.
Similarly, in the case of medical insurance a number of provinces, particularly the province of Ontario, were, to say the least, loth to come into a medical insurance scheme. They thought that their people were adequately protected by the various voluntary plans in existence, and they felt that all they wanted from Ottawa was help in covering those people who had not seen their way clear to
July 18, 1975

joining a voluntary plan. At that time the federal government said-and I know they were right-that that was not good enough, that we must have a universal plan, one to which every citizen of a province belongs and by which he will receive protection against medical costs.
This was to be, and has been until now, a shared-cost program, with the federal government and the province each paying half. Now the minister has given notice that as soon as he can-which I think will be by 1985-Ottawa will no longer pay that 50 per cent, that there will be a limit on the amount Ottawa will pay in any year. If the increase in the actual cost is more than the federal government is prepared to pay, then obviously the provinces will have to meet the increase or cut the standard of services. The province of Manitoba calculates that its cost by the year 1985 to cover the shortfall from Ottawa for hospital and medical insurance will be between $40 million and $50 million a year. We should keep in mind that this is one of the smaller provinces.
Ottawa has been paying 50 per cent of the cost of post-secondary education, but this year that payment is being limited, in respect of an increase in any year, to a ceiling of 15 per cent. This year the provinces will receive $1181/2 million less than they would have received had the government not unilaterally imposed this ceiling. It is interesting to see that the province of Manitoba is hit the hardest. The province of Quebec, which has been faithful to the Liberal Party in electing members of parliament, this year will lose $82 million because of this unilateral decision of the federal government. The province of British Columbia will lose $20.7 million this year as a result of the decision to put a limit on the increase in respect of grants for post-secondary education.
We have heard much from Liberal prime ministers and Liberal ministers of national health and welfare about how great the Canada Assistance Plan is and the fact that it was a Liberal government which encouraged the provinces to consolidate and rationalize their social security programs under the Canada Assistance Plan. Ottawa paid 50 per cent of the cost. Now Ottawa says, quite unilaterally, that the days of the Canada Assistance Program are numbered. The federal government now proposes to replace the Canada Assistance Plan with a new series of acts including a proposed social services act. Under that act, the position of the federal government is that unless a province meets national guidelines it will not be permitted to receive 50 per cent of the cost of its programs from the federal government. That is a very worth-while objective.
If the provincial standards are lower than the standards set by the federal government, this would not be desirable, if this is one country in which we should have minimum standards which apply to every citizen regardless of where he lives. This limitation will also apply to any provinces which have programs in respect of which the standards are higher than the standards Ottawa has set for those provinces, so that the citizens of such provinces will begin to suffer as soon as Ottawa puts its intention into effect.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has been travelling from one end of the country to the other, talking very eloquently about income support
Excise Tax Act
programs and supplementation programs which the federal government proposes and in which they want the provinces to co-operate with them. Not once has the minister been willing to sit down with the provinces and estimate, with them, the cost of these programs. The programs about which he is talking may be good programs, but in light of what the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) intend to do with the shared-cost programs, it is not surprising that the provinces are at least suspicious.
Ottawa's timetable is very restrictive. The policy under the Canada Assistance Plan will go into effect in 1976-77, but the income supplementation program for the working poor, about which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been talking, will not become effective until 1978. The time to protect people against inflation is now. The time to stimulate the economy is now. Now, when we have an unemployment figure of 8 per cent, is the time we need assistance. Yet now is the time when the federal government is beginning to put the screws on and is turning them very hard.
Let me speak for a few moments about another proposal of the minister. I refer to the proposal to increase the unemployment insurance premium. We have heard a great deal, from one end of the country to the other, both inside and outside parliament, about the supposed rip-off of the unemployment insurance plan by people who really do not want to work. I have said before, and I say again, that I am sure there are some who fall into that category. I think in cases where such people are found, they should be weeded out so that they do not receive benefits. I believe the number of people receiving benefits to which they are not entitled is not very large. I would not have been surprised had the minister come forward with proposals to try to tighten up the qualifications for benefits so that people who really are not trying to find work would not be able to obtain benefits. Although I would not have been enthused by such a proposal, I would not have been surprised.
The proposal we have from the minister, and I presume from the government as a whole, is that the premiums be increased in respect of all the people, including those who work regularly, the people with steady jobs. These people will have to pay more money every payday. These people form the backbone of this plan. Those who work regularly will have to pay for the benefits of the unemployed who to a large extent are a result of the economic policies designed by the government to create more unemployment. It could not have been a more unfair or a more regressive proposal. The minister, in effect, is taxing the wrong people through this increased unemployment insurance premium.
Let us look at the tax on gasoline. I said that it is regressive. It makes no difference whether the person concerned has an income of $6,000 a year, $30,000 a year or $60,000 a year; he or she will have to pay ten cents extra, in the form of an excise tax, on every gallon of gas used, with the exception that some people who are able to prove to the satisfaction of the Department of National Revenue that they use their cars for business will be able to obtain a refund of part of the excise tax. The percentage of the refund these people receive will depend on the type of

July 18, 1975
Excise Tax Act
deduction they make in respect of automobile expenses for purposes of calculating their income tax.
This means that a doctor can probably get a refund of this tax, so can a lawyer, an architect or a salesman. They can all get refunds on all or part of this tax. But what about the worker who has no other means of getting to work except driving his car? He has no chance at all, although he is probably in the $6,000 or $7,000 a year category, as compared to the businessman who is in the $30,000 or $50,000 a year category. But, as has always been the case with Liberal governments and Liberal finance ministers, "to those that have shall be given."
One would have thought that if we are in a situation where it is obvious that we must begin to think about a more rational use of our resources-and one of the ways of conserving our resources would be to reduce the use of gasoline-we would have had an entirely different set of proposals from the minister. We should have had a serious attempt to implement, not wild ideas advanced by wideeyed visionaries who have no practical experience with life or government, but the promises made by the Prime Minister in the election campaign last year.
Let me summarize a couple of speeches which the Prime Minister made, both of which were reported in the Montreal Gazette. On June 17, the Prime Minister, in a speech in Toronto, announced a $270 million program to aid public transit. He said the Liberal government would pay 100 per cent of the cost of Canadian-made commuter vehicles and 50 per cent of the cost of platforms and stations. The government would also pay 25 per cent of the cost of Canadian-manufactured vehicles for public transit within cities. Encouragement and assistance would be given to smaller municipalities in the creation of new transit systems. Canadian industry would be encouraged to develop passenger vehicles, and experimentation with new transit systems would be assisted by federal financing of demonstration projects.
The next day the Prime Minister was speaking in Cornwall, and he said that the Liberal government would take responsibility for rail passenger service out of the hands of CNR and CPR and entrust the task to a new Crown corporation. The corporation would run high-speed rail services in heavily populated areas such as the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, it would introduce luxurious transcontinental excursion trains and establish a super bus service between medium-sized cities.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Was that during the election?


David Orlikow: Yes. Those were just two speeches the Prime Minister made. I wish I had more time to put on the record all the promises the Prime Minister made about what the Liberal government would do in the field of transportation. We have not seen hide nor hair of any of these promises. Has there been the slightest beginning in this respect? We do not have plans and proposals which would help the ordinary person. What we have is the kind of blunderbuss proposal that we are debating today, the ten cents tax on gasoline. One would think that ordinary citizens had a choice about whether or not they should use

their cars. I will give just one illustration from my own city of Winnipeg because I know it best.
My son-in-law lives four miles due east of where he works. He can drive to work in the morning and drive back in the afternoon in less than ten minutes. But if he wanted to co-operate with the Minister of Finance and cut down on the use of his car, and if he wanted to use the public transit system, unfortunately for him the main direction of the transit system in the city of Winnipeg is not east-west but north-south. So if he wanted to go to work using the public transit system, he would have to take a bus, transfer twice, go all the way downtown and all the way back to his place of work. It would take him-I am speaking very cautiously and conservatively-about one hour and 15 minutes at the minimum, as compared to ten minutes by car.
Did the minister give any thought to that kind of problem? Of course not. All he was concerned about was to prove to the people of Canada that he was concerned about inflation. The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), when he spoke yesterday said, in effect, "You people in the opposition who are criticizing this tax are not facing up to the fact that this great Liberal government is pledged to protect those parts of Canada which have to to be served by imported oil, and this will help to pay the cost of subsidizing their expensive oil". What is the cost of that subsidy? It is about $350 million. The hon. member for Scarborough West said that the minister had to find the money and that is what the tax is for.
It is a laudable desire. People in the maritime provinces, the people in Quebec and all the people east of the Ottawa River should have assistance in keeping the price of oil and gas down. But was that the only place from which the minister could get the money? I do not believe that for a moment, because if one looks at the minister's budget of November, 1974, and then at his budget of June, 1975, one finds two illustrations of alternatives which the minister could have used. In his November, 1974, budget the minister extended to all corporations the fast write-off provision for the purchase of equipment. The loss of revenue to the federal government from that one measure alone, according to the minister, himself, for this current year is over $500 million. In his budget of June, 1975, the minister introduced a new investment tax credit for corporations. This will lead to a further loss of revenue to the federal government of at least $200 million this year.
In these two provisions alone the minister gave up over $700 million in revenue this year-twice as much as the minister will get from his ten cents a gallon tax. I say that that tax was, and is, unnecessary; it will bear down hardest on the people who can least afford to pay it. What will the tax mean to the ordinary citizen? It has been calculated by economists, and not challenged by the government or the minister, that the ten cents a gallon excise tax and the $1.50 increase on a barrel of crude oil, which the minister is approving, will increase the cost by 2 per cent; it will cost the motorist who drives 15,000 miles a year, and who gets 20 miles to the gallon in his car, between $75 and $90 a year to drive his car. The $1.50 a barrel increase in the price of oil will cost him $35 to $40 a year, and the cost of heating his home will increase by $60 a year. This, I assume, is just for cities such as Ottawa, Toronto, and
July 18, 1975

Montreal and does not apply to cities such as Edmonton and Winnipeg where it is much colder, and it certainly does not apply to the northern part of Canada where it is necessary to heat a home for six or more months a year.
These are the effects this excise tax will have on the ordinary citizen in this country. I have already indicated that the minister could have obtained the extra revenue he needed by not going ahead with the extra goodies he promised to corporations in the last year or two. He could also have increased the income tax. At least in theory, income tax is a progressive tax, if one can ignore all the little gimmicks which permit people in the upper income brackets to avoid paying their fair share of tax. At least in principle income tax is collected from those who are best able to pay. But no, the minister had to apply this tax which is very regressive.
The minister expressed the hope that the excise tax, combined with the increase which will be at least 5 cents per gallon and probably more, would encourage motorists to make their driving habits more efficient in terms of saving gasoline. There is no hard evidence that such price increases have anything but a temporary effect on consumption. The Statistics Canada table entitled "Canadian Crude Oil Requirements-Anticipated and Actual Refinery Receipts of Crude Oil" show that the demand for crude oil by refineries has been increasing every year and that there is a rigidity in the present patterns of gasoline consumption. From 1971 to 1975 there was an increase in refinery production from 51 million barrels to 68 million barrels-an increase of over 25 per cent. While that was happening, the price of oil was increasing from $4 to $6.50 per barrel and now it will be increased to $8 per barrel.
I could understand this if there was evidence that the oil companies needed the increases they have received over the years. Let me remind the minister that in 1971 the oil companies were receiving between $2.80 and $2.90 per barrel for western oil. They were doing very well. They were arguing that they needed price increases to expand and to explore for new oil, and so on, and they were indicating that they needed price increases of the nature of ten cents per barrel, per year, for ten years. In other words, by 1981 they would have been looking for $3.80 per barrel. Mr. Speaker, it is not 1981, it is only 1975, and they already will be receiving $8 per barrel. They are doing this because this government has refused to get involved in planning to meet our needs. We do not really know what our oil reserves are. We have to go on from year to year depending essentially on the information we obtain from the oil companies. This information has fluctuated wildly, as it suited the oil companies, for their own good and for the good of the multinational owners of these corporations, but not for the good of Canadian citizens.
A former Liberal cabinet minister, Mr. Kierans, has pointed out that the Canadian Petroleum Association published misleading statements of Canadian oil and gas reserves in 1970 in order to encourage the federal government to authorize exports to the United States. He warned that we are in a desperate situation, which we are. That desperate situation was highlighted yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) in his announcement about new restrictions on the sale and
Excise Tax Act
distribution of natural gas. Mr. Kierans warned that we are in a desperate situation because of the massive amounts of oil which we in Canada sold to the United States at $3 per barrel until last year, and we must now develop it at a probable cost of $13.70 per barrel. In 1970 the Canadian Petroleum Association estimated that Canada had 125 billion barrels of oil and 725 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, when in fact we had only 7.7 billion barrels of oil and 52.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
It was on the basis of that kind of information that the federal government and the National Energy Board allowed the export of up to 1.2 million barrels of oil per day and an additional 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the United States in the early 1970s. Do we have any more real information now than we had in 1970 when the National Energy Board and the government permitted that disastrous sale at those ridiculous, disgracefully low prices to the United States-sales which had to be made if we were to honour contracts entered into? I am one of those who realizes that it is difficult, if not impossible, to back out of a contract made in good faith.
How did we make that decision? We made it on the recommendation of the National Energy Board. Did it have its own technical people, its own geologists, engineers and economists who were able to obtain the information and to assess it in a way which was beneficial for the people of Canada, or did it in fact depend almost exclusively on information obtained from the oil and gas companies, information which was slanted to be of benefit to those corporations and not to the people of Canada? I must ask the minister whether we are in any better position in 1975 to make the kind of decisions we ought to be making than we were in 1970. I doubt it.
When I listen to the minister-another apologist for the government-and the oil companies talk about the necessity for higher oil and gas prices, which will mean higher costs for the people of Canada, I listen in amazement and wonder on what they base their arguments. I am not an expert in business, but I can read the English language and I think I understand what I read. Since coming to Ottawa I have received the Toronto Globe and Mail every morning. I refer the Minister of Finance to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of May 16, 1975, under the heading "Western oils turn in best profit performance in quarter with 48.1 per cent increase". What does it say in the first paragraph of that article? It reads as follows:
With a 48.1 per cent year-over-year increase, western oils turned in the best profit performance in a preliminary Report on Business survey of after-tax profits of Canadian corporations for the first quarter. They did the same thing in three of the past four quarters.
Has the minister never asked the oil companies, "Isn't enough enough"? If he has, I wish he would send me a copy of the text, because I do not remember him ever making that kind of speech. But I do remember the minister saying that workers who ask for wage increases, not of 48 per cent but of 15 and 18 per cent, to keep up with the increase in the cost of living are being unreasonable, unpatriotic and that they are going to wreck the economy.

July 18, 1975
Excise Tax Act
We have had that kind of speech from the minister quite often, but we do not hear it when it comes to oil companies. They get a further increase in price. I went to the parliamentary library and got the Financial Post "Survey of Oils for 1975". I should like to put a few of the figures on the record. Hon. members know that I am one of those terrible socialists who does not have much use for the free enterprise system. Let us see what the Financial Post says about some of the oil companies. Take Imperial Oil's net income, that is, after taxes and everything else: 1971, $136 million; 1972, $151 million; 1973, $228 million; the Globe and Mail of January 24, 1975, shows their 1974 net income was $290 million.
Maybe Imperial Oil is an exception, so let us look at Gulf Canada, another poor oil company which needs that increase or it will go broke tomorrow. In 1971 they had a net income of $53 million; 1972, $64 million; 1973, $101 million. They have not released the figures for 1974, but we can be sure they are in the same "marginal" increase range as Imperial Oil.


Mr. Boulanger:: How many employees do they have?


David Orlikow: Of course, they have Canadian people working and Canadian customers buying their products. That is the point. Let us look at Shell Canada. In 1971 their net income was $61 million; in 1972, $78 million; 1973, $112 million. I do not have figures for 1974, but no doubt they will be in the same range as Imperial Oil.
When is enough enough, Madam Speaker? How much more do the Canadian people have to pay to keep the poor oil companies in business? The minister says that we have to give them higher oil prices, and unless we do they will not look for new oil; and if we do not find new oil, of course, we will be out of it. I think we have a right to compare the oil industry with the electric power industry.


Prosper Boulanger: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: The hon. member is always interjecting. I like to have his interjections, particularly when I am not on a 20 minute limit. But I would like to hear the hon. member make his own speech some time. I do not mind his interjections, but some members are disconcerted by his bleating.
In Manitoba they are bringing into production power from the Nelson River. That is a long way from where the power will be used. The plants and transmission lines will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and the power will probably cost three or four times as much as the power now being used in Manitoba. Ontario is building a nuclear power station whose power will cost four or five times more than the power at Niagara Falls. They do not tell the people of the province that it is going to cost four times as much for the nuclear power; therefore they want them to pay four times as much as for the cheap power they are getting now. They put the two costs together and come up with one price.
We have oil in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the companies were making good money selling it at $3 a barrel and less. Now they want $8, $10 and $12 per barrel, not only for the new oil which they hope to find in the

Arctic or off the east coast, which will be very expensive, but they want the same price for the oil they found years ago on which they are going to make tens of millions of dollars. The minister goes along with that and says we have to give them the increased price.
The Canadian citizen is going to have to pay through the nose for every gallon of gasoline he buys for his car, for every gallon of heating oil for his home, for every cubic foot of natural gas for his home, for every bit of gas used to fuel the industries.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


David Orlikow: I wonder if I could have a few more minutes, Madam Speaker.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would like a few moments, or a minute, if he could put it into that time-frame-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. This can only be done by unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There being no agreement, the hon. member cannot continue. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen).


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Madam
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-66 which is another expose of the iniquities that this government heaps on the Canadian people. I cannot help but reflect on the speech made last night by the hon. ornithologist from Skeena who was long on emotional metaphors and dramatic nuances but very short on logic.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Oh, come on now. Be nice.


Benno Friesen: The weaker the argument, the more strident her voice became. She provided a lot of laughs for government members, but I can assure this House that no one is laughing in the federal riding of Skeena, at Burns Lake, Ootsa Lake, Francois Lake. They are not laughing on the streets of Smithers or Kitimat and the union shops there, or in the shopping centres at Terrace or Prince Rupert, and certainly not at Port Clements or Charlotte City. She says her riding supports the ten-cent tax. I can see it now: when she gets off the plane for the summer recess, there will be senior citizens welcoming her with bated breath to thank her for this opportunity to give the Government of Canada another ten cents per gallon for gas.
The taxi drivers will be lining up to say they have been waiting for a long time for an opportunity to pay another tax to the federal government. The fishermen and independent loggers will say, "We know that each of us cannot go to Ottawa, but in our stead you shall go to the Minister of Finance and thank him personally for this
July 18, 1975

opportunity to give another ten cents a gallon to the federal government. Tell him the people of Skeena thank the government for this opportunity."
Let us look for a moment at the impeccable flow of logic from the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) in support of this new tax. The second half of her speech criticized regional disparities in Canada. She pointed out that the west is getting short shrift and is being shoddily dealt with in confederation. She is right. For example, if you buy an airline ticket from Toronto to Ottawa, the cost is approximately $70. If you buy a ticket to fly from Vancouver to Prince George, approximately the same distance, you pay 30 per cent more, or $100. There is good example of regional disparity, and it cannot be justified.
I think all members on this side agree on the existence of regional disparity, especially between the north and south of Canada, and we say it cannot be justified. I well remember the royal commission the hon. member spoke about, the one of 1964 headed by Cyril Shelford, or inspired by Cyril Shelford when he was working for the British Columbia government. I think he got the double shuffle. I have travelled extensively in northern British Columbia and I know that the people of the region are paying too much for gasoline. I understand perfectly what the hon. member is saying, but I point out that the official opposition did not do that of which she complains. The opposition did not create that disparity. Yet the first half of the hon. member's speech was devoted almost entirely to berating the opposition. She calls our approach ostrichlike and accuses us of putting our heads in the sand. Incidentally, if she will check I think she will find that her ornithology is not quite correct.


An hon. Member:: Her speech was for the birds.


Benno Friesen: The opposition has criticized the government for that very reason. We object to this country's disparities. The question remains, why did the hon. member devote the first half of her speech to berating the opposition, when she agrees with the opposition? If she looks closely, she will find that the ostrich is coming close to her, and has come back to roost.


Iona Campagnolo: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to note that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) is so adept at naming places in my constituency. I wonder if he is as adept at naming places in his own. In any event, the voters of the constituency of Surrey-White Rock are asking where he stands on the issues on which he is speaking. I suggest that he should devote some time to his own people, rather than to mine, who are being looked after very well.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member for Skeena that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) said in this House that the people of Surrey-White Rock are being well served by their member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: That is not exactly what he meant.


An hon. Member:: But that's what he said.
Excise Tax Act


Benno Friesen: It strikes me that there is an appropriate line in Hamlet, which could be applied to the hon. lady: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Near the beginning of Hamlet a character says that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark-I submit that it is not only in Denmark.
Let us consider this tax. The minister suggests that the budget is non-inflationary, that he is introducing a noninflationary tax-if there is such a thing-and non-inflationary policies. Let us examine the workings of these policies. A man came to see me and we had a long discussion about the very problem we are considering today. That man is a small businessman in my community. He runs a small bus line, and is responsible for a total payroll of $150,000. His profit margin is not wide.
I understand that rebates from the tax department are now running between six months and one year behind time. The bus company expects this tax to add $1,000 a year to costs. Because the operator is operating on a small margin of profit he will probably need to borrow that $1,000 at 14 per cent, which means that the company must pay extra expenses of $1,400. This man has to make up this cost somewhere. He cannot pull the money out of a hat, as the government seems to be able to do; therefore he must consider increased rates. He has a contract with the local school board. The school board must get its money from school taxes, and school taxes in British Columbia, as the hon. member for Skeena knows, are away beyond the reach of the individual taxpayer. The operator also runs charters for senior citizens and others.
If the bus company wants to increase its rates, it must justify the increase before the Transport Commission. The Transport Commission will not sit for three months. What is the company to do in the meantime? How is it to survive? If tax upon tax is imposed on such small companies, the only alternative they face, sooner or later, is to sell out.


An hon. Member:: Or give the company to the
government.


Benno Friesen: The owner can either sell to the government, or to a large corporation-to the sort of large, multinational corporation the hon. member berated so strongly.
Let me digress. Today the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce introduced phase II of his program which is designed to limit foreign investment. We know, I think, that most of our foreign investment comes from the United States. United States companies take over small Canadian companies which can no longer bear the kind of tax burden the government is forcing on them. Large, multinational corporations can bear the burden. They can pass on the extra cost to the consumer, but the small companies cannot hold out. And the hon. member help up Petro-Can as the panacea for all the ills brought on by the greed of large, multinational corporations. I ask this: if a bureaucrat switches from a multinational corporation to a government, does he thereby become a pillar of morality, a bastion of morality?
My socialist friends keep talking about equality, but there is one equality they always tend to overlook, the equality of human nature and man's tendency to evil. No matter whether you work for a government or a private

July 18, 1975
Excise Tax Act
corporation, temptation is there. The temptations and the greed still exists. The possibility of mismanagement is just as great, whether you work for a private corporation or for the government. Incidentally, the role of government is to exercise some control, either by passing laws or by appealing to conscience.
This new tax will entail simply another cost which large corporations can easily pass on to consumers but which small companies will not be able to cope with and, consequently, sooner or later they will sell out to large corporations.
If the tax were imposed only to conserve energy I could argue in support of it, on condition that the motorist is provided with an alternative.
One year ago I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promising a $1 billion urban transport policy. The Prime Minister promised that, when travelling across the country. We were wafted to the Elysian fields by the Prime Minister's dulcet tones promising answers to our transportation headaches.


An hon. Member:: Do you like poetry?


Benno Friesen: I love poetry. Does the hon. member prefer John Donne, Shakespeare, Spencer, Chaucer or Matthew Arnold? Take your pick.


John Napier Turner: We will take the hon. member, the bard of White Rock. He is just great.


Benno Friesen: Yes, the Prime Minister made a memorable trip across the country one year ago. Incidentally, about the only time he crosses this country is during election campaigns. The rest of the time he likes to go to places like Bermuda, Switzerland, and so on. Since that trip we have heard no word about alternatives for the motorist. He must now pay this tax, this unfair tax, and he has no alternative. The commuter who moved from the heart of the city to get away from the problems of urbanization, or because he wanted cheaper housing, is now forced to pay an extra $1, $1.50 or $2 per week in tax, just because he tried to save a buck. There is no way we can justify this.
Let me make one more point-I am sure this will come as a relief to government members. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) promised a reduction in the rate of bureaucratic growth. That is the absolute conundrum in the face of-


John Napier Turner: That's a nice word.


Benno Friesen: Nice, isn't it?


John Napier Turner: Yes, it is very nice.


Benno Friesen: I will use it again. That is an absolute conundrum in the face of the refund policy the Minister of Finance wants to impose on the country. He says he wants to reduce the growth of the bureaucracy from 9,300 to 6,000. Much against my nature, I would simply caution that the minister will need that army of bureaucrats to shuffle the papers and get out the rebates within a year. They will be needed for income tax.
[Mr. Friesen.)


Steve Eugene Paproski: Use Information Canada; they are not doing a damn thing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: I remind the government members that since they plan to go home next weekend, they ought to spend the intervening time looking for answers that will help them face the voters to whom they promised so much a year ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Iona Campagnolo: No, Madam Speaker. I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to thank the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) for his personal attack. It is only by his words that I know I have been finally accepted on equal terms with the 255 male members here.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


Iona Campagnolo: Yes, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Will the hon. member accept a question?


Benno Friesen: Yes.


Iona Campagnolo: The Parliamentary Guide lists the hon. member as having been born in 1959, which would make him 16 years old. I would like to know whether he was born in that year.


Benno Friesen: If the hon. member would read a little further, she would find that I was born ten years before my daughter.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.


Benno Friesen: It is obvious from the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) that the rest of her family has the last word, which is, "Yes, dear".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Madam Speaker, it is going to be somewhat difficult to follow the oratorical skill of my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen).


John Napier Turner: That will be no trouble at all.


John Robert Holmes: I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-66. The regressive measures embodied in this bill, for example the excise tax on gasoline, the air transportation tax, and the other inadequacies of the
-ily 18, 1975

easure such as the removal of the sales tax on insulation *fleet the failure of the budget which the minister *ought down last June.
The over all impact of the budget on the Canadian :onomy has been adequately described by previous leakers. The inflationary effect of the budget, including le excise tax on gasoline, the degree of unemployment lat will result from the budgetary items, and the negative feet it will have on the growth of the gross national roduct, are all part of the record. However, the notable *ature about the budget has not been the technical anal-sis of the effect it will have on inflation, unemployment, r the gross national product, but the instantaneous nega-ve reaction of the working man and woman, those on low nd fixed incomes.
I do not recall when my correspondence and telephone ills have been heavier or busier with constituents regis-?ring legitimate complaints about the discriminatory spects of the budget and the dire consequences it will ave on their future.
I am certain the minister must be receiving similar omplaints from his constituents, and indeed from across 'anada. I have no intention of reading the correspondence ito Hansard, but it may be useful to the minister in his eassessment of the budget if I mention the nature of the omplaints received.
Not unexpectedly the major objection is related to the pecial excise tax of ten cents per gallon on gasoline for ersonal use, with an exemption for industrial and commercial users through rebates. I will have more to say bout that later.
The second matter that has been brought to my atten-ion is the increase in unemployment insurance premiums ffective early in 1976, plus other proposed measures, in >articular those related to employees retiring, which pro-losals are meeting with opposition.
Although the removal of the sales tax on insulation naterial has received minimal notice, the reaction to the nadequacies of budgetary matters related to housing are lotable.
The increase in the wellhead price of oil and the ncreased price of natural gas, with their obvious impact >n the average consumer struggling against the relentless ncrease in inflation, are of concern to my constituents ind, what is more important, they are faced with the ealization and fear that the government cannot or will mot introduce measures to reverse this feeling of lelplessness.
I want to turn to a very important matter in the budget, *nergy. The adverse effects that the energy proposals, ncluding the excise tax of 10 cents, will have on inflation ind unemployment, have been stressed by previous speak-;rs. It has been estimated that the measures introduced by he minister will add two points to the consumer price ndex and, in Ontario alone, will cost the citizens an idditional $700 million annually.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in presenting his judget indicated that the price of crude oil must rise to [DOT]vorld price levels. He also emphasized the policy of a iingle national price for crude oil. I can accept the argu-nents in principle. He made reference to the importance
Excise Tax Act
of a conservation program. I agree with and accept in principle the policy of a single national price for crude oil. I will mention later than I think the minister has taken a most discriminatory route to accomplish this. I have no difficulty in recognizing that there should be differences in terms of variations in price with respect to transportation costs.
I would support a program that encourages exploration and development to ensure continuing supplies to all Canadians. I would welcome and encourage a more aggressive program in research and development. I would respond in a positive fashion if the government truly demonstrated leadership in the development of a conservation program. I can understand the arguments to maintain a world price for export.
However, having made these observations, one might reasonably have expected that the budget would have contained measures designed to assure Canadians of energy supplies, measures to ensure further exploration or to promote something tangible by way of research and development; or we might have looked for a bolder and more imaginative conservation policy. But it is impossible to find any such proposals in the budgetary measures.
Further, what the minister has failed to explain, and what such a policy of world price fails to recognize, is that foreign oil-producing countries have established artificially higher prices, producing massive cash surpluses. Many thoughtful Canadians reject the necessity of Canadian consumers being exploited in the purchase of their own resources so as to maintain an artificial world price. The minister has a responsibility to explain in more detail the simplistic approach of adopting an artificial world price figure, particularly at a time of rapid increase in inflation and growing unemployment.
Earlier in the debate the Minister of Finance was very critical of the province of Ontario, in particular of its attitude toward energy matters. In my view the Ontario minister of finance acted responsibly by coming to the defence of the working man and woman, and of those living on fixed incomes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: I wish to commend the comments made by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) of the New Democratic Party in his defence of Ontario and its responsible attitude toward energy matters over the years. It should not be forgotten that Ontario has supported a national oil policy for 11 years simply to stimulate the development of the oil and gas industry in Canada. I find it deplorable that the government should ignore this when it finds it convenient to do so.
As I indicated earlier, a major part of my correspondence and of the phone calls I am receiving concerns the excise tax of ten cents a gallon on gasoline for personal use. There is no question that this is a most discriminatory tax measure. Indeed, it is the most discriminatory and oppressive tax I have seen since coming to Ottawa in 1972. The minister tells us that such action is required to close the gap between the payments needed to hold down the

July 18, 1975
Excise Tax Act
cost of imported oil for eastern consumers and the revenues from the charge on oil exports to the United States.
I have no difficulty in accepting the principle of a one-price policy for Canada, but surely it is obvious to the minister that under his proposals the burden of carrying out this policy will be shouldered by those who can least afford it. As I indicated previously, I have received substantial representation strongly protesting this regressive measure. As one might expect, protestations came from men and women living in small towns and villages who drive, in many instances, more than 50 miles to and from work. They are excellent citizens, they work regularly, and they wish nothing more than to be able to raise their families in a small town or rural setting. What is the minister's answer to this? What is the penalty he exacts? It is a gasoline tax of ten cents a gallon. Surely the minister is aware of the difficulty many small towns are experiencing in maintaining their viability. This is simply another measure which will tend to add to the exodus of some inhabitants from the rural areas.
It has been suggested that car pools could be used to counteract any hardship. But this method of transportation was in use long before the introduction of the ten cents tax. Many people are already using it to counteract the spiralling increase in the cost of living. It must be obvious, too, that pleas for a rapid transit system would have little relevance to people living in an area such as my own.
I cannot accept a one-price crude oil policy the cost of which must be borne by the working man or woman and other individuals who live on fixed or low incomes. Of all the options available to the minister as a means of maintaining a one-price policy, he has chosen the most discriminatory and regressive.
The minister also gave us to understand that this tax measure was intended to encourage immediate conservation of gasoline. Surely the minister cannot be serious in believing that the introduction of an excise tax amounting to ten cents a gallon will conserve energy. He should realize that previous increases in gasoline prices have not reduced consumption. Indeed, statistics confirm that there was an increase in consumption at the same time as prices were rising.
The simple fact is that the automobile remains and will continue to be the most essential and important mode of transportation in the foreseeable future despite glowing reports about the possibilities of rapid transit systems and other modes of travel. I have no doubt Canadians will respond to a reasonable and responsible program designed to conserve energy but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they will not accept this as a true conservation measure; they will recognize the proposal for what it is-a guise for collecting tax dollars for the federal coffers.
I wish to make a few brief remarks with respect to the imposition of the tax at producer and importer levels. The minister, in introducing his discussion paper on commodity taxation, was obviously aware of existing pricing systems and the inequities introduced by imposing taxes at the manufacturers' level. It must be apparent to the minister that his decision to place the excise tax on producers and importers means that the ten cents a gallon increase is likely to be 11 cents or 12 cents in future months.

During the course of this debate several members have drawn attention to the administrative nightmare which would be involved in supervising and policing the refund program. The minister, with some justification, has declined to comment on the size of the bureaucracy that will be needed, or on the cost which will be incurred in the handling of such a program. I use the words "with some justification" because I have contacted the Department of National Revenue seeking answers to questions asked by constituents regarding eligibility for exemption. And the department does not know the answers.
I find it ironical that earlier this week the government House leader should have been pleading with the opposition parties to deal quickly with this bill, implying that any hold-up in its passage would result in a delay in the payment of refunds, responsibility for which would then fall on opposition members. I wish to congratulate my hon. friend from Peace River for pointing out that under the Financial Administration Act, section 17 as I recall, it is possible for the government to proceed with these rebates.
If the government House leader is truly interested in relieving the taxpayer and reducing the numbers of an unproductive bureaucracy he would encourage the Minister of Finance to withdraw this iniquitous bill rather than call for its speedy passage. As I say, I can appreciate the minister's reluctance to discuss the administrative cost of this program, particularly following the announcement that the growth of the public service was to be reduced. He knows perfectly well that the administration of this program will be a severe blow to any program of restraint. Indeed, I read an article during the past week or two that appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail, indicating that the administration of the program will require at a minimum 1,000 people, and a multimillion dollar price tag.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock referred in his speech to the difficulty with the rebate. I have had a similar experience this past week and I think it is analogous to what we will be experiencing with this measure in the future. I refer specifically to the beef industry assistance program. May I remind hon. members that this program covered the period from March 16, 1974, to April 30, 1975, and it was a support program with a price of $23.21 a hundredweight for grades D-l, D-2, D-3 and D-4 cows.
This past weekend I had a call from a constituent who sold cows in November of last year, and again in January of this year, but has received no word about the subsidy payment. On returning I checked with the department this week, and not one payment has been made since the introduction of this program. More than that, the staff had increased by 400 per cent during this period. It is not difficult to realize the magnitude of the proposed program that the Minister of Finance has talked about and the difficulties that we can experience, when a program of the magnitude of the beef industry assistance program has obviously been an absolute failure.
Another measure that I referred to earlier was the removal of the sales tax on insulation. Although a modest step in the right direction, once again it is a symptom of the inadequacy of the June budget. If there was one area that justified the intervention of the federal government
July 18, 1975

in a meaningful way for both economic and social reasons, it was certainly in the area of housing.
In response to this critical problem the minister has simply injected funds which do not meet half of Ontario's needs to correct the housing crisis that exists in Canada. Yet these funds are expected to resolve the entire problem. In addition, in this particular bill we have the introduction of the removal of the sales tax on insulation. Surely, as indicated in the past, it would be more prudent for the government to have eliminated the remaining 5 per cent sales tax on all building materials.
When the minister reduced the 11 per cent sales tax it was indicated during argument at that time that the entire tax should be removed because the cost involved in administering the program would not be commensurate with the net gain. We also pointed out that the removal of the entire tax would have a very positive effect upon the housing situation in Canada.
What is happening at the moment, Madam Speaker? With the introduction of this new tax measure, obviously the revenue accruing to the government will be somewhat less. Yet we know that the same administrative cost will be present. However, we must recognize that there will be additional administrative costs to the housing supply industry to handle this tax exemption, and it will therefore negate to a great extent some of the effect of the 5 per cent sales tax reduction. As I said a moment ago, it would surely have made far more sense to eliminate the 5 per cent sales tax on all building materials.
I expressed earlier the disappointment that has been experienced, certainly in my area, and the concern that has been expressed over the budgetary aspects in relation to housing. Despite the removal of the tax on insulation and other budgetary matters, there will be little effect on the supply side of mortgage funding, and almost negligible effect on the stimulation of housing starts.
The inadequacy of the proposals is quite obvious and has been outlined by many members, both during the budget debate and in this debate. As I indicated earlier, the $200 million allocation does not even constitute 50 per cent of Ontario's repeated requests and demands for additional funding commitments. For the first five months of 1975 housing starts were projected to be 176,000. The additional $200 million increase will provide for approximately 7,500 new starts. I would point out to the minister, as I am sure he is aware, that this combined figure falls short by 13.6 per cent of the government's goal of 210,000 starts, and 25.9 per cent short of the Economic Council's suggestion.
Both the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) and the Minister of Finance have cited soaring land costs and the unavailability of serviced land as two of the major causes accounting for the poor housing situation. Yet as I interpret the budget, no provision is made for municipal funding which will be necessary in order to release serviced land on to the market or to abate the escalating cost of land.
Another feature in the budget that concerns me is the $1,200 mortgage subsidy to builders for home construction, and the $900 subsidy for rental accommodation. As I understand this subsidy program, it terminates on March 31, 1976. In effect, the government is attempting to lure
Excise Tax Act
potential home owners into the housing market with attractive mortgage subsidies, but again, as I understand it, there is no provision for continuing financial support.
I think a very valid question must be asked here. What happens come March 31 when the home owner is suddenly faced with a $50 a month increase in his mortgage payment? I ask, will the Minister of Finance be there to assist him with this particular measure?
I am glad to see that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is in the Chamber because he and the government have attempted to justify the reduced activity in the housing market on the basis of the success of the AHOP program. However, because of the income and dwelling cost restrictions of this program, a large number of people qualifying for AHOP are unable to purchase a single family dwelling. There is also growing evidence that private AHOP is not being well received and is not expected to result in a significant net addition to the funding supply as it will be largely funded from money already earmarked for housing.
In summary, Madam Speaker, I have tried to point out those matters of particular concern to the constituency I represent. In particular I have emphasized that the excise tax on gasoline is a most discriminatory and regressive tax measure. I have also tried to point out the inadequacies of the budget in the field of housing, and a symptom of this inadequacy of the budget is the reduction of the sales tax on insulation. As I have indicated, I very strongly suggest that the Minister of Finance reconsider this particular bill and remove this iniquitous taxation that is before us at the present time.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I want to take brief part in this debate because I think that what is being perpetrated upon the House of Commons, and more particularly upon the people of Canada, is not simply a measure that is very nearly fraudulent when it is said it is the only way revenues can be raised, but is also a measure that is very unfair. It is as inequitable in its application as any measure that could be devised by a government to hit the little guy. This tax hits the little guy who is not in a position to pass on his costs, and provides havens for people who might be able to hide their cost under this clause and claim benefits for professional or other reasons.
It is a grotesquely unfair bill. I am not surprised that only a scattered few backbench members on the government side have had the courage to defend this bill because they know their constituents read the record, and when their constituents read that they have defended the ten cents Turner tax which applies unfairly to the poor and those who cannot shift it off, they know that their chances of being re-elected to this House diminish. If they dispute this statement, let them get up and defend this iniquituous tax which applies unfairly to those least able to bear it.
Today I wish to speak about two aspects of this measure. The first is the conservation aspect, so-called. The second is the unfairness of the impact. I want to speak in constituency terms because all of us come from constituencies. Many of us would prefer to be back at our constituencies,

July 18, 1975
Excise Tax Act
and if the government would come to its senses and devise a fair way to meet its revenue problems we would be able to get back more quickly.
I do not want to start speaking immediately about the impact of this tax on my constituency. I am sorry the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) left the House a few moments ago. I passed him on the stairway and invited him back to hear my remarks, but he declined the opportunity. I want to draw attention to the very real problems this ten cents Turner tax causes the constituents of Ottawa-Carleton, to take one example, because the constituency which is represented by the Minister of Finance is one which, among other things, contains commuters who must drive from where they live to their work, whether it be from Cumberland, Vars, Russell, Navan, Sarsfield or Orleans, whether their work be in this city or elsewhere. As I understand it they will not be able to claim this as an expense. The burden of the extra ten cents will fall straight on the shoulders of the people who must commute to work from the communities in the constituency of the minister.
What is particularly inequitable about this is that if these individuals want to come to Ottawa to see their Member of Parliament they would have to pay ten cents a gallon extra for that privilege of seeing him, but if the minister deigns to go to see his constituents-and perhaps he does not do that very often now that he has brought in this unfair tax which lies particularly heavily upon the commuters and people in the villages I have enumerated- he will probably travel in a Government of Canada limousine and will not have to bear the burden of the tax. This is not a tax for the minister but is a tax for his constituents. That is a most unfair situation.
Before leaving the subject of the constituency of Ottawa-Carleton I might say that if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were to visit Navan, to take one place as an example, not only would there be a cost involved to the people who might drive to Navan to see this magnetic personality but also to the Government of Canada, particularly the Department of National Defence, which probably would have to pay for the helicopter that is the preferred way of travel of this conservation minded Prime Minister.
Let me deal for a moment with some of the very severe problems this unfair tax imposes upon the people in the constituency I represent. There are constituents of mine who commute distances of 150 miles per day in order to get to and from their work. They will not be in a position to claim any rebate or to shift the burden of this ten cents tax. The example I have given is perhaps an extreme one. It represents the distance from Whitecourt to Swan Hills and back. However, there are constituents of mine, and there are constituents of many other members, whether they be in urban or rural areas, who will have to pay through the nose in order to meet this unfair tax that lies particularly upon the little guy, the one who cannot cast off the tax under some kind of write-off.
Indeed in my constituency some of the individuals who are commuting are forced to commute because of a federal policy. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which is responsible for our national parks, has laid down a directive that Banff and Jasper may not

grow too large, and therefore many people must live elsewhere such as in Hinton or Canmore, and drive from there to work and then back home again at night. That situation was difficult enough at the best of times, but is now much more difficult because of this unfair ten cents tax which will be imposed upon these people very soon. It is a grotesquely unfair tax.
I received a letter the other day from a lady in Montreal who is very much concerned about conservation matters. She devotes a great deal of her time to voluntary work in an attempt to stop the government following some of the policies that offend the environment of Canada. In doing this work she is not in a position to claim any relief in the sense that it is charitable work. She does this work voluntarily, as a concerned Canadian. She made a calculation that, since she is a woman who has very little income and does not have any prospect of ever holding down a big job unless the Prime Minister should appoint her to a royal commission, or something like that, she will have to cut her voluntary work in half because she cannot afford to carry on under the extra burden of this tax.
One might say that is an isolated case, but all of us know that most of the valuable work done in the name of public service in this country is done by individual volunteers who do not work for a large organization, and are not in a situation in which they can claim a tax advantage. These people work out of the goodness of their hearts and now, because of this tax, they will be faced with an additional burden. This tax amounts to a tax on volunteer-ism in Canadian society. It will undercut the capacity of individual Canadians who want to help improve their local community or neighbourhood, or help bring forward important points in respect of public issues. These people are seriously undercut in respect of the capability to do this. This is a very serious aspect of this bill.
I notice that when the minister spoke the other night he said that the tax did not apply to hospital or similar boards. What does the minister intend to do in respect of the members of local hospital boards and other such boards in rural districts in my constituency, and in the constituencies of many vocal members on this side of the House, and in the constituencies of many of the silent members on the other side of the House? They have to travel literally hundreds of miles a week to carry out their civic responsibilities. Unless there is some way-and it would require some gymnastics in bookkeeping and accounting which would probably be beyond even the manipulators of this government-for the government to recompense those individuals, inevitably there will be demands for increases in expense allowances by members of these local boards.
Again you can say that this is a trivial thing, but it is not so trivial when it happens in country after county and municipality after municipality across this country, and when the cost is taken from the already too scarce funds of hospital boards, municipal authorities, and groups of this kind. That is another harmful blow that this ten cents Turner tax will strike at the people of my constituency and I am sure at the people in the constituencies of other members of the House, including the silent, aquiescent members on the government side.
July 18, 1975


Mr. Bechard:: We are not silent.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am pleased to see that my colleague, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) is entering the debate. I hope he will rise later today, or when the debate carries on next week or next month, and have the courage to defend this bill, because so far there have been very few backbenchers, and no ministers apart from the guy carrying the can, the poor Minister of Finance, to defend this bill.


Prosper Boulanger: Tell us the good side of the story.


Charles Joseph Clark: (Rocky Mountain) My friend knows that I would tell him the good side of the story if there were one, but I cannot because there is not.
There have been a number of individuals who have already spoken in the House about the bureaucratic problems which will be encountered in trying to work out any system of rebates for those who might deserve them.
Not being a member of the government I have no cause to be afraid of my constituents, so the other day I went from door to door in my constituency and asked people what was troubling them and what I could do to help. I found that 50 per cent of the people I encountered in one town stopped me and asked how they could get around this ten cents tax, and in what way they could become eligible for some rebate. I warn the government that however clever and ingenuous it thinks it might be in working out systems of rebate, it has awakened a remarkable wave of ingenuity in the country, and that people will try to find out some way of escaping the burden of this unfair tax and put themselves in the position of the Minister of Finance, who is not going to pay it, and of doctors and other professionals who will find some way of evading it.
What is bad about that is not that people's ingenuity has been inspired, because this country owes much more to the ingenuity of its private citizens than it does to the policies of the government, but that people are being required to turn their ingenuity not to a respect for the law but to a way of getting around it. That is another very dangerous social consequence that falls from a bill as bad as this bill.
There is not much time left this afternoon, and I want to deal for a moment with the argument which has not been put forward very strongly, even by ministers of the Crown who are accustomed to putting forward weak arguments with great force, and that is the argument that this is in some way or other a conservation measure.
That argument debases the cause of conservation.
The Government of Canada, and all of us in the House know that the days of cheap energy are gone, the days when we can waste our resources. But if the government were serious about devising a policy of conservation, it would have started with something else than a ten cents tax that applies unfairly to the weakest elements of society. If it were serious about turning people away from the excessive use of automobiles, it would have given high priority to the development of alternative methods of transportation, but it has not done that. If it were serious, it would have devised other means to relieve high consumption. If it were serious, it would have established a general policy of conservation. The conservation policy of
Business of the House
the government is one part a comic book which tells Canadians not to bathe, and one part a bunch of public relations ads which carry the smiling image of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald).


Robert Muir: That frightens me.


Charles Joseph Clark: As my colleague says, this simply serves to frighten people. It probably frightens them so much that they get out from the library where they were reading that ad and go and take a drive around, thus wasting more gas.
That is the extent of the conservation policy of the government. For the minister to argue that he is advancing the ethic of conservation by bringing in a ten cents tax which applies unfairly across the country to people who cannot afford to pay it, and who cannot find any way to evade it, a tax which, in addition, has the unfortunate consequence of causing problems in rural areas and local municipalities for people who have to commute, is simply a fraudulent approach.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Speaker, I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I would like to say, on a point of order, that the House leader of the opposition raised a point today. He indicated that rebates can be paid under the Financial Administration Act. We disagree with that. This is a question I would like to discuss with the House leader. I know he did not wish to mislead hon. members. If he does a little more research he will find that there is no provision whereby a rebate under this bill could be paid under section 17. I will raise this point with him on Monday, but I know he would not want to mislead the House or the country.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am not exactly sure how that point of order was smuggled in between my remarks, but it is significant that before that weak argument was attempted on behalf of the government, the Minister of Finance fled the House and left it to his parliamentary secretary to make it.
Before closing I want to draw to the attention of the House one more very serious consequence of this ten cents tax. One of the measures in which many of us across the country are interested, including many provincial governments, is the decentralization of industry and other activities to communities outside major centres. If we are going to impose this tax on people who have no other way to get from where they live to where they work, on people who commute, it will seriously frustrate the policy of decentralization to which many of the governments, including some governments of the stripe of the government here, if they still admit to kinship, are committed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. McKinley:: Madam Speaker, before we go into private members' hour, I wonder if it could be confirmed whether we will be on the same business again on Monday?


Mr. Lefebvre:: So far as I know, Madam Speaker, we may be on Bill C-70. But I understand that there will be further talks between House leaders concerning this.

July 18, 1975
Supreme Court Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, notices of motions and private bills. [English]
The House will now consider public bills, order No. 8. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan). Shall the order stand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask how much longer this item will stand. It has been at the top of the list for almost three months. I am referring to the bill having to do with Heritage Day. Why can we not proceed with it?


Thomas Lefebvre: I cannot answer that , but I think the hon. member will find there is agreement that today we should discuss Bill C-239 standing in the name of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), an act to amend the Supreme Court Act (private citizen's reference).


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will agree to that after we have dealt with Heritage Day.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Shall all the bills on the order paper prior to that bill stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Bills stood.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: that Bill C-239, to amend the Supreme Court Act (private citizen's reference), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill is intended to emphasize that each and every citizen has a unique and personal interest in the constitution of our great nation and an individual interest in the way in which he or she is governed since, by long tradition, each Canadian has the right to expect consideration of individual rights and freedoms. Therefore each citizen ought to have a means to act directly to protect his or her interest without necessarily waiting for a government, federal or provincial, to do it.
It seems that at this particular time our government is not sufficiently conscientious in referring matters, in which constitutionality could be an issue, to our Supreme Court regardless of the implications of its failure to do so. As one example, I cite the situation arising out of a
|Mr. Lefebvre.]
current piece of legislation, Bill C-2, known by those who are most familiar with it as the competition act.
As far back as 1973 the government was well aware that there were possible constitutional difficulties and in one of its publications, "Proposals for a New Competition Policy for Canada," the following appears:
While the constitutionality of new section 31.1 may be challenged as relating to property and civil rights or matters of a local or private nature which, under section 92 of the B.N.A. Act, are within provincial, rather than federal, jurisdiction, it is nevertheless hoped that the section will be upheld as a matter ancillary to the criminal law-
In debates of the other place, as reported in Hansard for Wednesday, March 19, 1975, Senator Hayden, when speaking about certain aspects of Bill C-2, said that the Senate Committe on Banking, Trade and Commerce was concerned about the doubtful constitutionality relating, and I quote:
-to the proceedings under Part IV. 1. This was also mentioned in submissions, inlcuding that of the Canadian Bar Association-
I do not intend to smuggle a speech on Bill C-2, into this private member's hour, in case that was the suspicion but I am merely using it as an example of a case where a constitutional matter has some bearing, in my opinion, on this bill, which is in my name.
Still later in April of this year, during proceedings of the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, an official of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Bertrand, spoke about certain aspects of the constitutionality of Bill C-2. At the same time a legal consultant to the committee, Mr. R. J. Cowling, acknowledged that representations were made to the committee suggesting that the constitutional question, and I quote:
-should be settled before the bill is enacted so that a private litigant would not be left with the burden of testing the provisions all the way to the Supreme Court, which could be quite costly and perhaps even ruinous for that individual.
Finally, the chairman of the committee, the Hon. Salter A. Hayden, made a very significant observation when he said the following:
We simply point out the areas in which there is doubtful constitutional validity-so doubtful that we think they should not come into law until that doubt has been resolved.
It seems that our Supreme Court ought to be used more and ought to be more easily accessible and at less cost to the ordinary citizens of this country, and I have some support for my contention from lawyers across the country. If I may, I would like to read briefly an excerpt from a letter I received from a prominent Ontario lawyer, who wrote the following:
Dear Mr. MacKay:
I would like to lend my support to your proposal that the Supreme Court Act be amended to allow private citizens to refer questions to the Court relating to any public law made by or under the authority of the Parliament of Canada.
Judges in this country, and no doubt in others too, have many times declared themselves opposed to any development in the law that they consider would have the effect of increasing the workload on the Court. A recent instance of course is the refusal to hear Mr. Thorson's application for a ruling on a constitutionality of the legislation on bilingualism.
I think it is time the Courts were informed that their services are required in this area.
July 18, 1975

I do not necessarily share the opinion of the solicitor who wrote to me in respect to the special example he used, but I do think it is significant that a practising lawyer would voluntarily support the concept embodied in this bill.
I anticipate that some of my colleagues this afternoon will say that this legislation will increase the workload of the Supreme Court and that there will be cases where matters would be referred to the court which, in the name of common sense, ought not to be. In response to such observations it may be said that in a democratic country such as ours there are bound to be cases where people will act to protect themselves without considering all the implications of what they are doing, but I suggest most strongly that this is not a weakness. It is a strength that a democracy is, by its nature, less rigid and more indulgent in granting its citizens a means to express publicly their dissent in the advancement of their rights, and this is what I am seeking to promote by this legislation.
The court can, by the application of its own rules, or, if necessary, by changing the rules with approval of government, sort out and dispense with those cases which are frivolous or vexatious in their objects, and still permit access to the Supreme Court of our country to those who have an important issue for adjudication.
I do not wish to speak at great length on this bill, preferring rather to put it before my colleagues for informed comment and consideration. In my opinion this bill does not impinge on any provincial rights, and it might act as a catalyst to cause some provincial administrations to consider some of their own rules of civil procedure.
This bill does provide for notice of hearings to be given to the proper federal and provincial officials in appropriate instances, and provides as well that the court has the power to give notice to interested persons and classes who might be affected. There is also provision for the situation where there may be unascertained classes-the unborn, for example-and the court may, in its discretion, request any counsel to represent such parties.
As the public service becomes larger, and as the doctrine which some call collectivism grows more popular, at the expense of the traditional respect for the individual and his rights, it becomes more important to have the services of our Supreme Court available in appropriate cases so that our court can come easily to the aid of Canadians who are the victims of expediency, or of big, impatient governments.
There is much to be said for the proposition that, as the power of the state grows at the expense of the private sector, the principal menace of the common man is not the large, greedy corporation or the dictatorial or corrupt union executives or leaders, but his own over officious, bureaucratically oriented government.
Therefore I hope that if this proposal contained in my bill does not find favour with my colleagues at this time, it may be the basis for a similar move by government in the not too distant future, because I feel that a step such as this would reinforce and supplement the aims and objectives of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Supreme Court Act


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemount):: Madam Speaker, I took great pleasure in studying Bill C-239 today: I had the distinct impression of being back at the university, attending a seminar on constitutional law. I feel that, for a Friday afternoon, we are dealing with a most interesting and edifying subject.
Before I start, I should perhaps bring up some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) when he was referring to Bill C-2 which he claims is anticonstitutional. He suggested that bill should be referred to the Supreme Court for a decision. To my mind, he is wrong because, as we see it, Bill C-2 is very much constitutional, both from the point of view of the powers given to the government and that of the power of law and order stipulated in the bill in question. But that is a mere digression.
Bill C-239 would grant the citizens the right to refer constitutional matters, in other words the right of referral, pertaining to federal laws, to the Supreme Court with a view to obtaining its opinion on such matters. Now, as we know, under Supreme Court Act section 55, at the present time the Attorney General of Canada, that is to say the federal government alone has the right to refer a constitutional matter to the Supreme Court for a decision.
In order to better understand the reasons which prevailed in having section 55 inserted in the Supreme Court Act, it might be well to summarize this history of the Supreme court itself, and the British North America Act which gives the Supreme Court its powers and mandate.
In 1875 the Supreme Court by an act of the Parliament of Canada under Section 101 of the British North America Act was to have a general power of appeal. It was not to be a constitutional court as such but was to be given a general power of appeal on all matters of either civil, common, or penal law, or if constitutional issues arose out of a specific case introduced before a court of common law, civil or penal jurisdiction. But in principle a purely constitutional matter could not be referred because that was not provided for in the British North America Acts.
Indeed, the federal government at that time would have liked very much for this constitutional power to be put in the constitutive instruments of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, that was not possible for several reasons, mainly the antagonism, indifference, and even refusal of certain provinces to grant the Supreme Court that right to examine constitutional issues, and more particularly the validity of certain federal or provincial legislation.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that at that time there was another very important judicial body, even more important than the Supreme Court-the Privy Council-which had the power in last resort to decide on matters submitted to the courts. In other words, that was the highest court in Canada at that time. It suited everyone at that time, particularly Lower Canada-Quebec-to let the Privy Council have the power of adjudication in the constitutional area because if that right of adjudication on constitutional matters had been left to the Supreme Court injustices could then have taken place in the opinion of Quebeckers or Quebec political representatives, in the application of constitutional laws and the jurisdiction of

July 18, 1975
Supreme Court Act
the provinces in their relationships with the federal government.
To counter somewhat that lack of power of the Supreme Court in the constitutional area, the federal government of that time nearly imposed an additional jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court. It had to accept an ad hoc reference power in practice under which the Attorney General of Canada could refer to the Supreme Court and its judges for decisions on matters involving the constitution, matters concerning the validity of provincial legislation, matters involving federal-provincial relations, and even issues concerning interprovincial relations.
I repeat, that this power was nearly forced on the Supreme Court because, in principle, this power exceeds the powers allowed in the British North America Act, and it is very important to understand this when studying Bill C-239, which simply extends the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by section 55 of the act, which is the power of reference. Indeed, everyone knows that as concerns strictly provincial acts, provincial attorneys cannot refer constitutional matters to the Supreme Court; they must refer them to their own Supreme Court, that is, the Appeals Court in Quebec and the Provincial Supreme Court in Ontario.
Hon. members know that in 1949, the powers of the Privy Council as the court of last resort in Canada were abolished and, in practice, the Supreme Court was given supreme power in constitutional matters. Once again, I emphasize the use of the expression "in practice" because, legally, it is not a constitutional court, but a general court. I say "in practice" because there was no other instrument or agency empowered to resolve constitutional problems; the Supreme Court received these powers in 1949. This new power conferred to the Supreme Court caused concern, and maybe justifiably so, to the provinces which, in their relations with the government and the various jurisdiction conflicts which have occurred throughout the decades, had to refer such problems to a court created by the central power, whose judges were appointed by that central power and which could not finally shift in its interpretation of the legislation and more especially of jurisdictions between the federal and provincial governments. The doubts and problems of the provinces as to the real fair-mindness of the Supreme Court in fact has given rise to various federal-provincial conferences.
At first, the Quebec government took the lead. In 1950, at a federal-provincial conference, the Quebec delegation clearly stated that the Supreme Court should only be an arbitration body and as such, the provinces should be entitled to show more interest than they do at the present time, even in 1975, in the appointment or in the process for the appointment of the judges or members of that superior constitutional organization.
The Quebec delegation then stated:
We consider that the Supreme Court of Canada in constitutional matters and in Canadian intergovernmental relations must fulfil all the requirements of an arbitrator.


Quebec had realized by then, maybe a little too late, the dangers of leaving that agency of the central power, the federal government, with the last say or the last decision with respect to jurisdictional disputes between provinces and the central government, in other words, with respect to the interpretation of the British North America Acts. The province of Quebec went on with its action, and the Tremblay Commission which had been appointed by the government of Quebec at the time came up with an argumentation with the thrust on two mainstays or central elements. Those two mainstays were actually the fact that the court in question-the Supreme Court-emanated from the central power, and since there was no provision in the Constitution, in the British North America Acts, with respect to that power of adjudication in constitutional matters, Parliament must necessarily increase ad hoc, in the facts, by and by, step by step, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in constitutional matters. This was a very progressive process, and a process which, once again, is provided for nowhere in the British North America Act.
The constitutional powers of the Supreme Court only stem from a series of over 180 decisions on constitutional matters which by and by created precedents and established the powers of the Supreme Court with respect to constitutional problems. It should actually be remembered that the decisions of the Supreme Court and the resulting recommendations when it is submitted a legal matter or a point of law for adjudication, do not have any legal binding power. They are only a means of trying to convince governments. Provinces are not bound in any way to accept the recommendations of the Supreme Court. There is, therefore, an important gap to be filled in that respect.
The second element of the findings of the Tremblay Commission was to the effet that, since Supreme Court judges are appointed by the central government, their decisions had to be, consciously or unconsciously, unfair to provinces. That is a trivial matter, but anyway a new process had to be found for appointments, possibly from a pool or through consultations with the provinces, I don't know. The Commission then said:
It would be sufficient, for example, to establish the custom of appointing to it former deputies or federal ministers. It would have been satisfactory if it had only been a matter of judging ordinary civil and criminal cases, but in constitutional conflicts it is neither normal nor satisfactory that a single party choose, appoint, and pay all the arbitrators.

Then followed a whole series of recommendations which remained ineffective for a number of years, because of a misunderstanding between federal promises, misunderstanding which is notorious over the years, since it repeated itself during the 1960 conference, when the then premier, Jean Lesage, presented once again the same arguments, and during the famous conference of Victoria when, once again, attempt was made to restore the situation in order to enable the provinces to have a consultation right in the process of nominating members of the Supreme Court.
July 18, 1975

So, the bill before us today, Bill C-239, is designed to increase the powers of reference by putting them in the Supreme Court Act, to give individuals the opportunity to refer directly to the Supreme Court matters affecting them and regarding the constitution or the validity of legislation.
I feel that under the constitutive powers and statutes of the Supreme Court as they now exist, nothing may be done because that constitutional power does not actually exist in right but is simply an extension of a general appeal procedure as confirmed under BNA Act section 101. I feel that if we broaden such competency by adding provisions to section 55, provisions that would prove theoretically valid, we would be granting the Supreme Court a jurisdiction to which it is not entitled. In fact, such action would be unjustifiable, and I am not speaking here of the additional work that this would entail for Supreme Court judges, but rather strictly from the standpoint of the interpretation of our constitution which should not permit, in my opinion, that the Supreme Court be granted these new powers, as suggested to us today by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). This being said, we do not mean to wave aside the arguments of our colleague from the opposition party.
We have no constitutional court in Canada, which is a deficiency. Could we possibly institute a Supreme Court with constitutional jurisdiction, as in the United States? We all know that the U.S. supreme court has only a power of reference strictly in the constitutional law area. It is not empowered to receive evidence. If, for instance, a case is brought before a trial court or a Court of Appeal in the United States and that a matter of constitutional law arises the constitutional matter is referred to the U.S. Supreme Court which gives its ruling on that particular matter, brings it back to the trial court and on the basis of recommendations from the U.S. Supreme Court, the appropriate judgment is passed.
The same principle, with a few variations, exists in Yugoslavia, Germany, France and countries of the European Economic Community. Perhaps we have there a striking example of a court strictly specialized in the interpretation of the respective jurisdictions of the various European Community member states and which has no other competence. That is then complete, total specialization in constitutional matters. That is what Canada is lacking.
That constitutional court that we could establish through a reform in depth of our present Supreme Court versus general competence in appeals, could have exclusive and first jurisdiction in disputes occurring between provinces and the federal government, or still between provinces, or in the interpretation of the constitutionality of a federal or provincial law. It would be its sole and exclusive competence.
I suggest decisions would then receive much better acceptance among the parties involved, and we would indeed have a worthy adjudicating body, an impartial one, to the extent of course provinces would have their say in the selection of members of the court. This could therefore be a part of an organization that could render highly specialized decisions in constitutional areas. Maybe we could use the suggestion by the hon. member for Central
Supreme Court Act
Nova (Mr. MacKay) that citizens should be given an opportunity to refer to that court points of law, for adjudication, without having to go through the usual process of superior court, appellant court and all the way to the Supreme Court, if and when the latter accept to hear the case. I believe this cannot be done under the current Supreme Court Act. If reform were undertaken to establish a body with exclusive specialized jurisdiction in the constitutional field, this would be possible.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude these brief remarks by commending the hon. member for Central Nova for raising the matter. Once more, this is a most interesting constitutional problem, and I very much hope we can achieve the objective he pointed out, in the years to come or at least during a subsequent federal-provincial conference.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Prud'homme:: You should have been leader.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Speak up, Marcel, so that Hansard can hear you.
When I initially looked at this bill I had certain reservations about it. I thought it might open the door for the proliferation of constitutional wrangles. But, I see the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) has fully covered this concern in the second proposed section which allows the court to decide if a question is "an important question". Deciding such questions has, of course, been the traditional role of our supreme courts. Therefore that apprehended shortcoming has been removed from the bill.
I congratulate the hon. member for Central Nova for bringing forward a bill which will, if passed, do something that is long overdue in this country, something toward which our jurisprudence is slowly edging. It will make our courts more accessible to citizens who have suffered a wrong or who wish to have their rights determined. These rights to access long ago were enshrined in the constitution of the United States. We are slowly moving in that direction.
It has always been a principle of our law that, when there is a wrong, our legal system must provide the remedy. That remedy should not have to come from our legislatures. It should be provided, bascially, by the courts. I support this bill as it is another progressive attempt to allow the courts to deal with private wrongs, so that private wrongs may be redressed by the existing legal system.
A similar principle should apply to the redress of minor wrongs. For example, individual purchasers of automobiles may encounter, individually, a minor amount of difficulty but, in the mass, there may be losses of millions and millions of dollars. I am referring, of course, to class action legislation under which classes of persons in this country would be empowered to go to court, or send a representative to court, in order to redress what is basically a private wrong multiplied thousands and thousands of times. If we would come forward with that kind of legislation we would provide deterrents to some of the sloppy manufacturers in this country who are not faced with the same kind of legal risk as their counterparts in the United

July 18, 1975
Supreme Court Act
States. I suggest that would be a forward move in terms of Canadian legislation.
The same is true in the area where we have environmental laws. However, the amount of damage that any individual may suffer is so slight that, without status in a court for an individual, there is no deterrent to the industry that is doing the polluting. If we provide status to the entire group that has suffered the wrong, then the courts can provide some remedy.
I again congratulate the hon. member for what is really another process of democratization in the courts to see that individual rights are protected. The hon. member emphasized the problem of the power of the state. We in our western societies all have some concern that the power of the state is increasing. However, he did not mention the power of the corporate section of the community which is increasing at an even faster rate than that of the state. None of these things are good.
We all agree that the unlimited power of the state needs control. However, at the moment the power of bigness of corporations and, yes, trade unions has to be looked at in terms of protection against private wrongs that can result out of the idiom personality of these large organizations.
The hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) indicated that he did not believe the Supreme Court of Canada was a constitutional court although for a long time we have had the Constitutional Questions Determination Act. That court has been ruling on questions of the constitution and it has been doing a good job. I do not think we should have a separate court. The unique makeup of Canada in a federal state makes it imperative that we have a federal court by which all of the component parts, the provinces and otherwise, are bound. Certainly if there is a weakness in that, I would support a change.
In the circumstances I want to make these remarks as brief as I can. I congratulate the hon. member on the bill. It is a progressive step to give an individual the right to determine a constitutional matter affecting him.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, it is significant that this bill is brought on at this time by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) when the Supreme Court of Canada is this year celebrating its one hundredth anniversary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: We in this land are very blessed to have such a high quality of court. It has been so, and improvingly so since confederation. This court has consistently grown with the needs of our community with the administration of justice. It has continued to be as it should be, an independent branch of our parliamentary and democratic system, separate from the legislative branch and the executive branch. They have been an outstanding court. They continue to be so under the leadership of the most eminent Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who holds that position at the present time.
On the occasion of the celebration of the one hundredth anniversary of the court this fall, there will be very distinguished visitors coming to Canada, including the Lord

High Chancellor of Great Britain, le premier president de la Cour des Sessions de France, and Mr. Justice Byron White of the Supreme Court of the United States. I am sure we who are here join with the members of that court in wishing them a great celebration upon this occasion.
May I say to the hon. member for Central Nova that although at first blush his bill seems to indicate that he is entering upon a new field, in fact this is the type of field in which the Supreme Court has been entertaining applications and granting leave to appeal.
There was one case from the hon. member's province which was decided recently. It was a very important case, the Nova Scotia Board of Censors versus Gerald McNeil. The case had to do with the constitutionality and whether or not it was ultra vires of the province to pass a certain law. This one individual as a taxpayer and citizen was granted the right by the Supreme Court of Canada to have his appeal heard, and it was heard. Therefore, I cannot agree with the bill in its present form for some reasons, one of which was referred to by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).
The hon. member said he was concerned about the bill in the first instance but he thought that subclause (2) would eliminate the dockets of the Supreme Court being overly cluttered by frivolous and vexatious matters-those were not his words-but so many matters of a constitutional nature. He said that subclause (2) granted to the court the right to determine what question it would or would not hear. I would point out that although perhaps the Supreme Court does have this right to determine what in their view are matters of importance and what they will hear, it would result in many hundreds of applications for leave to appeal the very items that the hon. member for Central Nova raises in his bill.
The practical part is that the applications for leave to appeal can and very often are an argument on the substance of the matter as well as an application to ask the court if they will hear it. Therefore it would take a tremendous amount of time, in any case involving a substantial issue, for the court just to deal with the applications for leave to appeal.
The proposals contained in this bill are unnecessary and are possessed of possibly very unfortunate consequences. Why this is so may be examined in terms of the two fundamental thrusts of the bill, namely, the standing of persons to launch the proceedings sought to be authorized by the bill and the nature of those proceedings that are to be in the form of a reference.
I will first address myself to standing. The bill assumes that the present laws relating to the standing of persons to bring before the courts "an important question of law or fact concerning the constitution of Canada or any public general law made by or under the authority of the parliament of Canada" are inadequate.
In two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions, one of which I referred to earlier, the first being Thorson versus Attorney General of Canada, a general member of the taxpaying public was given standing to question the validity of the Official Languages Act, and the Nova Scotia Board of Censors versus McNeil, where a member of the public was permitted to attack the constitutional
July 18, 1975

validity of the provincial Theatres and Amusements Act, the highest court in the land acknowledged that it is not unlikely that the discretion of the court may be exercised in favour of giving standing to the sort of persons contemplated by this bill to question the constitutional validity of federal or provincial enactments.
In the first case, Thorson versus Attorney General of Canada, the former president of the Exchequer Court of Canada appeared personally to argue the case. He is acknowledged by all those who know him to be an exceptional man, an exceptional jurist, and an exceptional member of the bar. He argued this case as an individual without the necessity of Bill C-239 or any such legislation.
As a citizen and taxpayer, he argued as forcibly as he could to the Supreme Court that he had a right to be heard by the Supreme Court because it not only affected him as an individual but many other taxpayers. He argued that he should be permitted to be heard by the highest court in this land. He was heard, and he was given a full hearing. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that this man, who was appearing not as a former jurist, not as the former president of the Exchequer Court of Canada, but as an individual, had the right on an important constitutional issue to be given a full hearing. I say this to indicate only that where there is such a matter of pressing and obvious concern the Supreme Court of Canada has grown and will continue to grow with the needs of the country as they relate to the administration of justice.
This liberal view of the standing of private citizens to bring into issue the constitutional validity of legislation was based in part, in the Thorson case, on Canadian and English jurisprudence dealing with standing in relation to the exercise of non-legislative powers and, in particular, on the powerful case of Dyson v. Attorney General decided by the English Court of Appeal more than 60 years ago. In terms of the respective legislative powers of parliament and the provincial legislatures, this is not a basis which may be strictly described as constitutional, and therefore it may be too early to say how far Canadian courts will be willing to take the laws of standing in non-constitutional situations. In view of these developments it may well be that the bill is not necessary to accomplish its stated purpose.
Even if the courts were not prepared to grant standing in a particular case, such as the case to which I have referred involving the former Mr. Justice Thorson and the case of the Nova Scotia Board of Censors and Gerald McNeil, the general law of the land already provides that an important question, to use the language of the bill, may in theory at least be litigated in non-reference proceedings by the appropriate Attorney General acting as parens patriae. Of course, it is where an Attorney General has been reluctant to do so that private persons have acted and, as in the two cases decided by the Supreme Court,- the cases to which I have referred-have been permitted to proceed. Moreover, there remains in the governor in council the authority under the Supreme Court Act to have important questions referred to the court for an advisory opinion.
Supreme Court Act
These provisions in the Supreme Court Act to which I have referred are section 55 in particular and section 35. First of all, may I refer to the general jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada as contained in section 35 of the Supreme Court Act:
The Supreme Court shall have, hold and exercise an appellate civil and criminal jurisdiction within and throughout Canada.
Section 36 states:
Subject to sections 40 and 44 an appeal to the Supreme Court lies from a final judgment or a judgment granting a motion for a non-suit or directing a new trial of the highest court of final resort in a province or a judge thereof, pronounced in
(a) a judicial proceeding where the amount or value of the matter in
controversy in the appeal exceeds $10,000, or the proceedings upon a
writ of habeus corpus.
Or two other matters. Therefore, Madam Speaker, the general power as set out in sections 35 and 36 is that the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority in this nation with respect to all criminal and civil matters subject to a monetary amount.
If the Supreme Court of Canada were to entertain cases of a similar nature involving $500 or $1,000 there would be so many cases before the court that it would have a difficult time directing itself to setting the precedents upon which the country relies so much for the administration of justice.
I, personally, over here on my side, have great respect for and great confidence in the judges of the provincial courts, both the civil and criminal divisions. I also have great respect for and confidence in the County Court and District Court judges who are appointed by the Canadian Governor General in Council, and also for the Supreme Courts of the provinces and the courts of appeal of the provinces which each have within their terms of reference limits within which they exercise final authority.
To say that the Supreme Court of the province of Ontario or the Court of Appeal of the province of Ontario is not able satisfactorily to answer all questions when we have set a monetary limit, for example, of $5,000 is, to my mind, to undermine the authority of those courts which have continued to demonstrate excellence in their judgments, whether they be appointments of provincial governments or whether they are appointed by the federal government.
I have great faith. I think the manner in which we have set out their jurisdiction, through acts of this parliament or acts of provincial legislatures, should not be lightly tampered with; it should be altered only when there is a pressing need to do so, and I do not find such a pressing need, especially in view of what has been demonstrated as being the actions of the Supreme Court of Canada in the two very recent cases I have quoted.
I should like to pay a little special attention to the intervention of one of my learned friends, the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemount (Mr. Lachance). At the beginning of my remarks I drew attention to the one hundredth anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada. He has just celebrated, I think, the 21st anniversary of his birth, not very long ago. He demonstrated by the content of his speech today that he is a learned man. He arrived in this House with a bachelor's degree in arts, I believe; he
7746

July 18, 1975
Supreme Court Act
also had a bachelor's degree in law. He was also an articled lawyer. Since coming here he has completed his bar examinations, and I believe this is a tremendous accomplishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: If I could quickly summarize what I have been saying, it is that to give any person the right to refer such questions to the court might be harmful and unfortunate for the following reasons: (a) the distinction between frivolous or vexatious questions and those which deserve serious considerations might be lost; (b) The court would lose control of its docket which might become so filled with these private references that ordinary, and perhaps much more important appeal, would be subject to lengthy delays; (c) the avowed purpose of the amendments to the Supreme Court Act abolishing appeals as of right in civil matters, to lessen the already heavy case load of the court, would be defeated in part.
Further, even requiring the court first to determine whether a question is an important question would place an onerous burden on the court because (i) it would increase the list of motions for leave to appeal, and (ii) there would not necessarily be any record or other basis present on which the court could make a reasoned decision on this question. This procedure is contrary to the general principle that only the governor in council in the case of the Supreme Court, and the lieutenant governors in council in the case of the provincial courts, should be able to refer hypothetical cases to the court for advisory opinions. Because of the costs involved in the litigation process, this procedure would favour those individuals and corporations in Canada with the necessary means to bear those costs, and allowing other interested persons to be represented fails to deal with this matter of economics and with a procedure that favours issues by those financially capable of paying for such a reference.
I conclude my remarks by saying that I believe the Supreme Court of Canada has amply demonstrated its ability to exercise its discretion in granting the right of appeal on constitutional matters to individuals in this country in a most exemplary manner in both the Thorson case and the McNeil case to which I have referred. Therefore I submit there is no need or necessity for Bill C-239, though I compliment the hon. member for Central Nova for bringing it on for discussion.


René Matte: Madam Speaker, surely the hon. member's purpose for introducing this bill is highly commendable. He wants all Canadians to be enlightened concerning the constitutional significance of parliamentary legislation. In spite of his commendable purpose, however, I suggest that accepting such an amendment would mean accepting the Supreme Court of Canada as the indisputable authority with regard to the Canadian constitution.
Madam Speaker, if we were to accept such an amendment, there would be a general outcry in the province of Quebec.
Personally, I should be one of the first to denounce it, because a lot of Quebecers do not trust the Supreme Court, and they have a great many reasons not to do so. So I do not think we are ready yet to accept the authority of the
Supreme Court in constitutional matters. I am therefore almost in agreement with the hon. member for Lafon-taine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) when he says that only a body which would really represent the constituent elements of our country in a fair and equitable fashion would have this sort of authority which the Supreme Court would need to really render decisions in cases of conflicts. As a matter of fact, we are faced with one of these issues in the area of cablevision, and, Madam Speaker, when I heard the Prime Minister state in reply to my question that the federal government would not budge from its position, I was perfectly aware that a great many jurists could come forward and argue that under our constitution, communications, radio, television and cable television fall indeed under provincial jurisdiction. Then, at a given time, someone will have to decide where other agreements will be necessary, but in any case I am not sure that the opinion of the Supreme Court is undoubtedly the best because the Supreme Court is a creature of the federal government. It is always a little difficult in this very badly made country to make a judgment on these things because a country which, by virtue of its constitution, is a confederation is not a confederation after all. It is not a group of states which are in agreement, which unite for the best and for the worse, but it rather is a federation.
Yet, there is something ambiguous in our country which prevents us from being able to refer to a real constitutional authority, for the simple reason that there is no such authority: the Supreme Court is a creature and an organization of the federal government. Theoretically, it could therefore stand up for Parliament which it is a creature of and responsible to. And to those who claim that there is a host of extremely contentious issues on that matter, I would give as an example the matter of cablevision which is presently under discussion. However, one must admit that in spite of all these remarks that would obviously cause me to oppose such a bill, one must admit nevertheless that it should be good, Madam Speaker, to know just when the legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada is within the terms of the constitution. That would in effect avoid a number of problems which we meet and have met. And, if the Supreme Court were truly the body needed to solve all the problems, one would never have seen Madam Speaker, the frightful injustices that French-Canadians, or Quebecers have suffered which have never been redressed since provinces have made rules to abolish the French language. They have passed rules that could be judged as anticonstitutional. There was no authority to settle this problem, and even the federal Parliament's position on this matter is difficult to admit for some provinces. Then, it remains that the organization needed to make a decision should issue from every provincial authority so that we could refer to it if needed. But it would be very difficult now to refer to an organization that could stand up for one of the parties. This is why, despite the very commendable object of the bill, I would be inclined to reject it as long as the situation remains unchanged. May I say it is five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock.
At 5 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, July 21, 1975