1975-07-17

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 24 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Printing and Publishing, Supply and Services, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9
29669 ~iy2
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 17, 1975


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the threat to the environment resulting from the waiving of regulations by the Ministry of Transport, allowing loaded oil tankers to enter east coast harbours and dock without pilots, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the Minister of the Environment take immediate steps to ensure that all regulations governing tanker movements in Canadian waters are rigidly enforced, and further, that the Minister of Transport instruct the committee set up to administer vessel movements during the pilots' strike not to waive regulations with respect to safety and environmental hazards.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that milk and bread provide the nutritional cornerstone of the diets of Canadians; in view of the fact that price increases for these very basic foods have been astronomical, bread prices having risen 51 per cent and milk prices having increased 54 per cent over the past two years; and in view of the conclusion of the Food Prices Review Board's July study on the consumption of bread and fluid milk in Canada that the financial impact of rising bread and milk prices hits hardest at those on low incomes, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. Leggatt);
That the government reinstate the subsidy on fluid milk and introduce a subsidy on bread, and that these subsidies be effective immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a most important and urgent matter.
As a syndicated group in Quebec, designated as the Quebec-Palestine Association, threatened yesterday to hold certain government authorities responsible for eventual reprisals if the Palestine Liberation Organization is barred from the international crime conference organized by the United Nations and to be held in Toronto next September, and further, as a Montreal daily announced that the government of Canada, acquiescing to the wish of the PLO, had decided to give them access to the conference, while postponing to a later date publication of its decision, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House be allowed to discuss immediately this whole matter with a view, on the one hand, to analyzing its implications both national and international, and on the other hand, to determining clearly and without equivocation the Canadian position on this matter of prime importance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the terms of 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.

July 17, 1975

Air Transport PUBLIC SERVICE


REQUEST FOR RESUMPTION OF BARGAINING WITH STRIKING SHIP PILOTS AT HALIFAX-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to take advantage of Standing Order 43, which is something I seldom do, to ask leave of the House to move a motion under that standing order relating to the energy shortage, more particularly the transfer of fuel from a super-tanker to a smaller ship at the entrance to Halifax Harbour. I would move, by leave of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That the government be instructed to take every proper step to bring the parties to the Atlantic pilots' contract dispute back to the bargaining table within the next 48 hours.


PROPOSED COMMITTEE STUDY OF QUESTION OF SAFETY CONNECTED WITH THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR REACTORS- MOTION UNDER S.O.43
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminister):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the report today that Canada will participate in a study on the feasability of CANDU reactors being constructed in the United States and in return will receive the benefit of the intensive United States studies on safety, and in view of the question about Canadian research into the safety of its own reactor, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That the question of safety for the operation of CANDU nuclear reactors be referred to the Standing Committee responsible for environmental matters.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires the unanimous con-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, sent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the appeal taken by the Consumers Association of Canada to the cabinet from a decision of the Canadian Transport Commission respecting the granting of increases in domestic air fares, and in view of the fact that the government has neglected or refused to hand down a decision to this appeal for an undue length of time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House direct the government to hand down a decision on the appeal by the Canadian Association of Consumers and report same to this House, through the Minister of Transport, before the day this House adjourns for the summer recess, or July 31, 1975, whichever date first occurs.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the critical state of the fishery in northern Manitoba I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That the Minister of Transport take immediate steps to implement a system of freight subsidies on a poundage basis for all fish shipped to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation north of the 53rd parallel in that province.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an important and urgent problem.
Keeping in mind that there is no adequate control over the price of sugar and since the unpredictable rises and declines of the prices of that commodity are liable to spread doubts among the people concerning the true role
July 17, 1975

which must be played by the government in this matter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House suggest to the minister to make immediately a statement to enlighten the Canadian people about those deplorable conditions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Now that the economists have had an opportunity fo examine the economic outlook in the context of the minister's budget, I wonder whether the minister shares the concern being expressed that inflation is likely to escalate again in 1976, and if he does share that concern when may we expect a significant reaction from the government and could he tell us what it might be.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I stated that concern fully in the budget speech which I am sure is familiar to the Leader of the Opposition. It depends very much on food prices and on the effect that wage and cost of production increases may have on the price structure of the country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister having said on May 9, I believe it was, that "all of us must face up to the fact that time is running out," and since we have this prospect facing the country in 1976 of further inflation could the minister tell us whether he proposes to adopt any further policy to encourage restraint not having exercised this option in the budget? Does he, for example, intend to make any further effort to achieve voluntary agreement on restraint.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I said on budget night, and to the press after the budget, that I would wait to assess the reaction to the budget by the leaders of the various sectors of the economy; that I felt one of the advantages of the consensus process had been a further opening of communication between the government and leaders in the economy, and that I intend to keep those channels of communication open.
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is there any conclusion that anybody can reach other than that the government's only policy for maintaining any kind of restraint in the economy is the continuation of a very substantial unemployment which the Prime Minister has said will be with us for a good long time?


John Napier Turner: That is not the conclusion I would ask the hon. gentleman to draw.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think I have been misquoted by the Leader of the Opposition


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: It is impossible for me to tell whether the point of order needs to be deferred until three o'clock until I hear it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the Leader of the Opposition misquoted me, and I am sure he would want to correct that if given the chance. If I am allowed to state the misquotation, I will do it now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I see no reason to withdraw the comment, in view of the Prime Minister's attitude and particularly in view of what he said the other day in response to a question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether other questions will turn on the quotation. If not, perhaps the point of order should wait until three o'clock.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was not-


Some hon. Members:: Three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Either there is or is not a point of order to be taken now, but the rule must apply the same to both sides of the House.


INFLATION-POSSIBILITY OF ADOPTING VOLUNTARY RESTRAINT PROGRAM
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement in reply to my leader that the consensus talks would likely continue, could the minister indicate whether he anticipates he will be able to bring in a voluntary control program as he originally intended?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I said on budget night, that depends on the reaction of the leaders of the various sectors of the economy to the budget.


MINISTER'S ESTIMATE OF RATE OF GROWTH THIS YEAR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the minister has repeatedly stated that he has always been frank with the Canadian people, and in view of the anticipated high inflation rates, would the minister be frank enough to tell

July 17, 1975
Oral Questions
the House and the people what he anticipates will be the real rate of growth in Canada in the current year, a figure he gave in each of his four budgets for each year but not in his June 23 effort?


John Napier Turner: If the hon. gentleman would read the budget speech carefully he would find that I estimated the rate of growth at somewhere between zero and one per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the apparent indecision so far as the minister is concerned, I would direct a further suppl-mentary question to him. Is it the intention of the minister to continue in his present portfolio and face the result of his economic policies this time next year?


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it arises out of a question I put to him yesterday concerning the suspension of a civil servant by the name of Mr. Arthur Stewart. The Prime Minister at that time said he knew nothing about the details of the case, but went on with a process of reasoning that some might well regard as being tortuous unless they were trained as Jesuits. He went on to conclude, as recorded at page 7619 of Hansard;
... I agree with the stand he has taken-
"he" being the Minister of Supply and Services -That it is not proper for civil servants to criticize and make political statements against the government.
Considering that the article in question, which led to the suspension of Mr. Stewart was essentially criticism of the administration concerning the failure on the one hand of the minister to meet trade union officials, and second-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I allow the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby the leniency to which he is entitled as leader of a party in making a preamble to his question, but I wonder if he would get to his question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it is his view, and the view of the government, that such criticism by a trade union official constitutes political criticism. If so, what would the Prime Minister say is non-political criticism coming from a trade union representative?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I regret the slur on the Jesuits which the Leader of the New Democratic Party has just made, in view of the fact that they are not here to defend themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond were of another order I am sure he would be up on a point of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is asking me a question about the details of the case. I told him yesterday that I had not examined it. I discussed it very briefly with the minister in the House yesterday. I suggest that the question be addressed to the Minister of Supply and Services. He is certainly more able than I to answer on the particulars of the case. The principle is still the same as it was yesterday-and I would hope that a former professor of political science would support it-that it is not necessarily the job of public servants to enter into politics against the government.


John Edward Broadbent: It is my intention to have the difference between political criticism and non-political criticism clarified. My question follows upon the Prime Minister's very general statement on this subject yesterday which pertained to all civil servants. In all seriousness, would the Prime Minister clarify for the House what the general view of the government is as to what constitutes political criticism by a trade union official as opposed to what does not?


John Napier Turner: Mark a C minus on that, please.


DIFFERENCE OF TREATMENT BETWEEN EMPLOYEES ALLEGEDLY GUILTY OF POLITICAL CRITICISM
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Even a Jesuit would not have remained silent on that. In his last answer in the House yesterday, the Prime Minister made reference to an Admiral in the defence forces in Canada. He objected to political criticism coming from that source, with which I am in agreement, but I would like to ask him if he considers it just to suspend an ordinary civil servant for what he regards as political criticism, such suspension resulting in the loss of three months pay, but simply to reprimand an Admiral in the navy.


COMMUNICATIONS
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications.
Since the conference of communications ministers ended yesterday in a stalemate, could the minister assure the House that public interest will be protected, that it will not fall into the hands of the private sector, of people who have no say in that debate? And could he also assure the House that acceptable provisions will be submitted again so as to reopen the case and not indefinitely deprive people in and around Rimouski of an adequate cable service?
July 17, 1975


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that I thought the hon. member had not read the papers carefully, but I have just been reading them and I understand his being utterly confused as, depending on the paper you read, the outcome of the conference was a success or a failure. I might tell him though that I do not agree personally, after attending the whole meeting and even presiding over it, that an impasse was reached. I regret the province of Quebec decided to withdraw, but we did take a positive step in agreeing to establish the Council of Communications ministers of Canada. There will be an empty seat, and as 1 said I regret that, bur eight and even very probably nine of those seats will be occupied, so that our discussions can progress. The province of Quebec decided to remain outside the council and to go its own way. Unfortunately, I cannot help that, and I can barely take it as a fact. As to the suggestions at the conference, I would tell the hon. member that the ones which were put forward by the federal government have been deemed acceptable, at least for further discussion, by nine out of ten provinces, which in baseball would be a fairly satisfactory batting average.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I am grateful to the minister for his explanations. However, considering that the province of Quebec may have withdrawn sort of banging the door, which I do not know, are we to infer that in spite of the absence of Quebec, the people of the Rimouski area and its vicinity will not be deprived of the service they have been seeking for many years?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize first of all that Quebec withdrew quite civilly and without banging any door. I want to assure the hon. member that the Rimouski area will not be deprived of anything by the federal government. As to the steps which may be taken in this respect by my Quebec counterpart, because I decided long ago not to try any longer to predict what they will be from one week to the next, I cannot assure the hon. member of anything. He will have to seek any such assurance from the Quebec minister of communications.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A few days ago the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley attempted to put a question to the Minister of Labour about a single bargaining agent. I indicated that he ought not to be allowed to put the question because he had put the question at another time and that it had been answered. He has contended that all he had done the previous day was to put those remarks pursuant to a motion under Standing Order 43. Upon checking the record it turns out that he is absolutely right and I was wrong. He ought, therefore, to be allowed to put the question.
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


PROPOSED SINGLE BARGAINING AGENT FOR PUBLIC SERVICE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am happy that the minister has had time to study the question and I hope he will come up with a good answer. In view of the fact that there has been an unprecedented record number of lost man-days in productivity in recent months due to strikes and walkouts-as a matter of fact nearly two million man-days were lost-and because the existing fragmentation of union power within the public service and other federal agencies is partially responsible for this drastic loss in productivity, could the minister advise the House whether the government intends to look at the possibility of having union groups in a single public service sector bargaining with the government simultaneously in order to avoid the fragmentation of union power and, if so, when can this House expect an announcement?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the House and to the hon. member before that there was a good deal of sympathy for this type of approach in terms of consultation and rationalization. I might indicate also there have been discussions toward this end, not only with the chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board but with the business community and the labour movement itself. 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 this 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.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question. In view of the minister's answer and his obvious interest in this suggestion-which, by the way, I made in this House over six months ago-could he advise if he intends to take all appropriate steps to assure the passage of my own bill dealing precisely with this subject?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I, of course, welcome the hon. member's enthusiasm for this approach but I would say that the success toward this type of objective is such that I believe it requires a good deal of co-operation from all parties concerned. I am talking in terms of the labour movement and their rights, rights which have the support of all members of the House, and I am talking about employers. I do not necessarily believe that coercive type legislation will help to achieve this objective and I make this plea to hon. members and others: let us see whether it cannot be achieved through co-operative effort, as opposed to legislation.
7658

July 17, 1975
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As he seemed to reach his usual low boiling point rather early today, I suggest that he should not blow his top, because it is bad for his health.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: My question is this: as the government has now had an additional week, on top of many previous weeks, to discuss whether it intends to allow the PLO, an organization whose mode of operation is based on organized terror and murder, to come to Canada for the United Nations conference in September, has the government made up its mind on what its decision is to be on this matter and, if so, will the Prime Minister announce it to the House now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I point out that the hon. member blew his top a long while ago; that will explain why he has none.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: What happened to your own? You are not too well off in that department.


George Harris Hees: It is time to adjourn parliament.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. I really should not talk that way to a senior citizen, although he is in such good shape that I keep forgetting he is over 65.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the substance of the question, as opposed to the preamble, I would say that my commitment still stands. We will make an announcement on this next week.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister referred to my distinguished age. I suggest that if he does not cool it a little more than he has in the past, he will not make it.
My question is this: Is it not a fact that the government has already made its decision on this matter but has decided to hold up the announcement until next week, in the hope that parliament will then be recessed, so that the government can avoid the anger of the opposition which the Prime Minister's announcement will provoke?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. If it is held up until next week, it is in the hope that a few more Conservatives show up to sit on their benches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As the tripling of CNR freight and express rates has brought the freshwater fishing industry of northern Manitoba to its knees, will the minister take immediate action to freeze freight rates, governing the transportation of fish in northern Manitoba retroactively to May 1, so that this important industry may survive and provide much needed jobs for the people of northern Manitoba?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if such a problem exists, I think it should be discussed not only with the Department of Transport but also with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, because many industries are in the same position.


AIR TRANSPORT
Cecil Morris Smith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the minister has successfully brought air transportation in the north to a virtual standstill, by cancelling air carrier schedule II and III operating certificates, can the minister advise how remote communities and Indian reservations which have no other means of transport are to receive supplies, mail and medical services?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, while a number of airports had no certificates from the Department of Transport, others have had their certificates cancelled for security reasons. We shall certainly not endanger the lives of the people in the north merely to please my hon. colleague opposite.


INDUSTRY
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I hope he received notice of the question. In view of the announcement by Pac-Car, a U.S. truck assembly company, that the Hays Trucking Company of Vancouver will shut down on September 30, thus entailing the loss of some 500 jobs, and as this company also operates Kenworth, a competing truck assembly in Vancouver, will the minister advise if he or his department have inquired into the reasons for this shutdown, if this is a
July 17, 1975

feasible operation and if the action constitutes restraint of competition in the Vancouver area?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have looked into this situation. There are two other companies in addition to Hays and Canadian Kenworth operating on the Pacific coast. There is the Pacific truck division of International Harvester and White Motors of Kelowna, B.C. Hays has been closed down because the market for logging trucks has declined owing to decreased demand for wood and wood products.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House if, pursuant to phase two of the Foreign Investment Review Act, provision has been to prevent foreign companies which own or control competing subsidiaries in Canada from closing down one business in order to reduce competition in the area in which they operate?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think that question is outside the ambit of the Foreign Investment Review Act.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Does the policy of freezing rail line abandonments apply only to the prairie provinces, or does it apply to the whole of Canada, including British Columbia? If it includes B.C., how can the CPR abandon service on the only rail line on Vancouver Island?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think it applies to all western provinces.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the federal government's proposal to cut back expenditures, how can the government justify $925 per week refresher courses in bilingualism for a select 125 senior civil servants in the Laurentians during the summer months?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, there was no question of bilingualism expenditure cuts except that of $4 million in special programs. This is part of study sessions that enable high officials to speak both official languages and thus deal with all Canadian citizens in the discharge of their duties.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the minister just said. Can the minister tell me why a directive was sent out or can he inform the House why families are being sent to Paris for further post-graduate French studies, at much higher fees, and why this is necessary at this time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details relating to the second question. However, I shall inquire and give details to the hon. member with pleasure.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. He has had notice of it since June 3. He said he was first made aware of the matter I am raising when he talked to reporters about allegations concerning drug trafficking at Montreal airport, the involvement of organized crime and also the involvement of various departments of the federal government. Could he report what he has learned from the Commissioner of the RCMP?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the story in the newspapers is correct in that there is an investigation at the Montreal airport. I might say that there are investigations at other airports with regard to drugs as well. However, the report is not correct in that there are a large number of federal government officials involved. As a matter of fact, the number is very small. I think it is three or four. That does not mean that others in other areas are not involved. I cannot say anything more about the investigation now, except that it is continuing.


ALLEGED DRUG TRAFFICKING AT MONTREAL AIRPORT-POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE EMPLOYEES
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am sorry the Minister of National Revenue is not in the House as he was for several days when I was trying to get the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Can the minister assure the House, and he came close to it in his first answer, that there are no officials of National Revenue directly involved because for over a month and a half this smear against National
29669-2!d

July 17, 1975
Oral Questions
Revenue has been outstanding. It has not been clarified. Can the Minister give that assurance?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I said that a small number of federal government employees were involved, but I would not want to identify them. I said that the large number referred to in the article was not correct. I might say as well that the release of this information was not authorized. It was due to a misunderstanding. Some measures have been taken to correct that.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Can the minister advise whether the officials that have been involved are still working or have they been suspended?


William Warren Allmand: I cannot say that, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It arises out of the question asked by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I may not be a Jesuit, but I cannot follow the tortuous and convoluted reasoning of the NDP leader. Without taking sides on the philosophical problem, does the Prime Minister agree that if more information is disclosed of the nature which had been kept secret here, thus persuading the civil servant in question to make public the information he did, but if more information was revealed which should be revealed, this kind of incident would not take place.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, not knowing the details of the case, the question seems kind of theoretical to me. It seems that the kind of criticism which is being made here is the kind we should be hearing more about from the opposition, if it were doing its job.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We would do our job if the government would have the courage to disclose the facts.


OUTBREAK OF CHOLERA-INQUIRY AS TO TRACING SOURCE OF INFECTION AND CHECKING OF VACCINE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the cholera outbreak among students returning from a trip to the Far East and the Middle East, and as this disease has a short incubation period, was a tracer put on their travel route to pinpoint the source or possible source of the infection? Since this disease has a mortality rate of 5 to 10 per cent and high cost health care, has the number of the stock vaccine been

checked and reported to the manufacturer and have all contacts been reported on?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer with regard to the stock of the vaccine, but I will inquire and give the information to the hon. member. As far as the particular students are concerned, they have all been taken into hospitals for tests, either as in-patients or out-patients. Only one case has been diagnosed as having cholera. I would point out that this was not the classical kind of cholera, but a much milder kind. All the students have been examined and they are all out of hospital at the present time. All the contacts have been reached and we do not expect any further developments in this particular incident.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The minister did not answer all of my first question. Can he advise whether they have gone back over the travel route to pinpoint where this infection might be picked up so that other tourists can be prevented from calling there or having it cleaned up?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the group of students were visiting India. One person in particular got sick at a stopover in the Netherlands. That student was treated there. She returned with a nurse and with a diagnosis of salmonella poisoning. Only subsequently did we hear from Holland that after further checks and analysis, they concluded that it was not a case of salmonella but, rather, some kind of cholera. We were then in touch with the student immediately.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works, I will address this important question to the Prime Minister. In view of the housing crisis in the Northwest Territories and the fact that in the Yukon small apartments are renting for as much as $400 a month, and in view of the fact the Department of Public Works have vacant in the Yukon 130 homes, 200 detached homes and some apartments and some of the homes have been vacant for as long as five years, and in view of the fact there is a regulation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member put his question.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact there is a regulation-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member put his question?


John Gilbert: I am directing this to the Prime Minister. I hope he listens. In view of the fact there is a regulation of the Department of Public Works not to rent to employees who are local people who reside in the area, will the Prime
July 17, 1975

Minister change the restrictive and discriminatory rule and permit local people to rent these vacant homes and apartments to ease the critical housing shortage in the Northwest Territories?


Right Hon.   P.E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister who has been quite ill for some days, I will take notice of the question.


John Gilbert: Is the Prime Minister aware that the same problem pertains in Fort Smith, Hay River, Inuvik and that the local people feel that if persons are from the south they can get accommodation whereas if they are from the local area, they are denied accommodation. Will the Prime Minister also direct his attention to this and have this very serious problem cleared up?


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question and supply the information to the member.


JOINT STUDY OF CANDU TECHNOLOGY WITH UNITED STATES-ACTION TO ENSURE CANADIAN TECHNOLOGY REMAINS IN PUBLIC SECTOR
Mr.   J.J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of the report that there is to be a joint study of CANDU technology as requested by the United States Energy Administration for Research and Development. In view of the fact that in the United States nuclear technology is in the private sector, and undoubtedly Westing-house and General Electric will be requested to take part in this exchange, what measures is the minister proposing to take in order to ensure that Canadian technology remains in the public sector and under Canadian control?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that the United States administration has sought further discussions with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited with regard to the CANDU reactor. Indeed, within a matter of some weeks, AECL officials will be meeting with the Americans for the purpose of discussing this further. I am not certain that this will yield any kind of commercial arrangement between the two countries. I will have to determine after these discussions, and when there is an arrangement, whether it would be possible or indeed desirable to confine this to the public sector, the public power utilities only in the United States, or have it available on a general basis. We will be selling this technology, if there is to be an arrangement, under the full safeguards arrangements and, indeed, make certain that Canada gets the best possible return on its outstanding nuclear system.


CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker,
I had intended to direct this question to the Secretary of State. I notice he has left the chamber. I will therefore
Oral Questions
direct it to the Prime Minister. In an answer to a question on the order paper, No. 2,412, given me by the Secretary of State, he indicated that a Mr. Carl LeMay of Montreal was given help for ten different movie productions in the past several years by the Canadian Film Development Corporation. Would the fact that Mr. LeMay has received more than any other producer have anything to do with the fact that his brother is assistant commissioner of the National Film Board?


Mr. Speaker;: Order, please.


NATURAL GAS-PERCENTAGE OF REDUCTION IN EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES-POSSIBILITY OF GRANTING ENERGY BOARD POWERS OF ALLOCATION
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the face of yesterday's statement by the National Energy Board that our natural gas reserves are much less than we had anticipated, whic will require a decline in the exports that we make of this important product, and since current natural gas exports to the United States are averaging about 45 per cent of our annual production, could the minister tell us what percentage of exports to the United States he is aiming for in his reduction of use of this resource?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think we would hesitate to give specific figures before having a full opportunity to discuss with the United States the impact of this decision on various American users. The view of the government is that with a commodity of this kind, which if withdrawn could have a severely adverse effect upon the United States community, we should have the fullest possible discussions with the Americans before taking any final decision. For that reason, the National Energy Board and the government have been reluctant to set out at this point, and without further discussion, any strict numerical limit.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to grant to the National Energy Board the power to allocate natural gas among the provinces as requested and, if so, would that involve direct rationing, for example, at the consumer level?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the statement yesterday, the board has sought the powers of allocation, and if they are to be achieved it would require an amendment to the National Energy Board Act which would have to be brought into the House. At this point we have not finalized our decision on whether allocation would be the best and most desirable proceeding. We would like to talk to the provincial governments in this regard. If we find that the only way to achieve a good allocation is by a statutorily imposed allocation, then we would seek that remedy, as for allocation at the retail level, this, of course, would be the responsibil-

July 17, 1975
Oral Questions
ity of the provincial agencies, like the Ontario Energy Board, which has jurisdiction over the individual distribution companies.


INDUSTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell the House whether his department is planning any special assistance to the paper and allied industries sector, in view of their reduced volumes of shipments, their skyrocketing inventories and their reductions in employment; and if the minister is launching any assistance programs, could he advise the House what form this assistance will take and whether it will be directed to any particular regions of the country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have intensified our efforts in the export markets of the world, trying to find new markets for Canadian forest products. About two weeks ago I was in Japan, and made a special effort when meeting with Japanese businessmen and officials to promote the forest products of Canada. At that time I also participated at a particular meeting at Osaka which dealt with the new timber frame construction system which the Japanese have now endorsed as a result of the work of the federal government, the provincial government and the industry itself.


PROPOSED AID IN ESTABLISHING PAPER MILL IN IRAN- EFFECT ON CANADIAN INDUSTRY
Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister plans, as an aid to the Canadian industry, also to supply Canadian assistance in the construction of a pulp and paper facility in Iran, a country to which Canada exports well in excess of $10 million a year in pulp and paper products, can the minister assure the House that studies within his department show Canadian assistance in establishing a potential competitor will not have a long-term, damaging effect on Canadian pulp and paper production, exports and employment? If his department has studied this possibility, would he table the study?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think that, as a result of the meetings that we had with the Iranian delegation last week to the joint economic council, a set of arrangements were worked out which should produce close to $1.3 billion in Canadian exports to Iran over the next five years. Part of that particular arrangement dealt with the pulp and paper industry. I believe that the opportunities are two way; that is to say, that there will be substantial opportunities for the export of Canadian forest products, particularly pulp and paper, to Iran, perhaps some investment in the Canadian pulp and paper industry, and assistance

by Canadian companies in the transfer of technology to Iranian companies.


HARBOURS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of an answer given the hon. member for Hamilton West yesterday with respect to the harbour inquiry. The Prime Minister said that an announcement had already been made. In view of that statement and the statement attributed to the Minister of Labour yesterday in the Hamilton Spectator that he would have a statement to make soon in this respect, indicating one has not been made, does the Prime Minister now wish to make a correction to his statement? If not and in fact an announcement has been made, what was in it, to whom was it made, and when in fact was it made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour had indicated some days before his position on this petition by the Hamilton council. I believe he indicated it to some newsman. It was the government's position then and the minister is continuing to develop that position. I believe he may have some further statement to add, but the minister did indicate what was the government's position.


Walter David Baker: A supplemantary question, Mr. Speaker. Was an announcement made by the Prime Minister or by anybody else with respect to the inquiry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have just said.


Walter David Baker: Well, has an inquiry been called? If so, what are the terms of reference, when was the announcement made and to whom was it made? That is the question.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member, as the Prime Minister has indicated, that we are looking into the situation and that-


Walter David Baker: Did you read Hansard yesterday?


John Carr Munro: Let me finish. I then said that I would comment later on, and later on has not yet arrived. That is what the Prime Minister said.


Walter David Baker: No, he did not.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In view of the results of the last federal-provincial conference on communications, with Quebec's position as stated by the provincial minister of communications being now referred to Quebec's premier, who publicly endorsed that position Sunday last, and since the political impact of a possible break would be harmful, would the Prime Minister indicate whether he discussed the matter with his Quebec counterpart, whether he intends to do so and whether he can put forward a suggestion conducive to the province of Quebec joining the committee involved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not been contacted by that province's premier after the conference. I suggest the federal Minister of Communications' position is the one I pointed out to the honourable member last week, namely that the conference was not empowered to bring amendments to the constitution or transfer jurisdiction. Such was the position taken by the federal Minister of Communications. It appears from the debates that Mr. L'Allier was requesting constitutional changes indeed. Although I doubt opposition members themselves would agree to such a position, I would be interested in hearing them. As far as we are concerned, I must state I have received no communication from the premier since the end of the conference.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask the government House leader about the business for the rest of this week and next week? In light of the motion standing in the minister's name regarding an adjournment, can the minister indicate what directives were given to him by his caucus yesterday about terminating this part of the session?


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, the business outstanding that we wish to complete, if possible, before we recess is Bill C-2, the combines legislation, Bill C-66, the Excise Tax Act, and Bill C-70 on the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The latter piece of legislation was dealt with expeditiously by the committee yesterday and I hope it will go through without much debate.
I am less optimistic about the other two bills, C-2 and C-66. I know there is a desire on the part of members to participate in the debate, particularly on the Excise Tax Act, and I think there is a general feeling that we should not take too long and that we should reach a decision as
Business of the House
soon as possible. I am confident I will get the co-operation of the House in extending the hours and in shortening the length of the speeches.


Some hon. Members:: No way!


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall be having discussions with my very co-operative friends, the House leaders of the various parties, and I am sure that in the interest of democratic progress in this House, where we take decisions without unreasonable delay, I shall have no difficulty in obtaining consent.
We shall be continuing the discussion on the Excise Tax Act tomorrow. I am not sure whether we shall do this without interruption; I may want to call third reading of Bill C-70 and perhaps Bill C-2. But our main order of business will be the Excise Tax Act.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Since the House leader is now aware of the mood of the House, would he not consider dropping Bill C-66 so that we could adjourn tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: No way!


Mitchell William Sharp: If the hon. gentleman is suggesting we should recess before we complete that bill, then, of course, the responsibility would be upon him for the lack of refunds.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. During the question period, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in response to a question put to him by me with respect to the real growth in the economy this year, misled the House-I am sure unintentionally-by stating, "If the honourable gentleman will read the budget speech carefully, he will find I estimated the rate of growth at somewhere between zero and 1 per cent." The fact is, there is no such reference in the budget speech. I realize the minister is under a lot of pressure, and perhaps he confused the budget address with his speech to the first ministers' conference. I wonder if he could be given an opportunity to correct the record.


John Napier Turner: I will send the honourable member the reference.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I rise on a similar question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Answering a question today concerning the Foreign Investment Review Act, the minister indicated that the problem of parent companies shutting down subsidiaries was a matter outside the ambit of that legislation. The criteria the minister set for approving takeovers included beneficial impact on employment and increased competition. Where a takeover has occurred and thereafter one of the plants taken over is shut down, it is clearly within the ambit of the act. I wonder, therefore, whether the minister would like to correct his answer, because he is unintentionally misleading the House if he suggests that this situation is outside the ambit of the Foreign Investment Review Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is a very interesting point of debate which the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has just raised.

July 17, 1975

Business of the House AGRICULTURE
Ninth report of Standing Committee on Agriculture, in both official languges-Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* *
*


TABLING OF TASK FORCE REPORT ENTITLED &quot;SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR CANADA'S ENERGY NEEDS&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Hon Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources): Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, in both official languages, copies of the report of the task force on energy, research and development entitled "Science and Technology for Canada's Energy Needs".

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-71, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Crown Liability Act, the Immigration Act and the Parole Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,484, 2,519, 2,537, 2,571, 2,584, 2,628, 2,782, 2,784, 2,827 and 2,870.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 1,784 and 2,533 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


CNR-ACQUISITION OF GULF TERMINAL RAILWAY LTD.
Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	On February 17, 1975, did the Canadian National Railways acquire the Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway Limited and, if so, at what cost?
2.	Has Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway Limited received subsidies from the government and, if so (a) what was the amount (b) on what date?
3.	Had Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway Limited received land or other grants from the government?


Jean Marchand: 1. On
February 17, 1975 the president of the C. & G.T. Railway Company officially accepted on behalf of the principal shareholders of the company an offer made by Canadian National to purchase this line. This offer is subject to certain conditions that are currently under negotiation, and to the approval of competent authorities, federal and provincial.
2.	For construction, a federal subsidy of $210,053.39 was paid under the Railway Subsidies Act of 1906. The Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway Co. received payments under the authority of the Maritime Freight Rates Act for each year from 1927 through January, 1975 in the total amount of $1,374,189.20. Also, under the National Transportation Act in respect of calendar years 1959-1974 payments were received totaling $661,364.00.
3.	There were no land grants from the federal government. The Quebec government provided a grant of 147,713 acres under the authority of Quebec statute, Edward VII, Chapter 2, 1904.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-406, to amend the Criminal Records Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: The purpose of this bill is to ensure that any person who is given an absolute or conditional discharge by a court is automatically relieved of the stigma of a criminal record. As the law now stands such a person suffers undue hardship as a result of the lengthy procedure involved in obtaining a pardon.


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

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


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. None.
2. Not applicable.
July 17, 1975


ASPHALT PLANT EMISSIONS
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Under a news release outlining guidelines limiting the emission of particular matter into the air from asphalt plants, what action has been taken by the Department of the Environment (a) to demand that the 350 asphalt plants in Canada provide equipment to control emissions of particular matter (b) to have the asphalt plants make an effort to provide such equipment?
2.	Have any of the asphalt plants applied under the accelerated capital cost allowance programme to provide such equipment and, if so, what are the names of such plants?


Len Marchand: 1. (a) Although national emission guidelines are not federally enforceable, the provincial agencies are encouraged to adopt these in order to promote a uniform nationwide approach to air pollution control. Several provinces have already indicated that their regulations would be based on the federal guidelines. The federal government does not have the authority to make any demands directly on the asphalt plants in Canada at the present time, (b) During the process of guideline development, consultation with the industries took place to ensure that a concerted effort would take place to obtain the necessary control equipment in asphalt plants in Canada.
2. Yes, forty-seven applications have been submitted by asphalt plant owners: Standard Paving Co., 1224 Lawrence Avenue West, Toronto 390, Ontario; Meloche & Freres Equipment Ltd., 3125 Boul. St. Charles, Kirkland, Quebec; Peel Construction Co. Ltd., Box 1000, Brampton, Ontario; Armstrong Bros. Company Ltd., Box 1000, Brampton, Ontario; Peel Construction Company Ltd., Box 1000, Brampton, Ontario; The FlintKote Co. of Canada Ltd. 30th St., Long Branch, Toronto 14, Ontario; King Paving & Material Ltd., 68 Old Mill Road, P.O. Box 550, Oakville, Ontario; King Paving & Material Ltd., 68 Old Mill Road, P.O. Box 550, Oakville, Ontario; Standing Paving Maritime Ltd., P.O. Box 2106, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Building Products of Canada Ltd., P.O. Box 6063, Montreal, Quebec; Building Products of Canada Ltd., P.O. Box 6063, Montreal, Quebec K.J. Beamish Construction Co. Ltd., 7901 Bayview Ave., Thornhill, Ontario; K.J. Beamish Construction Co. Limited, 7901 Bayview Ave., Thornhill, Ontario; K.J. Beamish Construction Co. Ltd., 7901 Bayview Ave., Thornhill, Ontario; K.J. Beamish Construction Co. Limited, 7901 Bayview Ave., Thornhill, Ontario; Royal Paving Ltd., P.O. Box 418, Lindsay, Ontario; Ellwood Rohnson Ltd., 721 John St., P.O. Box 40, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; W.G. Thompson & Sons Ltd., Belhneim, Ontario; Blacktop Construction Ltd., Box 600, Bridge Port, Ontario; Toro Asphalt Co., 93 Toro Road, Downsview, Ontario; Nord Construction Ltd., 2604 Chemin du Lac, Longueuil, Quebec; Botting Asphalt Paving Ltd., 1870 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario; Charles Duranceau Ltee, 2545 Jacques Hertel St., Montreal 206, Quebec; Standard Paving Maritime Ltd., P.O. Box 2106, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Miller Paving Ltd., Buttonville, Ontario; Miller Paving Ltd., Richmond Hill Plant, Buttonville, Ontario; Miller Paving Ltd., Highland Creek Plant, Buttonville, Ontario; Miller Paving Ltd., Buttonville, Ontario; Standard Paving Maritime Ltd., P.O. Box 2106, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Union des Carrieres & Pavage Limitee, 496 2nd Ave., Quebec 3, Quebec; Les Entreprises P.E.B. Ltee, 214 Lere Ave., Lac St.
Order Paper Questions
Charles, Comte Chauveau, Quebec, GOA 2H0; Curran & Bridges Ltd., Box 1625, Summerside, Prince Edward Island; C & W Asphalt Paving Co. of Wallaceburg Ltd., 20 Hird St., Wallaceburg, Ontario N8A 4S5; Scotland & Co. Paving Ltd., #4-520 B Clark Road, Coquitlam, B.C.; Bishop Building Materials Ltd., 21 Fleeceline Rd., Toronto, Ontario M8V 2K4; Cos Construction Ltd., Guelph, Ontario; Ashland Oil Canada, Ashland Paving & Materials Division, Thunder Bay Plant, 72 Ashwarren Rd., Downsview, Ontario M3J 1Z2; Ashland Oil Canada, Ashland Paving & Materials Division, Scarborough Plant, 72 Ashwarren Rd., Downsview, Ontario M3J 1Z2; Ashland Oil Canada, Ashland Paving & Materials Division, Oshawa Plant, Sault Ste. Marie Plant, 72 Ashwarren Rd., Downsview, Ontario M3J 1Z2; Ashland Oil Canada, Ashland Paving & Materials Division, Mississauga Plant, 72 Ashwarren Rd., Downsview, Ontario M3J 1Z2; Ashland Oil Canada, Ashland Paving & Materials Division, Oshawa Okabtm 72 Ashwarren Rd., Downsview, Ontario M3J 1Z2; Ashland Oil Canada, Ashland & Materials Division, Division, Downsview Plant, 72 Ashwarren Rd., Downsview, Ontario M3J 1Z2; Ashland Oil Canada, Ashland Paving & Materials Division, 72 Ashwarren Rd., Downsview, Ontario M3J 1Z2; Ashland Oil Canada, Ashland Paving & Materials Division, Waterloo Township Plant, 72 Ashwarren Rd., Downsview, Ontario M3J 1Z2; Union des Carrieres et Pavage Ltee, Quebec; Repac Construction & Materials Ltd., P.O. Box 177, West Hill, Ontario; Standard Paving Maritime Ltd., P.O. Box 2106, Halifax, Nova Scotia.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-LANGUAGE TRAINING COSTS
Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare for language training?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) salaries of personnel receiving instruction (b) salaries of instructional staff (c) additional or supplementary services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission (d) other costs?


Marc Lalonde: 1. $267,000.
2.(a) Due to the changing nature of the number of conditional appointments to the department, it would be extremely difficult to forecast this information for the fiscal year, (b) Nil-These costs are borne by the Language Bureau, P.S.C. (c) $178,000.000-in-house training programs, (d) $89,000.00-Berlitz.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS-LANGUAGE TRAINING COSTS
Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs for language training?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) salaries of personnel receiving instruction (b) salaries of instructional staff (c) additional or supplementary services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission (d) other costs?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. $33,000.
2. (a) Nil, (b) Nil, (c) Nil, (d) $33,000.

July 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions CBC EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Is CBC advertising or otherwise soliciting in other countries for applicants to positions with the Corporation and, if so (a) in which countries (b) for what positions (c) what are the other details?
2.	For how long and for what positions has such practice been employed in the past?
3.	What is the reason for such practice?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes (a) Britain, France, U.S.A. (b) Britain: television production and program management staff, engineers, clerical staff. France: technician, clerical staff, U.S.A.; clerical and research staff, (c) See below.
2.	Advertising for staff in other countries to work in Canada is not a common practice of the CBC. Staff have been sought in this way only within the last two years.
3.	The clerical staff are hired by the CBC's foreign offices in London, Paris, New York and Washington because in these locations the law requires that local people be hired if they are capable of doing the work. This category includes stenographers, accountants, switchboard operators, researchers and messengers. The television and program management staff were sought for possible employment in western Canada. This was in order to attract exceptionally well qualified and experienced television staff to western regional centres. In addition, international searches for a head of television drama and a head of television variety programs for the English services division were carried out. On a referral basis persons of international status were sought in Canada, Britain and the United States. In the case of drama the search took place in the spring and summer of 1973, in the case of variety the search began in the spring and summer of 1974 and was resumed in 1975, once the position of director of television entertainment programming, which had become vacant in the meantime, was filled. Both positions were filled with Canadians. Also hired by referral within the last year in order to obtain exceptionally well qualified and experienced staff were three television drama directors from Britain, one of whom was a Canadian resident in Britain, two current affairs producers from Britain and one current affairs researcher from the United States. Engineers were sought in Britain after an extensive advertising campaign in Canada produced only three qualified candidates for approximately twelve positions. Similarly, a technician was advertised for in France after a search had been made in Canada for a broadcasting technician qualified to train other personnel.


FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THEATRE GROUPS
Mr. Robinson: Does the government provide any financial support for the theatre groups (a) Factory Theatre Lab (b) Tarragon Village (c) Globel Village (d) The Theatre, Second Floor (e) Toronto Arts Foundation (f) Stratford Shakespearean Theatre Foundation (g) Young People's Theatre (h) Phoenix Theatre (i) Toronto Free Theatre (j) New Theatre (k) Toronto Truck Theatre (1) Open Circle Theatre and, if so, to what extent?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canada Council as follows: The Canada

Council has provided financial support for the groups listed as (a), (b),(c), (f), (g), (i), (1). For the fiscal year 1974-75, these groups reveived the following amounts: (a) $30,000; (b) $35,000; (c) $5,000; (e) $235,000; (f) $467,000; (g) $20,000; (i) $27,500; (1) $5,000.


LAUNDRY PRODUCTS
Mr. Hnatyshyn: Do certain laundry products designed to cut static electricity in dryers have the tendency to clog lint screens in dryer exhaust vents and cause dangerous overheating and, if so, is it the intention of the government to ban the use of such products?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: These antistatic laundry products leave a residual film in use. The film will desposit on tent screens of dryers and cause more rapid clogging than would be encountered when they are not used. This effect is increased when excessive amounts of the antistatic product is used. Product labels provide very specific use instructions and a caution to clean lint from traps after each dryer load. In view of the label information provided to consumers, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not considering a ban at this time.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD EMPLOYEES
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 that section of the Department of Justice responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board for duties relating primarily to the implementation and administration of Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, No.2?
2.	In each case, what was the date of the original employment or commencement of contract?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: In so far as the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned 1. (a) (b), Nil.
2. Not applicable.


MR. W. LUYENDYK
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Did Mr. W. Luyendyk leave the Public Service and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reason?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes. (a) November 15, 1974. (b) Accepted an appointment with the city of Edmonton (see Privy Council Office Press Release of November 29, 1974).


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1. During the period March 31, 1974 to February 28, 1975, on how many occasions did a Minister of the Crown employ or otherwise arrange for the services of a freelance or contract speech writer?
July 17, 1975

2. In each case (a) who was the Minister (b) what was the fee (c) what was the occasion of the speech (d) who was the freelance or contract writer?
Return tabled.


FIREARMS
Mr. Whiteway: 1.	For the year 1974, how many crimes were committed in which firearms were used?
2.	How many crimes were committed in which knives, clubs, axes, scissors etc. were used?
3.	How many such firearms used were (a) unrestricted (b) restricted but unregistered (c) restricted but registered and, in each case, how many (i) murders (ii) homicides (iii) suicides were committed?
4.	What is the official estimate of (a) unrestricted (b) restricted but unregistered (c) restricted but registered firearms in Canada?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, July 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 7416).
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has had to leave the chamber.


An hon. Member:: He is back.


Robert Muir: I am happy to see him return; I am sure that, of all members, he would want to hear what I have to say. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to criticize this minister because he really is a pretty fine guy. It is difficult to hit him hard. I shall try not to be too hard on him and his budget proposals.
Yesterday evening, just before the hour of the adjournment at six o'clock, I was referring to the fact that after the budget, when this resolution came on, all the members of the cabinet, it seemed to me, divorced themselves from the minister, from the budget and, in particular, from the resolution before us-this iniquitous tax to which I referred last night. So far I have not heard anyone come to the minister's defence saying how wonderful this measure is and what a great idea it was. I would hope some Liberal members, although of course not all, would support the minister, particularly the bumbling House leader who messes up everything: I would hope that he, at least, would support the Minister of Finance who in this case needs much support.
I also asked if the government could defend this tax, but of course there is no defence whatsoever. The budget and
Excise Tax Act
this resolution will increase the degree of inflation that has become such a cruel and crushing blow for all Canadians, but especially for the poor and the elderly who are fixed incomes. It means that next winter will be even more severe for them than last winter, and that their savings-if indeed they have any-will be eaten up at an even faster rate. It will also mean that many small businesses which have their backs to the wall as a result of the government's diabolical policies will face closure and bankruptcy.
Indeed, we are seeing the results of closure of industries in Cape Breton Island at the moment. Lay-offs and unemployment will become even more commonplace in the days ahead, although goodness knows the situation is bad enough now and I do not want to see any more lay-offs and unemployment.
It is all very well for the Minister of Finance to tell us that things are picking up in the United States, and how wonderful that is, just as he has told us in the last few years that because the economy is bad in the United States it will be bad here. He blamed many things on the weather. I think he also talked about praying, and so on, but it has not had much success. It is all very well for the minister to suggest that we read the glowing testimony of selected economists who say that we are just around the corner from recovering from the recession, which indeed has worsened because of the policies of this government, but it will take more than glowing statements to convince the people of my constituency that we are anywhere but in the throes of deep depression on Cape Breton Island.
Unemployment there at the moment is between 15 per cent and 20 per cent at a minimum. Every aspect of our economy is in desperate trouble. The figures I have quoted are produced by the office of the Minister of Manpower and his officials. I suggest that, if anything, they are conservative figures, considering the source from which they came. Last year in my riding we faced the loss of the General Instruments plant, which meant the loss of close to 1,000 jobs. That was indeed a major blow to our economy. Regardless of the suggested efforts to overcome that disaster, we still have an empty plant and we still have 1,000 former employees seeking jobs that do not exist.
What will this ten-cent a gallon tax on gasoline do for those people? Will it assist them? I am afraid not. When these unemployed men and women are told they will have to pay ten cents more for a gallon of gasoline, and more for the oil to heat their homes out of their UIC cheques that are quickly coming to an end, if they have not already, there will be little appreciation for the logic of the budget or its intent.
Yesterday Mr. Speaker announced that the Minister of Finance had given permission for a new coin to be struck to celebrate the one-hundredth anniversary of the Library of Parliament. At the same time it might be well for the minister to have a new ten-cent piece struck to commemorate this tax he is imposing: on one side of it there could be an effigy of the minister with his hand in the taxpayer's pocket.
As a result of the problems I have outlined, instead of new hope we face new disasters one on top of the other. We have just learned of the forthcoming closure of the Canadian Motor Industries plant and the elimination of 70

July 17, 1975
Excise Tax Act
jobs by October. The sad fact of this closure is that those 70 employees have nowhere to look for other employment on Cape Breton Island. What does the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) suggest? He refers to the mobility program. That was the suggestion of Walter Gordon, chairman of the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects. That was the proposal for the ills of the Atlantic provinces back in 1957.
The situation has not changed very much since that time. This government gives the people of the Atlantic provinces a one-way ticket to Ontario. It suggests that they move out, leave everything and go. The sad fact is that the move is a little different now. People are coming back from Toronto, St. Catharines, Hamilton, Welland and all over Ontario. They are coming back east because they have been laid off from their jobs and have nowhere to look for employment.
What does the Minister of Finance or the government intend to do to assist these workers and their families? What does the budget or Bill C-66 hold in store for them? Just more hardship. As an indication of the degree of frustration associated with this situation, Tom Kent, president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, failed in his efforts to assist the Canadian Motor Industries plant to continue operations on Cape Breton Island. Rather than work with Devco, the company decided to close. I am sure the budget and the attitude of this government toward business left a stronger impression in their minds regarding closure than anything Devco could offer in the way of help.
What is really alarming and is becoming more so with each passing day are the lay-offs at the Sydney Steel plant. Since March, 500 employees have been laid off. Sysco president Ernie Alderton announced a few days ago that another 300 employees would be laid off. This makes a total of approximately 800 employees thrown on the street. That is close to a quarter of the total work force, which is between 3,200 and 3,600 when the plant is running at full capacity. What does the minister or this government intend to do to assist these workers and their dependents? Obviously, the minister and the government will merely increase their problems with the additional ten cents tax on gasoline.
The sad fact of the matter is that there is no alternative employment available, and no guarantee that there will not be more lay-offs rather than a revival of development. Let the Minister of Finance show me how anything in this budget or this resolution will help those who have been laid off, or how we can anticipate anything from this tax except bad news for those who are working and for those laid off who hope and pray they will be recalled. What the people and the economy want is a policy directed at increasing employment. While we favour a two-price policy for oil, and while we know funds must be available in order to lower the price of the oil eastern Canada must import, we do not believe the funds should be raised on the backs of the working men and women, the poor and the elderly, as will be the case in respect of this tax.
All Canadians, regardless of where they live, should shoulder this burden collectively. No group or class in this nation should be singled out to carry the burden for others. If we lack energy-certainly this government lacks

energy except in creating problems for the workingman- why are we not moving at greater speed to utilize the tremendous potential of the coalfields of Cape Breton? While we are working on a replacement for the Prince mine at Sydney Mines, and now that we have the Lingan mine in Glace Bay operational, there is no reason we could not move forward with two additional mines opening on Cape Breton Island. We need the coal and we need the jobs. We have the work force-and it is a good work force-to do the job. All there has to be is direction from the government to get the show on the road.
While we cry about the cost of energy produced from oil, we will not take action to provide alternatives that are available and could be utilized immediately. What about the new steel complex for Cape Breton Island that we have heard so much about? My Liberal opponent in the last campaign went from one end of the riding to the other promising that it was coming and that it would be located in Gabarus, a few miles from Sydney. After listening to him you would have thought it would be there almost the next day. What a transformation! Now we hear the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) saying it might be located in Baie Comeau, Gros Cacouna, or it could be somewhere else. He is not saying it will be on the east coast. This simply means that my Liberal opponent deceived the people of Cape Breton-The Sydneys. Here we are, a year later, and it is just another broken promise by the Liberal government. This complex could be of great benefit to the economy of the island, without question, but the Liberal administration takes no action.
I remember a little over a year ago when I was accused of being against the proposed new steel plant in Cape Breton because I said the study should only take in the area where the steel had been produced since the early part of the century. Instead of that, they wanted to take in the whole eastern coast before deciding where the complex would be. With every passing day it seems to be farther and farther away from where it should be and where it is most needed. The longer we wait to take advantage of our alternatives, the more expensive it will be to undertake the construction, because of inflation and because the Minister of Finance is contributing to inflation with this budget. Unfortunately, he is deserted by his cabinet colleagues who will not defend him or his policies. It seems most unfortunate because, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, he is a pretty fine guy and at least they should make a pretence of defending him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is difficult to defend the indefensible.


Robert Muir: Still, he is a good tennis player, a fine gentleman and a good friend to have, and it is unfortunate that he has to produce this type of budget which I do not think is of his own doing; I think he was forced to bring it before the people by a higher power-and I do not mean a higher power from the heavens.


John Napier Turner: Wally Baker said God was on your side.
July 17, 1975


Robert Muir: Members of the Liberal Party have said they have the right of God or the right of Allah to govern, and that only they can govern, no one else.
In the coal mines of Cape Breton we once had 6,000 employed; now the number is down to 3,000. There is no reason why we cannot look forward to a work force numbering an additional 1,000 coal miners, in view of the present cost of competitive energy alternatives. It has been my contention for some years that the rail operation at Sydney and between Sydney and Truro requires drastic overhaul. Yesterday the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) spoke-I enjoyed listening to him, although I disagree with some of the things he said-of the great speech which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made in Cornwall and his speech in Toronto regarding rapid urban transportation and assistance for transportation. These are just Liberal promises; nothing has come of them.
This assistance could be used, for instance, in Cape Breton where the railway tracks should be relocated outside the city of Sydney. In that way the present bottlenecks within the city would be eliminated and there would be a tremendous saving in the long run for the Canadian nation. Work of this kind has been done here in Ottawa and it could be done in Sydney if the government wanted to get the job done.


John Napier Turner: We have a different kind of member of parliament.


Robert Muir: It seems strange that almost anything can be done in Hull, Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal, but when it comes to the Atlantic provinces, northern Ontario and a number of other places, the money cannot be found. Money is always found for the central strip in our nation. Action of the kind I mentioned by the CNR would provide much needed employment immediately. It would provide work for the steel plants and it would result in further modernization of the Sydney area, which would bring long-term benefits both from the environmental and the beautification point of view.
The minister indicated that he hopes the ten cents per gallon tax will result in the conservation of our oil supplies. For most Canadians it will mean nothing more than an additional expense, because most people in this nation consider the car a necessity and they will continue to drive their cars. This will cost them more because of the increase in the price of fuel. Since many people live some distance from their place of employment, it will cost them more to get to and from work. As a result, these workers will say. "We must have more money'to pay for the higher cost of gas. To get the money we must negotiate, and if we do not get it we will go on strike". Indeed, this must be done so often under this government.
If the minister wishes to help conserve oil, why does he not urge the government to undertake the reconstruction of the CN roadbed between Sydney and Truro? I am sure the minister is familiar with Truro. That is the place to which he went at one time to make his famous speech damning the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). On the road to Damascus he became converted and later implemented everything that the Leader of the Opposition had proposed. He stole the ideas of the Leader of the Opposition. Now, however, he is
Excise Tax Act
forced to put in these crazy programs. As I said, he is getting orders from up high but no support from his colleagues. This is unfortunate. I feel really sorry for the minister. I think this is his last budget. In fact, it may be the last of many things for him.


An hon. Member:: Let us hope so.


Robert Muir: If we have more budgets like this we could not stand it. If the minister really wants to help conserve oil, why does he not recommend that the government undertake the reconstruction of the CN tracks between Sydney and Truro? The line between these two junctions is as twisted as the minds of those who produced this budget and this ten cent tax. Those who are forced to take the train between Sydney and Truro face a ride two hours longer than it should be. If the roadbed were reconstructed, straightened, and a double track put in-that is the important thing-it would have the effect of conserving oil because many more people would opt to travel by train. That would mean a real saving in oil and it would also provide work for the unemployed in construction, as well as work in the steel plant producing the required rails.
It is not long ago that my colleague in the adjoining riding made a tour of Africa. We had glowing press reports of the emerging African nations asking for new rails for their railways. It appeared that these orders might go to the Sydney Steel plant. But suddenly we had cutbacks, a softening of the steel market and layoffs. For some time, every summer we were able to put 100, 150 or 200 students to work at that steel plant to make a few dollars to enable them to go back to university. But not this year; they are -not working and there have been all these lay-offs. If the minister really wants to conserve oil and to put people to work, those are a few ways to do so on Cape Breton Island, rather than imposing a discriminatory tax which will only lead to greater inflation, more unemployment and more labour strife in this nation.
With regard to labour strife, the minister goes to one part of the country and makes a statement about how bad labour is, what it should do and what it should not do. Then the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) says something else. Far too many people in this country-indeed, many of them supporters of this government-are all too willing to condemn the workers and the union movements and to blame them for everything from inflation to the weather. These people run around saying that the problems we face are the fault of labour because it is on strike. There are many people in my party who are great supporters of labour.


Mr. Symes:: Oh, oh!


Robert Muir: They have always been supporters of labour, and were so long before the hon. member who just opened his mouth either worked or knew what a labour union was. That poor, unfortunate individual has not even grown up yet; he has never been in a union. I would bet that he has never been on strike, has never been on picket duty and has never negotiated for or served in a union- yet he is the great expert! He does not know what it is all about. I am a former coal miner and active trade unionist.

Excise Tax Act
My record can be checked at any time. I suggest that the hon. member should not wrap himself in a robe or purity, sanctity and holiness. His party claims to be the only party that can speak for the working man in this country. It claims to be the only party that worries about the working man. I get fed up with this phony drivel. They say that, being socialists, they are the only people who worry about the working man.
Does the minister not work when he is in his office? Sure he works. Doesn't the man who drives a taxi work? He works. What is a worker? Hon. members to my left say that they are the supporters of the workers and they are the only people who worry about the poor, the depressed, senior citizens, the disabled and the sick. They say that those damned Liberals, Tories and Socreds do not worry, that they are the only ones who do. It is so damned phony. As a man who formerly worked in the mines and who was active in unions, I know, as do many of the people in my party. There are farmers and fishermen in my party among hon. members opposite and in the Social Credit party; but these great intellectuals to my left have only worked as professors in universities. They think they know what it is to work. They worked for three hours a week and made a lot of money.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have digressed. The workers to whom I was referring are earning a salary. One can be dressed up nicely and still work hard. Many times I have worked harder, with clean hands, at a desk, than I did in the coal mines. I used to shovel coal all day. I wonder what hon. members to my left define as a worker. In God's name, let us have no more of this silly drivel from people who claim a monopoly and say that they are the only people who can be responsible for those in need in this country. We in our party have ways of speaking on behalf of our constituents. I do not rpind being criticized. Hon. members can criticize me as much as they wish, but I ask them not to insult the intelligence of the thousands of people in Cape Breton-The Sydneys who support me, and have done so for eight consecutive elections.
Some hon Members: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: I ask hon. members not to insult the members of the Longshoremen's Association at the docks, the United Steelworkers Union, the United Mineworkers, or the CB of RT. You name it, I have it. They know what they are doing. They do not have to be told by sanctimonious phonies that they are the only people who look after them. One reason for the number of strikes is that workers must make more demands to keep their real income up to the point where they can make ends meet. They do not go on strike because they want to, but because they are forced to by the ever continuing, ever increasing high rate of inflation in this country brought about as a result of inadequate government policies. All the bafflegab, doubletalk and gobbledygook by "Ten-cent John" and his cohorts will not make it otherwise. It is going to hurt and it will cause inflation and other problems. I want to thank the minister for staying in the House. He is a dear fried of mine and I hope I have not been too critical of him.
I understand that a few remarks I made last night may have upset someone. Last night I referred to the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) as an hon. lady.

She is a delightful and beautiful lady; but she said that she was not a lady, but a member of parliament. I feel badly about this. The hon. member for Skeena really should know whether or not she is a lady, and I am not one to criticize. The hon. member took umbrage at being referred to as a lady. Before I resume my seat, I just want to say that in politics one should take everything seriously except oneself, and I commend that to the hon. member for Skeena.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this excise tax bill, Bill C-66, which came out of the very cruel budget presented on June 23, I would first like to commend the minister for taking the excise tax off wine which he put on just a few months earlier in his previous budget. At that time we in the opposition pleaded with him and tried to obtain help from the government side of the House, but none was forthcoming. We pleaded with the minister not to put this tax on, but he did anyway. I think it shows that we were correct because he removed it so shortly after imposing it.
I think it shows that we almost had him taking it off at the time he brought in his last Excise Tax Act amendment, but he was just not going to give us too much at that time. He gave us a little bit on the boats, but he was not going to give us very much more. So it took only this long to have the tax removed from wine and wine products. I hope no harm has been done to the producers of grapes. A big crop is coming this year and I hope it can be taken off in time.
It is nice to see that the tax is being removed from insulation materials used in buildings. In the last excise tax bill it was reduced by half, and we have been pleading with the government to eliminate it entirely, It seems it is to be done a little bit at a time, but it is long overdue and the tax should be taken off all building materials. Perhaps the government is concerned that the bureaucracy which has been created to collect the tax would become redundant. I suspect that is one reason why it has not been removed entirely. By taking it away a little bit at a time the government can probably maintain that department, although to remove it entirely would make much more sense.
In the last speech I made on the excise tax a few months ago in this House, I said that it was a port way for governments to collect money. I repeat that today. In my opinion, if people have to be taxed at all, the fairest way to do it is through income tax. Excise taxes are very gimmicky; they are imposed here and there at the will of the government, often with no real purpose. More often than not, these taxes are imposed on those who are least able to afford them. It is not nearly as fair a way of taxing as income tax.
Provincial governments often have to resort to this type of tax because they do not have the same authority to collect income tax as the federal government Indeed, they have to make deals with the federal government about income tax. As the federal government has the right to impose income tax, I do not think they should be imposing
July 17, 1975

excise taxes as well, especially in cases like putting a ten cents per gallon tax on gasoline.
This tax is going to hit the workers and people on pensions as well as the younger generation. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said that certain categories of people and business would be exempt. This was an effort to soften the blow, to confuse the people-and they certainly are confused by that stipulation. Who is going to be exempted, and how are they going to get their money back? There is a lot of talk about rebates. The government House leader keeps saying that if we do not get this bill through, people will not get their rebates on gasoline. As soon as the government brought in the budget, the tax was imposed. Now they are trying to blackmail us to say nothing about it, not to let the people know what is going to happen to them. But within a year or two they will know all about this kind of tax.
Do the people who are going to be exempt know who they are? Do those who are going to get a rebate know who they are? When asked to elaborate on this, the Minister of Finance said that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) is going to announce the categories that will be exempt. This should have been the first thing to happen, Mr. Speaker. It appears to me that imposing this tax in the first place, and then making refunds to certain people, is going to create an administrative nightmare.
As a farmer, I have had some experience in getting exemptions on gasoline tax at the provincial level. At one time we were required to fill out a form for rebate or exemption on that portion of the gasoline that was used in the farming operation. This has the effect of people putting in for exemptions that they should not have: it is a licence to steal. It would have been a tremendous cost to the farmer to keep accurate records of the amount of gas that should have been tax free. He would have had to put in gas pumps to measure it, so most of the time it was just done by guess or by golly. I realize that most farmers do their level best to keep their records straight; nevertheless, the opportunity is there and some people may try to get far more money rebated than they are entitled to for the gas they have actually used in their operations.
I am not sure who is going to be exempt, because that is not clear from this bill and the Minister of National Revenue has not made any statement on it. So we don't know who it is going to be. It appears that most people in business are going to get a rebate. They will buy gasoline at the pump, pay the full price and keep records to show exactly how much they bought. Some time or other they are supposed to make representations to the federal government for a rebate of the tax they paid. Just think of the cash flow which is going to be involved, and the amounts of money which will be paid as a rebate. Just stop and think of the bureaucratic organization this government will need to put in place if it is to police this tax properly. Let us hope that this is not the first step, or another step, toward a police state in Canada.
The Minister of Finance said the government is going to make $350 million in revenue from this tax. My guess is that if the government has to put in place the organization to police the tax properly, it will cost just about as much
Excise Tax Act
to collect the tax as the amount the tax will bring in. Think of all the costs, think of all the problems and troubles of individual people in Canada who will try to get a rebate on what they pay for their gas.
Are people who are working to be considered as businessmen? Are individual people to be considered as being in the realm of business? How about the loggers of my constituency of Okanagan Boundary? They have to go to work every day on an individual basis. There is no real way that a bus system can be put in place to carry them to work. Are they going to get a rebate, or are they to be considered as individuals and is this tax to be just part of the cost they must carry in order to get to their jobs?
If the logic of this tax is carried far enough, and if it is only going to apply to people who are not in business, or who are on vacation or driving their car for the fun of it, it means that everybody is going to be able to apply for a rebate. When you stop and think of it, you will realize that what I say about bureaucratic organization for policing and collecting this tax is very true. How about the miners? They cannot live at the mine site. In my riding the mine sites are back in the hills. They cannot live there; they have to drive to the mine. Are they to pay this tax to go to work, or will they be exempt as they should be, as any other business person is to be? Is the tax to be, as I say, imposed right on the backs of workers?
In my riding there is no transportation system, really, other than cars. It is not easy to put in place a bus system. My riding is not like a big city, although in the 100-mile extension up and down the beautiful Okanagan Lake and valley it is just like a city. But there is no way that they can put in a proper bus system to accommodate the people. So the car has to be used for transportation. At one time we used to have a rail system out of the valley, but that has been abandoned. A little while ago they even decided to take the railway station out of the junction at Kamloops. There is not even a railway station there any more for anyone who wants to catch the main line CNR or CPR train to eastern Canada. Our transportation systems do not exist; they are not in place; they are not what the minister visualized.
I do not think anyone really sat down and constructively thought about what this ten-cent a gallon tax would really mean for the ordinary Canadian people. No one thought about how they would administer the tax or if it would really work. I think it was a dream perpetrated on the Canadian people. I can tell you, I have never talked to anyone who likes it-except a few backbenchers on the government side.


Mr. Epp:: And they want to withdraw it.


An hon. Member:: No, we do not.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Come off it. You still want to withdraw it.


George H. Whittaker: None of them get up to speak. A few make little asides here and there, but they are not getting up to speak and tell us what they think about the tax. That leads me to believe they like it. They think it is great just because the cabinet decided to impose it on the Canadian people. It is a very unfair tax. It is one of the most unfair and unrealistic taxes that could have been imposed on the

July 17, 1975
Excise Tax Act
Canadian people. I do not believe it is going to generate the revenues for the government coffers that the government expects, because the government will have to put in place a very much greater bureaucracy. This money is just going to go through their hands, and we will find another budget being introduced and another great bureaucracy organized to try to collect this tax.
I think Canadian people are greatly concerned about the use of energy-about the use of gasoline, oil and natural gas. The Canadian people are beginning to understand that there has to be conservation in this field. I also think that there is great concern in Canada today over inflation. Even though the Minister of Finance told us that he was not going to do anything really drastic to try to control inflation because the Canadian people were not ready for anything drastic, I do not think he was right; I think the Canadian people are ready for action-but they want leadership. There has to be leadership from the Government of Canada before the people will accept that action; and they are not going to accept it piecemeal, not if it is imposed on one class of persons but not on another. If programs are brought in that are realistically oriented to control inflation, and if they are applied to all the people at the same time, I believe the people will accept them. They are certainly ready for that kind of thing.
Someone said the other night that the provincial government of Ontario had brought in a speed limit of 50 miles an hour. Look at what happened in the United States. You will find that the federal government there imposed the speed limit in all states. They imposed it equally across the United States and it was acceptable to the people. It should be done through strength, not piecemeal.
In British Columbia we have a 55 miles an hour speed limit which was imposed by the government of the province. It is working well. In order to conserve gasoline, these kinds of things must be done, through strength, by the federal government, not by gimmicks such as putting an excise tax on gasoline of ten cents a gallon. It is nonsensical. It will do nothing except cause hardship for the people. There will be great areas of dishonesty. It will not work without a policing system, which will be very costly.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House to impose a tax of ten cents a gallon on gasoline is one that the people of Canada do not accept, judging by the mail that members of parliament are receiving and by the commentary in the press. I find it very interesting that not one Liberal member has risen to defend this ten-cent tax imposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). These Liberal backbenchers who in the 1974 election campaigned as protectors of the consumer and friends of the working people, now-with their majority-support a Minister of Finance who has imposed one of the most regressive, discriminatory and unfair taxes experienced by Canadians in many years. These Liberal backbenchers who are obviously at a loss to rationalize and explain this tax have no option but to sit quietly or to heckle when opposition members bring out the inadequacies of this discriminatory tax.

We listened to the arguments of the Minister of Finance as to why Canadians consumers who drive cars must pay an extra ten cents a gallon for gasoline. He gave two reasons. First, he says he needs more revenue to add to the oil compensation payments that are being made to eastern Canada as to a stopgap measure for lack of any national energy policy by this government. The other argument is conservation. The minister hopes this ten-cent a gallon tax will reduce gasoline consumption in this country. In the course of my speech I would like to show why neither of these arguments are valid. I would also like to state why I claim that this tax is regressive, discriminatory and unfair.
We call it a regressive tax because it hits everybody the same. It hits the low income worker equally with the high income worker. That is most unfair. If we are to have a tax system that takes into account the differences in income in this country, we must do it by means of a progressive income tax, not by direct excise or sales taxes such as we see in the measure before us. The majority of workers in this country are in the low and middle income group. This is the group that drives the most cars in this country. This massive population in our country will be paying this tax, although they cannot affort it.
This tax is discriminatory because it not only hits the low and moderate income group but it provides specific exemptions for certain groups of people who will not have to pay the tax. Those receiving exemptions are businessmen, doctors and other professionals who have to use their cars in the course of their work. I ask those Liberal who are so silent on the issue, do the workers not have to use their cars to get to work? I come from northern Ontario where there are many small, scattered communities outside the larger centres where the major employer is located, such as the mine, the steel company or whatever. The employees do not have the option of public transit. They cannot travel on an efficient bus or subway system. They cannot leave their cars at home and take these public transit mechanisms to work; they must travel by car.
Many of these workers must make round trips of 100 miles a day. However, they cannot deduct the cost of gasoline in their daily course of work in the same way as a doctor, a salesman or others who use a car. That is why we say this tax is discriminatory. It is unfair to working people who have to use the car. Because there is no option for public transit, this tax should be withdrawn.
During the 1974 election campaign members of this government went across the country promising new initiatives for public transit so that people would not have to depend on the car and the car would not continue to congest our cities. In June, 1974, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that $270 million would be made available to assist public transit. In the same month he promised there would be a new Crown corporation for railway passenger service and that they would set up a national urban transportation development corporation to take bold initiatives in order to improve public transit in this country.
What has happened to those promises? They are not worth the paper on which they are written. This government now has a majority; it feels secure; it feels it does not have to live up to its election promises. Instead of provid-
July 17, 1975

ing measures to aid the beleaguered commuter in our society, it turns around and slaps a ten-cent a gallon tax on everyone who has to drive a car or a truck either for work of for pleasure. This is a government that is purely cynical when it makes promises. I hope the Canadian electorate remember those promises when they go to the polls in 1978.
Let us look at the provincial governments. Of course, I am most familiar with the government of Ontario. That government is not much better. When we look at their attempts to assist in developing public transit in this country, we see that their policy is also a mess. The government of Ontario-a Conservative government-is content to spend millions of dollars on a so-called magnetic levitation, modern transportation system experimental study in Toronto. The project has fallen through. After spending millions of dollars it proved to be impractical. After years of delay there are no new public transit options open for commuters in the province of Ontario. They have to rely on the car. They, of course, will be hit by the gasoline tax both in the province and the tax this federal government has imposed. It is interesting to note that the Ontario Motor League conducted a study in 1974 which showed that the Ontario motorist is paying 120 per cent of the total cost of highways in Ontario.
In this bill the Liberal government is imposing an additional tax on the Ontario motorist of ten cents a gallon on gasoline consumed. This hits everyone in the province, but it hits the people in northern Ontario more than those in southern Ontario since we in the north have to pay higher gasoline prices. The price of a gallon of regular gasoline in northern Ontario ranges from 75 cents to 85 cents a gallon so, as I say, we are hit even worse by this kind of measure.
When the ten cents a gallon federal tax is added to the 19 cents a gallon provincial tax, it represents a really unjustifiable burden on the drivers of automobiles. I should like to give the House an example, Mr. Speaker, of what it will cost to drive a car in Ontario. Before the imposition of this tax as announced in the finance minister's budget of June 23, the Ontario motorist had to pay a provincial gasoline tax of 19 cents a gallon. If a motorist drives a car 10,000 miles a year and gets 20 miles per gallon, he consumes, on a yearly average, 500 gallons of gasoline. Before the budget this would have cost him $95 a year in provincial gasoline tax. When we add the ten cents a gallon federal tax to that, he pays $145 a year-an increase of 53 per cent.
If that is not discrimination, Mr. Speaker, if it is not fighting the attempts of the ordinary people to jump ahead of the inflation rate in this country, then I do not know what is. Take as another example the motorist with a large family who has to drive around in a station wagon. Say he drives 15,000 miles a year and gets only 15 miles per gallon. Before the budget he had to pay $190 provincial gasoline taxes in the province of Ontario; he is now going to pay $290 a year-an increase of $100.
What does the government mean when it says it is seriously trying to combat inflation? Can any Liberal backbencher, or the minister himself explain to me how this measure, which hits the bulk of the consumers of this
Excise Tax Act
country who are in the low and middle income brackets, in any significant way fights inflation and reduces the problems of the ordinary working people in meeting the rising cost of living? The case just cannot be made and the Liberals know it. They hope that this House will adjourn soon so they will not have to stand up to the kind of criticism that we are putting forward on behalf of the Canadian people.
What are the other lacklustre arguments that the Liberals make in order to justify this increase in gasoline tax? They tell us that we should be grateful, because in Europe people are paying $1 a gallon or $1.25 a gallon. I say, what a ridiculous comparison. How can you compare countries in Europe which do not have any indigenous oil supplies with a country like Canada, one of the most oil-rich countries in the world, sitting on a reserve called the Athabasca tar sands that contains more oil than all the oil in the Middle East? To tell Canadians that they should be content to pay 70 cents or 80 cents a gallon is ludicrous.
The reason the government is saying this is the lack of an energy policy, which has enabled the multinational oil companies which control 90 per cent of the oil industry of this country to jack Canadian prices up to world prices, despite the fact that we are one of the most oil-rich countries of the world. Years of mismanagement by the Liberal government have now forced Canadian consumers to pay one of the highest prices for oil and gasoline in North America. This is a nonsense kind of comparison that is not worthy of further counter-argument.
The minister has put forward another argument. He tells us that we are consuming too much energy in this country, that our oil supplies are running tight. Of course they are running tight, because the government allows the multinational oil companies to export half of our daily production of oil, and has done for the past few years. We are now running short, so the minister says we must conserve our energy supplies. What kind of logic is this? A few years ago, specifically in early 1973, oil was selling in this country for $2.90 a gallon. Today the price is $6.50 a gallon, and by August 15 it will cost $8 a gallon. The price has escalated tremendously. Has there been a reduction in oil consumption in this country? Not in the least. Demand has risen yearly despite the fact that the price of oil has gone up.
The fact of the matter is that, given no options, Canadians still have to consume energy. They still have to heat their homes in the wintertime by oil or natural gas, despite the fact that oil prices and gas prices will go up. If they have no option but to drive their cars to work, then they have to pay higher prices for gasoline. The argument that an extra ten cents a gallon will somehow reduce gasoline consumption in this country is totally false. The minister should not try to fudge the issue by bringing forth the argument of conservation so as to justify this horrendous ten cents a gallon tax.
I now come to the real reason for this increase, Mr. Speaker, which is that the Minister of Finance is desperately searching for extra revenue. He needs money to compensate eastern Canada for the higher price of world oil which we are importing because Canada does not have a pipeline from western Canada which would bring $6.50 a barrel oil to the maritimes and Quebec. As we have found

July 17, 1975
Excise Tax Act
ourselves running short of oil, we havg, reduced our oil exports. This means that the revenue from the export tax is reduced, and therefore the minister wants to find additional funds to keep up the compensation payments. The compensation payments, of course, are being made to these very multinational oil companies that got us into the shortage mess and the cost escalation mess in, the first place.
Is that the only option the minister had? Why does he sock it to the consumers so he can make up the compensation payments? In view of the years of profit-taking by the multinational oil companies, it would seem more logical to me to increase their federal income tax than to make the ordinary consumer bear the burden, particularly when the oil policy of this government and the oil companies acting in collusion got us into this predicament in the fist place.
There are ways of raising revenue other than by imposing a discriminatory and unfair ten cents a gallon tax on the consumers of gasoline in Canada. For example, the minister could begin to revise the tax system so as to take away some of the concessions that the minister has been giving multinational oil companies in his budgets. Why does he tax the ordinary consumer when the ordinary consumer, the working person, is already falling behind in terms of real income? Last year we experienced an inflation rate of some 12 per cent. This had led to a great deal of labour-management unrest in this country because workers who have seen their real purchasing power decreased by 12 per cent necessarily have to try to catch up. Just as they are in the process of negotiating, and sometimes having to go on strike, the minister again takes away their real income by imposing this tax.
For example, let us see what happened to wage earners last year because of runaway inflation that the government was unable to control. If you were making an hourly wage, in 1974, of $3.50 an hour, last year because of inflation you lost $499 in real money. Your income went down by almost $500 because of inflation. If you were making $5.50 an hour last year, you lost $783 because of inflation. Then the minister comes along with this extra, inflationary tax on gasoline.
This tax plus the increase in the price of a barrel of crude oil by $1.50 a barrel to take effect on August 15, will add an extra 2 per cent to the inflation rate. Is it any wonder that we are likely to be faced with a massive number of strikes as workers realize they are falling behind because the government has been unable to cope with inflation or bring in a tax system which is fair to the mass of the working people? Yet as the workers continued to fall behind in terms of real income, the Minister of Finance wanted to bring in wage controls. How ironic that the Liberal Party, which in the election of 1974 fought so strongly against the suggestion by the Conservative Party that wage and price controls be brought in, should through the Minister of Finance seriously consider imposing wage controls on the workers.
The minister still would like to do it, but he knows the workers who have seen their incomes eroded in the way I have described will not stand for that kind of policy. But the fact that he was thinking about it seriously indicates
[Mr. Symes.)
that there is not much difference between the Liberal and the Conservative parties. They are still the same old gang, and when they want to find a scapegoat it is the working person they find. In 1973-74 they let the companies enjoy the largest profit increases they have ever made, and now that the companies have been able to make a pile of dough they are going to sock it to the working person. They wanted to do it by means of a wage control policy, but this was not accepted so Turner turns around and comes up with this kind of discriminatory tax.
We in northern Ontario, as I mentioned, are hit hardest by this kind of tax because so many workers have to drive great distances to get to work, because we have to pay higher prices, to begin with, for gasoline and because working people from my part of the country do not take their vacations in the same way as the minister and the executives with whom he associates. They do not take off by plane when they go on vacation; they take their families in the car, towing a tent trailer or a camper behind it, and they visit our provincial and national parks, travelling across the country. This tax, of course, is going to take away that hope of pleasure from the bulk of our working people because they just will not be able to afford vacations by automobile.
This tax will have a serious and detrimental effect on the tourist industry in northern Ontario. Tourism is perhaps the second most important industry. Automobile drivers are not going to travel as far, or perhaps at all. I have talked to some constituents who have had to scale down their travel plans a great deal. Of course, it will mean a reduction in tourism and vacationing in northern Ontario and this will have a spin-off effect on restaurants, motels and amusement enterprises in our part of the country. Therefore, we are going to see less business in tourism, we are going to see more lay-offs and higher unemployment. We know that this tax, which is supposed to bring higher revenues to the government, is discriminating against the working people.
I have received a number of letters from constituents who have expressed very eloquently their frustration and anger at this unjust gasoline tax. I should like to read into the record a letter I received from Mrs. Montone, of Elliot Lake, Ontario, which is near my riding. It is, in fact, in the riding of the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), a Liberal member. I would very much like to see how he replies to her letter: She writes:
Dear Mr. Foster:
I must pick up groceries to feed my growing family-pleasure driving?
My child has had an accident and I must rush him to the hospital emergency department-pleasure driving?
Time for the children's orthodontic appointment (200 miles away return)-pleasure driving?
My husband has been referred to a specialist and we must travel to Toronto-pleasure driving?
A death in the family in Ottawa-I must leave immediately to make funeral arrangements-pleasure driving?
The above are only a few items that we in the town of Elliot Lake find necessary and mandatory in the use of a motor vehicle. There are no deliveries made in Elliot Lake, as well as no means of public transportation. With only one taxi company who has approximately two to four cars and these do not run 24 hours a day. The miner, as you are aware, must travel at least 20 miles return to work (the companies do not supply transportation) and they have been using "car pools'' for
July 17, 1975

many years. Many northern constituents live in rural areas and are forced to travel many more miles to obtain the necessities of life. Those who sit in Canada's capital do not seem to understand the problems of living in the north and the long distances one must travel to get from A to B, and yet they are continually trying to persuade southerners to relocate in the north.
The letter continues:
I fail to see how Mr. Turner's budget will accomplish his goals on conservation, unemployment and inflation. We in the north, while paying the highest prices for fuel oil to heat our homes, are already faced with longer and more severe winters than our city dwellers in southern Ontario. Therefore, I cannot see any incentive to those on unemployment and welfare to find work and join the working economy. When they take into consideration higher transportation costs to get to and from work, higher UIC premiums, and in the near future higher OHIP premiums, the incentive to work is lost!
Persons on fixed incomes (pensioners) are going to be particularly hard hit since, for the past few years, they have been struggling to literally exist in today's economy. It is rhetoric that government chooses to thank these people for contributing for years to Canada's GNP as "laying their lives on the line for their country" in the past wars.
Those with higher incomes will surely feel the "pinch", but they already have the moneys to cope with the new budget amendments.
My purpose in writing is that I would like to find out what Mr. Turner's interpretation of "pleasure driving" is. I fail to agree that driving to work (because of no public transportation) should be considered "pleasure" or has Mr. Turner ever jogged 20 miles to work and back in 30 degrees below zero (fahrenheit) weather? He should try it some time.
That is a letter from a person in Elliot Lake. It represents the feelings of many people in northern Ontario about this ten-cent a gasoline tax. I should like, now, to read from another letter which also illustrates the hardhip this tax will put on people. This letter is from Laureen Shaw, a resident of my constituency of Sault Ste. Marie:
And then I think of all the disabled people in Canada who rely on their cars to get them to and from work and just to get them out of the house. How can they afford 80 cents and up for gas? Especially if they are on a disability pension. Its hard enough to live on a pension as it is. So thanks to this new brilliant budget, over half of the disabled people in Canada are going to be sitting at home in front of their window watching the world go by. They can't even afford to go out for a ride. I know, because I'm disabled and this budget has literally changed my life. I can no longer afford a car, and giving up that bit of independency is hard to do.
And so, Mr. Symes, I extend my congratulations to the government for this fantastic budget. Perhaps this will at least get some of the apathetic people of Canada to stand up and be counted. Something beneficial has to come out of this.
To that I say amen. This hypocritical government that poses as the champion of the working people, the disabled and the poor of this country, really is hitting them most unfairly by this kind of tax. Not one Liberal member has risen to oppose or even to defend this tax. There are other ways money might be raised rather than by the imposition of this excise tax. If the government were serious about conservation, other measures could be taken, such as the federal government pressing the provinces to reduce the speed limit to 55 miles an hour as has been done in the province of British Columbia.
The government could also put pressure on the auto industry to improve their automobile engines in order to bring about greater fuel economy. It could fulfil its election promise by providing better public transit in the cities and towns of our country. If this government were
Excise Tax Act
serious about conservation, it could implement a national energy policy that would benefit Canadians in terms of supply and price, rather than leave us to the mercy of the pricing system of the multinational oil companies. If this government were serious about raising revenue in a nondiscriminatory way, it would use the income tax system to gain extra revenue by taxing the corporations as they should have been taxed long ago, and by taxing other Canadians so that the gap would be lessened between the rich and the poor.
In this way, the government could help the people on low income and compensate them for the very heavy inflation from which this country is suffering. These measures would be much more realistic than this excise tax. The people of Canada are enraged and they are speaking up. The members of this party are prepared to sit here until the end of the month or as long as it takes to pound some sense into some of the Liberal backbenchers so they will stand up and put pressure on the Minister of Finance to rescind this most discriminatory and unfair tax.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I really had not intended to speak on this particular bill.


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


Alan Gray Martin: I appreciate the acknowledgement from the other side when I rise to speak: it is very encouraging. I rise in part, however to respond to the challenge that has been thrown out by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) and members of the official opposition. They have continually referred to the lack of activity on the part of Liberal backbenchers to get up to speak. If hon. members opposite are not aware of the 100 per cent support that exists among members of this party for the budget and the policies introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), they should be aware of it very soon. I wish to refer also to the comments of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) when he was waxing particularly eloquent.
I find it rather strange that these two members should be bedfellows in putting forward exactly the same viewpoint, but I suppose this is understandable when one realizes that they accept their responsibility simply to oppose anything put forward by this government, without carefully considering the measures and what they are intended to accomplish.
I think we should remember that the only reason we are looking at a potential ten-cent tax on gasoline today is a policy introduced by this government and supported by all parties on the other side of the House. I refer to the policy to create one-price gasoline for the whole of Canada, subject only to differences in transportation costs.
The cost of maintaining this particular system which, I reiterate, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and the parties they represent so solemnly supported at the time, was to be met by a tax imposed on exports of Canadian crude oil from western Canada. We all know that these exports are now diminishing, for two main reasons. The first is that our own supplies of crude oil are not as great as was anticipated by the National Energy Board two years ago; in fact, they are much less. Second, we know that the United

July 17, 1975
Excise Tax Act
States economy is in some difficulty. The United States, therefore, is not taking up the imports at its end to the extent it is entitled to do so at this point. Therefore, the revenue from this special tax has diminished at a very fast rate.
I think hon. members opposite would expect that the money for any subsidy program would have to be raised through revenue in one form or another. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie and his party do not ever believe it is necessary to raise revenue to meet expenditures. However, if there is to be a one-price system in respect of oil across this country, revenue indeed will have to be raised somewhere in order that this subsidy system will work. The opposition parties have put forward their ideas. Now I am responding to their challenge that Liberal backbenchers stand up and support the tax.
If revenue is to be raised to pay for this subsidy, where should it come from? I hear a comment from the other side that it should come from general revenue. I would ask these people to define where this general revenue should come from. They now define it as being corporate income tax. I think it has been generally accepted that if this revenue is not to come in the form of a special excise tax, it will have to come from some source, probably in the form of additional income taxes, and I should like to remind the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie-who is very worried about the middle income taxpayers-that any increase in income tax substantial enough to meet this revenue would hit hardest the middle income tax group.


John R. Rodriguez: What is this excise tax doing?


Alan Gray Martin: The battle continues. I think the choices before the government were clear. It could either raise this revenue from additional income taxes-which, I repeat, would hit the middle income taxpayers hardest-or it could endeavour to raise the money from those most directly involved in the consumption of the product. The decision to impose the tax on gasoline was made for this reason, so at least some discretion was left to the individual user as to whether or not he would indeed pay the tax.


John R. Rodriguez: Who is exempted?


Alan Gray Martin: The point has been made that a great many rural people must use their cars to get to work. That is very true. But there are also a great many Canadians in urban areas and elsewhere who are completely dependent on their automobiles to get to work. In fact, in many cases they are not earning enough money to run an automobile. In these cases they are completely dependent upon public transportation systems. These people will not be required to pay any part of this additional tax. If, on the other hand, the tax had been imposed at the income level, they would be paying their share just the same as people who are using the gasoline. So the decision was made to impose the tax on those who are directly consuming the product.
The shallowness of some of the points put forward by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie surprised me somewhat, because with his background and his knowledge of what lies behind this tax he should have known better. He should have known that $350 million to $400 million must

be raised from some source, otherwise people in Ottawa, Cornwall, and east of the Ottawa Valley will be faced with paying the world price for crude oil, which we know now costs approximately $12 a barrel. This could result in gasoline prices at the pump moving up to the world level of $1.80 or $2 per gallon.
An example was given by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie of the effect of this tax. I believe he made a calculation and told us that the tax would amount to $50 a year. This works out to approximately 15 cents a day. No tax is ever popular. There will never be a tax that is popular. So you will always have letters and expressions of unhappiness when a tax is imposed. The question is whether 15 cents a day is unreasonable from the point of view of the individual who is driving his car to and from work. I ask the hon. member to consider this point. Personally, I do not think it is unreasonable and it is a much more equitable way, not regressive, in which to raise this kind of revenue which is for a specific purpose, namely, to pay for the subsidy that is involved in keeping oil and petroleum prices at one level across the country.
Other points were made by the hon. member on which I would like to comment, but I wanted to speak in particular at this time in defence of the ten cents tax and to assure hon. members that the imposition of the tax has the complete support of all hon. members on this side, backbenchers and others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak on this amendment, particularly after we have finally flushed one of the government backbenchers out of the woodwork. The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) pointed out that all hon. members opposite support this tax. I wonder if they are all so sure that all their constituents support it. I represent the riding of Hastings and I try at all times to represent the views of my constituents. I am sure that I do not always do so, especially on such emotional issues as abortion, capital punishment or bilingualism. I am sure that from time to time I differ in my views from some of my constituents. However, on this issue I know that I represent a vast majority of the residents of Hastings riding.
Despite what the hon. member for Scarborough West says, I for one-and I know I speak for some of my colleagues at least-am not here to voice opposition to every issue that comes up. We are quite prepared to support the government when and if the government merits our support. But with the record of legislation that we have seen recently, it is very hard to support this government, especially on the poor legislation that has been put before us, from this rip-off of the average Canadian to the outright fraud in the Olympic coin legislation. I find I have to warn some of the coin collectors in my riding that they are faced with the possibility of getting coins that are only half the value of others, yet they will have to pay the same price for them.
How do you support this government when it takes upon itself the spending of money in ever increasing amounts? The other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said that he does not decry the value of $1 million-he was not quite as blunt as one of his predeces-
July 17, 1975

sors-but he pointed out that $1 million is not that important in this context. I tell the House that $1 million to the residents of Hastings county is a good deal of money. As I say, I know I represent all the people of Hastings when I spend whatever time I can trying to convince the government that this ten cents tax is iniquitous, demoralizing, disgraceful and shameless. People in all walks of life, particularly working people, find it extremely difficult to pay this extra ten cents tax.
The county of Hastings is a large county, although not as large as that of my colleague and neighbour, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). It is a long, narrow riding, rouhgly 100 miles from north to south and it is about 30 miles wide. The county seat is in Belleville. Over the years during which I have been involved in municipal politics and public life in the area, we have tried to encourage north-south commerce in the county. As I said, the only major city is Belleville, and there is also the small city of Trenton. The rest are all villages.
In the north end of my riding we have timber and minerals. Timber, of course, is down in production now. The Domtar plant north of Bancroft has either not been running or running on short shifts. Fortunately, the situation with minerals is good. The Madawaska Uranium Mine is getting ready to commence its operations, and the Mar-moraton Mine in Marmora has a reprieve of four or five years of operation. Commerce and industry are largely in the south, in the area around Belleville. The supplies travel from south to north, and the raw materials from north to south. However, people drive in between.
If you think, for example, of people in Deloro, Malone or Millbridge who have to drive to Belleville because the industry in which they worked was closed, you will realize that these people are now faced with the necessity of driving 35 or 40 miles each way. I know they use car pools and try to save as much as they can in the cost of transportation, but necessarily it will cost them a great deal of money. That is just one example. We also have people in Belleville who used to work in the Farraday and Grey Hawk and Dyno mines in Bancroft and who are now looking forward to working in the Madawaska mine.
There are people in Belleville and district who travel as far as Oshawa to go to work. Because of lack of protection by this government, the Ideal Vendors plant is closing in the Deseronto area. These people will have to travel extra mileage in order to get to work. We cannot blame them for that; it is not their fault that they have to travel this way. But they are being taxed because this is their way of life. There are no trains or buses travelling north and south in Hastings county. There is no means of public transportation. People must use their own transportation, and when the time comes for negotiations with the industries this year and next year it will not be unreasonable that the men and women who work in the industries will want a wage increase to cover this tax. This tax is fueling another round of inflation and is escalating costs, not only in the consumer price index but also in the cost of labour and other areas.
Excise Tax Act
The Highlands of Hastings is one of the more famous tourist areas in my part of Ontario, with all due respect to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. A tremendous number of tourists come through our area. These include many Canadians and a great number of Americans on their way to the myriad lakes which are part of Hastings county, or the gateway to Algonquin park. This tax is designed to hurt our tourist operation. It can do nothing else.
In addition to people writing to me-and we have heard other hon. members quote from letters-I have already receive resolutions from the municipalities in the area. The municipalities, as commercial enterprises, are exempt in their dealings, but the municipal councils feel very strongly. Already the village of Madoc is on record, dealing with the proposed increase effective in July, as saying that it is excessive and not justified. They sent notice of their opposition to the county of Hastings, where I know some 30 other municipalities will agree. Very shortly I will have a flood of letters from municipalities in the county asking that this tax be removed.
The ten-cent tax is quite unnecessary. The hon. member for Scarborough West said that it must come out of the cost of gasoline. I do not think it need come out of the cost of gasoline for once, and I intend tonight to look to see if there is a second moon in the sky. I agree with my colleagues to the left both physically as well as physiologically.


An hon. Member:: Philosophically.


John Raymond Ellis: Yes, philosophically.


An hon. Member:: Probably physiologically as well.


John Raymond Ellis: Probably.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They are left in every way-left out, in fact.


John Raymond Ellis: The approximately $500 million which this tax will return to the federal coffers will be used for nothing else but to fuel federal government spending. It could just as easily come out of the general revenue of the government by putting into effect some savings. I just do not buy the estimates of the Minister of Finance.


Alan Gray Martin: Where?


John Raymond Ellis: The hon. member for Scarborough West asks where. Let us consider some of these. The cutbacks promised by the Minister of Finance are phony. Two of these cuts, Petro-Can and the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation, do not even exist at the moment. Petro-Can, as we all know, was created here just a short while ago, and the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation was created 18 months ago. Neither has anything in the estimates now, yet the minister says he will cut them back. The minister mentioned that there were two other agencies. One was the Federal Business Development Bank, which is really still the IDB, and the other was the Farm Credit Corporation. Both of these were conceived to help small businessmen and farmers. It seems to me that those are poor choices in which to make cuts. If we want to cut back, how about cutting back Information Canada? Let us throw the

July 17, 1975
Adjournment Motion
whole thing down the drain. There we could save quite a few million dollars.


Mr. Nystrom:: And the Senate.


John Raymond Ellis: I have risen a number of times in this House to speak about the extravagant spending of the Department of Public Works, another department which spends over half a billion dollars per year. I can assure hon. members that there would be not much trouble taking quite a few million dollars out of that budget. The cuts of the minister were phony from the beginning. They were taken from new estimates. Going back to Public Works, the example with which I am most familiar, in committee we did not have enough time to consider its estimates. There were two very short sessions and there was absolutely inadequate time, but in the few minutes we did have I can assure hon. members that we found there were funds which could be cut back.
The budget promised restraint, but did absolutely nothing. I have the feeling that if there was an increase required in the per barrel cost of oil from $6.50 to $8, which would have put the price up by five or six cents, my neighbours in Ontario may not have objected to that. They understand the problems which exist.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are ready to rise and it might be a good time for me to call it five o'clock. I will resume my remarks at eight o'clock this evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I thank the hon. member for seeing the clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle)-Government Administration- Alleged leak of cabinet document-Government action; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt)- Administration of Justice-Suggested representations to Quebec minister of justice concerning treatment of Dr. Morgentaler; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Suggested reference of status of Securex and discharge of officers Brunet and McCleery to Judge Marin's commission.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Shall motion No. 30, standing in the name of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Motion stands. Shall motion No. 36, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Motion stands. Shall motion No. 34, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Motion stands. Shall motion No. 37, standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Motion stands.


Mr. Campbell:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed now with private Bill C-1001, standing in my name, before proceedings to consider the notice of motion for the production of papers standing in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


John Campbell: that Bill C-1001, to provide an exception from the general law relating to marriage in the case of Richard Fritz and Marianne Strass, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

July 17, 1975
John Campbell: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between United Aircraft and the government over the past year and copies of contracts relating to federal grants accorded to United Aircraft over the past five years.
Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with parties represented in the House, it was agreed that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) would speak on motion No. 17 on behalf of the government and that the mover, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) would also speak on it, and then the Chair could put the question to the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is an arrangement to which we have agreed so that following these two speakers, unless the motion carries on a voice vote, there would be a recorded vote.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, this debate, as you know, involves a private member's motion for the production of papers, specifcally for correspondence between the government and United Aircraft-now Pratt & Whitney of Canada, Ltd.-and contracts relating to federal grants.
The motion was already debated on May 1, 1975. I congratulate those who participated at that time, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc), and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. McFarlane).
I especially congratulate the mover of the motion, the distinguished member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and new leader of the New Democratic Party. He has again illustrated his concern and that of his party, indeed the concern of all of us, for the very important issues involved. Those issues are federal funding to private corporations, the rights of Canadian workers re settlements and working conditions, and standards for good corporate citizenship. Such issues are certainly important to me, both because my riding of Halton is highly industrialized and because I have personally had the privilege of serving many years in industry at all levels of responsibility.
United Aircraft
As a labourer, I certainly became aware of the worker's needs for security and fair treatment. As an executive, I certainly became aware of the corporations' needs for confidentiality to protect their investments and meet the intense challenges of competition in the open market place. At one time we faced the requests of governments for full knowledge of our pharmaceutical formulations as well as most other critical data. It should be obvious, even to someone without background in business or industry, that such private commercial knowledge is the last basis for a company's survival. How well can such strategic material be safeguarded in public service files?
Fortunately the reasonable men involved quickly agreed that this move was both unnecessary and impractical to achieve the goals desired in this free enterprise society. In fact there were good arguments that such searching investigation could be counter productive. I believe my own experience is relevant to the case of United Aircraft. As consumers, we should all be aware of the need for government, business, and labour to conduct their relationships in a spirit of both honesty and mutual trust, in a balance reflecting our mixed economy. Information should be exchanged freely, but only where necessary and fair.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has made available to the House considerable information and provided a number of documents in an effort to provide the greatest amount of information possible to assist members of the House to understand the circumstances concerning the activities of the United Aircraft Company. It is important to recognize that the effective exercise of the industrial development function of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce depends, to a great extent, on the discretion of the department with regard to the use and distribution of highly confidential commercial data received from a broad range of companies, such as United Aircraft, in the many industrial sectors and subsectors in Canada.
The firm in question freely provided information to the department on the understanding it would be maintained as confidential. In these circumstances the publication of such data by the department would be prejudicial to the raison d'etre and aims of the department to such an extent that the Canadian economy could eventually suffer. In addition, the foreign competitors of United Aircraft would gain access to information which they could use at the expense of that corporation, thus impeding its efforts on international markets. Such a situation would lead to economic hardship for the company and would cause a loss of jobs for Canadians which would be unacceptable, particularly in view of the present economic conditions.
Since 1960 the government has been participating with United Aircraft of Canada Limited in a development program covering small gas turbine engines. The support is in keeping with the government's objectives of maintaining a design and development capability to build light utility transport aircraft in Canada.
The government has advanced some $73 million to programs jointly shared with United Aircraft. In that 15 year period the company has invested in excess of $250 million respecting research and development, start up expenses, and new capital expenditures. These funds have been used to develop a high grade technical capability in Canada to

July 17, 1975
United Aircraft
produce small gas turbine engines for world markets. These engines are recognized internationally as being the most successful in their class for use in aircraft and have additional applications in ground transportation-Canadian turbo trains, marine use, Bell Voyageur and Viking hovercraft, and for auxiliary equipment at airports, pumping and compression stations, and other industrial applications. The joint development program related basically to two aircraft engines, the PT-6 and the JT15D.
This program has been very successful. Sales from Canada have exceededJfSOO million, and market forecasts for these engines project sales in excess of $1.5 billion over the next five years.
To bring matters up to date-and this is important-the company is continuing its capital investment plan in spite of the current general economic slowdown, to expand its manufacturing, assembly, and test facilities in order to increase in-house production capacity. This investment of $6 million in 1975, compared to $3.5 million in 1974, includes the doubling of size of the engine assembly area and refurbishing an existing engine test cell to enable expanded production of JT15D engines. Current engine production rates have increased by 50 per cent over the level at the beginning of 1975. The employment at the Longueuil plant has returned to the previous peak 1973 level of 5,300 workers.
Although the union is officially still on strike, the company has agreed to accept the recommendations of the Quebec minister of labour to effect a settlement of the dispute. The majority of the union members have returned to work and there is a willingness on both sides to continue to negotiate in good faith. The government has continually pressed the company for repatriation of work temporarily transferred to the United States. The company has given assurances that all of the work temporarily transferred from Canada will have been repatriated by mid-1976. In fact the company is currently improving upon that agreed target date.
The March 15, 1973, document on the production of papers, which was referred to earlier, made provision for 16 exemptions, at least four of which are important to the matter in question. These were defined on May 1.
The government's main reason in establishing these exemptions was to give the widest possible information not only to the public but also to members of this House, for the proper understanding of the major issues and, at the same time, to provide a reasonable level of confidentiality for the government's operations.
It is very difficult for a parliamentarian to make a judgment on the balance between the expressed will of the government to supply as much information as possible and the obligation to provide sound administration. Sound administration is made possible in many instances through access to information given on a confidential basis. Having regard for the importance of this balance, the government has, to the greatest possible extent, made available information on the case in question.
On January 27, 1974, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tabled in the House copies of all development agreements between the Crown and United Aircraft, with the exception of three amendments to them. These amend-

ments were excluded on legal advice because they contain classified engineering and cost information which would violate industrial security if made public to the company's competitors.
Correspondence between the Government of Canada and United Aircraft over the past year continues to be of confidential nature. It concerns critical matters to the company, such as the improvement or addition of product lines essential to the company's future which may, because of the high costs, require joint venture undertakings. If this information were disclosed it would be detrimental to Canadian production and employment in this important sector of the Canadian aviation industry. The circumstances which prompt the government to maintain the continued confidentiality of information in the case of United Aircraft are central to the effectiveness and credibility of the government in the course of its efforts to encourage technical innovation and industrial development capability in Canada.
As members are aware, United Aircraft has provided complete access on a privileged basis to its financial records, to its market analyses, and to its long term plans for product and market development. Disclosure of this data to the international competitors of United Aircraft could destroy its competitive advantage in the small aircraft engine field and would be contrary to the Canadian interest. Similarly, United Aircraft's dealings with its subcontractors and suppliers in Canada and abroad could be adversely affected by disclosure. In addition, the government would not wish to disclose indirectly matters of a confidential nature of Canadian companies having dealings with United Aircraft.
Finally, release of the information could inhibit the future flow of information between government and United Aircraft, as well as with other Canadian companies, to the detriment of our industrial development and trade objectives for this high technology product sector and other sectors of the Canadian economy. I believe, Madam Speaker, that the effective government action taken to date has resolved the concerns expressed in the hon. member's motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I see the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) rising. Before recognizing the hon. member I must advise the House that, if the hon. member speaks, he will close the debate.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, this will not have been the first time when a government supporter began a speech by enunciating laudable principles which are supported by members of both Houses-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Surely the hon. member means hon. members on both sides?


John Edward Broadbent: I beg your pardon; I ought to have said, "by members on both sides of the House." The hon. member's speech, which at its beginning ostensibly supported the principle enshrined in the motion, ended on a different note. The members of my party reached the conclusion
July 17, 1975

that, far from complying with the principle at one time enunciated by the Auditor General, the government is trying to do the opposite. It does not intend to follow those principles. I will elaborate on this in the few minutes available to me.
The point at issue is that the people of Canada, through parliament, have provided between $80 million and $120 million, depending on what figures you use, to United Aircraft Corporation of Longueuil, Quebec. That this company used this money positively, no one will deny. The company developed in Canada two excellent aircraft engines which have sold remarkably well at home and abroad.
That company also happens to be one of the most vicious anti-labour companies in North America-by which I mean in Canada and in the United States. It has an absolutely deplorable record in its dealings with its working staff, as evidenced by the strike which has gone on for more than a year and a half at Longueuil, Quebec. The company's employees have been on strike for that period.
The members of the New Democratic Party, reflecting the concern of the people of Longueuil, say that the company was using money provided by the people of Canada and that the company was able to prolong the strike because nothing in the contract entered into between the company and the government prohibited that company from transferring work, financed by the people of Canada, to the United States. That is precisely what the company did during the strike. The hon. member who just spoke acknowledged that the work which was sent to the United States and was supposed to have been done in Canada will not be repatriated fully to Canada until late in 1976.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John Edward Broadbent: That work, transferred out of Canada during the strike, enabled the company to prolong the strike, and enabled the company more readily to implement its profoundly anti-labour policy.
When we asked for the contracts and correspondence to be tabled, we wanted to know if there was anything in those contracts which would prohibit this course of action. We discovered in the contracts, and in the information that was provided to us, that there was no protection for Canadian workers. There was no protection either for the taxpayers of Canada who had put up the money.
We also wanted to look at the correspondence entered into between the Government of Canada and the company. And here let me say I share the hon. member's view, and the view of the government. If there are matters of a confidential nature the disclosure of which could jeopardize the company's commercial competitive position in the economy, or impair its ability to compete with other aircraft manufacturers, those matters ought to be kept confidential. But that position does not justify the total refusal to reveal any correspondence. Presumably a good part of it in the last year and a half dealt with the strike.
Surely the minister or other members of the government wrote to the company, and surely there were replies regarding the company's attitude to that strike. Surely there was some discussion about the obligations of that company to Canadian workers it was employing. But our
United Aircraft
requests were met with a blanket refusal. The minister refused to provide us with any correspondence.
I repeat that, if information can hurt the company's competitive position, it ought to be kept confidential. But we do not accept the attitude that the people of Canada have no right to know anything concerning the spending of amounts in the neighbourhood of $100 million put up by the taxpayer. We feel we have the right to know, on behalf of the taxpayer, what went on during any discussions. Specifically, we seek information in relation to workers at Longueuil, Quebec, who were adversely affected during the past one and a half years, and continue to be adversely affected. Therefore we do not accept the government's attitude, and we intend to force a vote on this important issue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Those in favour of the motion will please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Those opposed will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost. Motion (Mr. Broadbent) negatived.
[Translation |



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-28, An Act
respecting the Royal Canadian Legion, to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.56 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 7416).
John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner hour I had just started to elaborate on the difference between the 10 cents tax and the increase that comes as a result of the increase in cost from $6.50 a barrel to $8 a barrel. The point that I want to make is that people in Ontario would probably not have complained that loudly or that long about the increase had it been the result only of the increase in the per barrel cost.
My friend to my left, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), went into some detail a day or so ago when he explained how Ontario, as a result of the national oil policy, had paid a higher price for oil and oil products over the years. His calculations put it at something like $5 billion. As he pointed out, there was no loud outcry because we, as Ontarians, had felt that our responsibility was to Canada first and therefore we knew that this policy was good for all Canada, so we paid the higher price. We did that for 11 years.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his speech opening the debate, as recorded in Hansard at page 7411, criticized the Ontario government, and specifically the premier of Ontario. He said:
Moreover, by freezing the price on oil the Ontario government is creating an impossible situation for one million consumers in eastern Ontario who do not draw their supplies from Ontario refineries. The government of Ontario also seems to be opposing the single price system for petroleum across Canada, and this will likely have repercussions in other provinces.
There is only one word to describe that sort of rhetoric, and that is hogwash.
Backbenchers on the government side may remember that not many months ago the government of Ontario
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
July 17, 1975

Excise Tax Act Mr. Foster: Call off the filibuster.
imposed a 7 per cent tax on heating oil. They will remember that the backbenchers on the government side in the Ontario legislature rose up almost to a man and said that this tax is not good for our people, it should not be put on, and that this is not the time to put on that kind of tax. As a result, the government of Ontario, the cabinet, the premier, and the minister who imposed the tax, thought about it and had the courage to back off because they agreed finally that the time was not right to put on the tax. Now we have the Government of Canada, the federal Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) putting on a 10 cents tax on gasoline, and not one backbencher here has the courage to rise and say that this tax is not good. I know that their constituents are not happy with the tax. I am confident that there is not a member over there who has not received a letter saying that this tax should not be imposed.


Mr. Herbert:: Don't include me because that is not true in my case.


John Raymond Ellis: I am confident that these people have not agreed to it. The provincial minister of finance says that Ontarians will not agree to this. The provinces paid the bill for a long time, and enough is enough, and too much is too much. I support the freeze in Ontario as the only course of action open. It would not be necessary if the cabinet had the courage to face up to what is obviously an error, and take the tax off.
The Minister of Finance also quoted the minister of energy for the province of Ontario, and I should like to read that quotation which appears at page 7412 of Hansard and is part of the speech of the Minister of Finance on the Excise Tax Act. This is what the provincial minister of energy said:
It must be increasingly apparent to all of us that energy is too rare, costly and precious to waste. I will go further: I hold the view that if as a world community-particularly the industrialized world-we fail to adjust our use of energy and accept the shift in our lifestyle that may be implicit, within a decade or two changes in lifestyle will be irresistibly imposed upon us. And those changes may be ones that we like less than the alternative that is still our option.
The federal Minister of Finances justifies this as a reason for imposing this tax and increasing the cost. I suggest that it might justify some savings, but it does not justify imposing a tax.
I have driven down highway 401, as I am sure have many hon. members, at the legal limit of 70 miles per hour, and I have been passed by federal vehicles as though I were standing still, despite the rhetoric which we hear. I read the advertisements by the federal government to the effect that it is saving energy by turning out lights in buildings. There are more buildings which are federally owned or controlled which have their lights on all night in the city of Ottawa than one could shake a stick at. In the next few days I will list them for hon. members. The Ontario government, however, is forcing cutbacks in Ontario Hydro and in other areas.
If I may change the subject slightly, the administration of this tax has to be a nightmare. We do not know if we will ever receive rebates. Eventually, I expect we will, but


John Raymond Ellis: There is an expression that we huckleberries in Hastings county use to answer that kind of remark, but I would not dare use it in this House. What is happening is that we are being led down the garden path and told that, unless we pass this bill, we cannot receive the rebates. I suggest that if this bill were passed tonight there would not be a rebate for the next three months because the administration is not ready. The paper work is not ready, and we know that this government runs on paper. The government will not be ready for three months whether we pass the bill tonight or not.
One of the things which was promised in the budget was a cutback in the civil service. That cutback turns out to be a cutback in the projected expansion of the civil service. Actually it is to be cut down to about 10,000 plus man-years in the coming fiscal period. Comparing ourselves with the province of Ontario, we find that Ontario is actually cutting back on its civil service.
The minister was wrong in November when he brought down his budget, and he is wrong now. For example, in November the minister imposed a special tax on light aircraft. At that time he made the incorrect statement that this would save fuel. After serious pressure from all members on this side he backed off some, but not all. In the past few months I know that he has been given all the statistics he needs to prove that that particular use of energy is far more efficient than the average motor car. I personally believe that the minister falsely thought that he was taxing the rich, and he thought that this was a popular thing to do. He has found out since that in actual fact many businessmen in the middle income group use this form of transportation because it is fast and flexible. They need that flexibility, and in fact the minister was not taxing the rich as he thought he was.
Not only will this increase in tax fuel the fires of inflation, but it will hurt the population of all Canada in many other ways. It is becoming difficult to buy a house. For someone who has to drive 100 miles per day that 10 cents per gallon added up will make the difference in whether he can save the money to buy a house, as housing costs increase. With regard to the figures which we hear the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) batting around of 180,000, 200,000, or 210,000 starts this year, I do not think he really knows which is correct, and I am not sure he cares as much as he should.
I know that in my riding there is a plant which makes telephone equipment, Northern Electric, and because housing starts are down, that company has laid off 350 or 400 people. It just does not have enough business. I suggest to the minister that these people are less able now to pay that extra 10 cents tax on gasoline than they were when they were working, and they are wondering whether this government, in not keeping the housing industry going, is in large measure responsible.
In the excise tax bill it is proposed that the government will remove the tax on insulating products, storm windows, and screens. How long have we on this side of the House said that the tax on building materials should be removed, period? All that is happening with this tinkering and playing around with little bits and pieces is that the
29669-3'/z

July 17, 1975
Excise Tax Act
cost of collecting that tax per unit is going up. I am sure hon. members will agree that the cost of collecting the tax on building materials has not reduced. The tax which is being collected has reduced as it has been cut slowly but surely, but the cost of collecting it has not gone down, and the percentage reduction of the cost of a new home will be so minimal that it will not be noticed. Certainly that reduction will not be reflected in the cost of a new home. If CMHC programs were more receptive to smaller homes and to re-using some existing housing, I think we would be in considerably better shape.
I wish to make reference to one final brief quote which has been brought to my attention:
A gilt-edged committee of the C.D. Howe Research Institute has called for a list of measures, headed by strict limits to growth in government spending, to deal with Canada's current economic difficulties-
The committee says there can be no easy or quick solutions to all the economic problems of Canada, but a start must be made now on a framework of longer term policies designed to streghten (Canada's) productive capacities, competitive position, productivity and employment and to achieve greater fairness for lower income groups.
I suggest that the government has been tinkering with Canada's economy, and speaking strictly to the amendment, if we would use the time proposed in the amendment to consider the bill, and if some of the backbenchers would go home and listen to the complaints of their constituents, I think we would have an entirely different bill when we come back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I want to add my words of protest against this cruel tax which will weigh heavily on the people of Canada. It will weigh especially heavily on the people of my province.
In the province of Newfoundland at the present time, as a resullt of the imposition of this tax, the price of gasoline ranges between 90 cents and 95 cents per gallon. As a result of the increase in crude oil prices announced in the minister's budget and a further 5 cents per gallon increase, before the year is out we expect that a gallon of gasoline in Newfoundland will cost $1. That is in a province which has the rather dubious distinction of having the highest cost of living as well as the highest rate of unemployment in the country.
We are discussing a bill to impose this tax-or to give the minister the statutory authority to continue to collect the tax, because the tax has already been imposed-in the midst of figures released by Statistics Canada just a week ago on July 11, showing that over-all inflation had increased by 1.5 percentage points in the month of June. That is a substantial and significant increase, one of the highest monthly increases during the past ten years. Incorporated in these figures was a 3.3 per cent increase in the price of food.
It is also significant that the government has introduced a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, the effect of which is to decrease the benefits payable to an earner with a large, dependent family. As well, the bill will provide for the elimination from the insurance rolls of old age pensioners. These are the two groups that are
|Mr. Ellis.)
hardest hit, the low income earner who has to pay cash for his food like everybody else, and the pensioner. These are the people who cannot write off the cost of gasoline on an expense account; they have to pay cash. These will be the two groups hardest hit, and they will be hit still harder if the government insists on imposing this tax.
Following on the heels of the consumer price index came the unemployment figures which showed a substantial increase. Canada today has an unemployment rate of 7.2 per cent; in my own province the month of June showed an unemployment rate of 17.9 per cent, a rate more than double the national average. It is also significant that incorporated in these unemployment statistics released just a few days ago are figures relating to the disproportionately high rate of unemployment in the young age group.
Young people coming on to the labour market following the commencement of the summer holidays in the universities and colleges are unable to find employment, and this, notwithstanding the millions of dollars pumped into the Opportunities for Youth Program. It means that these young people will have to go back to the universities and colleges in the fall under a severe financial handicap because they are unable to find summer employment. This group will be hard hit by this tax.
We should bear in mind as well the report of the Food Prices Review Board released in July. This is one of the special studies of the board on the prices of bread and fluid milk in Canada. An information bulletin released July 15 had this to say:
Substantial bread and milk price increases during the last two years appear to have caused considerable hardship for many Canadians, especially those with fixed and limited incomes-
At page IV of the report entitled "The Consumption of Bread and Fluid Milk in Canada", it states:
Comparing across families at differing income levels, it is clear that the absolute amounts spent on bread and milk varied little.
What the board is saying is that consumption of those essential items has not decreased. People still have to buy bread and milk. The report continues:
For example, a two-adult two-child family had roughly the same expenditure on bread and milk whether that family had an income in the $2,000-$3,999 range, or in the $10,000-$14,999 range.
Again, this tax will weigh most heavily on the low income earner who already has to spend a disproportionately high amount of his income on food, and who has to pay a disproportionately high amount of his income for essential food items like bread and milk.
What happened to the government, this same government that responded in the last parliament when it was struggling for survival and announced a special consumer subsidy on these two items? That consumer subsidy was rather inhumanely and cruelly withdrawn when the government returned with a majority.
The fact remains that what we are discussing tonight is a tax which will affect the low income earner who is already burdened with high food prices, which will adversely and cruelly affect the pensioner, the Canadian on a fixed income who has to watch his pension being eroded month by month by inflation. These are the groups that will be hardest hit.
July 17, 1975

I believe the government should give serious consideration to withdrawing this bill. Perhaps it is just as well that it comes at a time when parliament is scheduled, at any rate, to adjourn for the summer recess. Perhaps that will give the Minister of Finance and members of the government an opportunity to feel the pulse of the nation, to get the direct reaction of the people of the country who have to pay that tax every day, every week, every month as they fill up their tanks with gasoline.
In addition, we can anticipate further increases, another five cents per gallon, and increases in energy prices which will impose a heavy hardship on low income earners. It will mean a direct increase in the price of heating fuel and will cost more to heat homes. Who has to bear the burden? Who has to bear the excessively heavy burden? It will be the low income earner, the pensioner, the man on the fixed income, the unemployed person trying to get by on unemployment insurance or social welfare payments. If the low incomer earner is unfortunate enough to be in the ranks of the unemployed, and if the government has its way, he will see his unemployment insurance decrease if he has a dependent family.
This measure is highly inflationary. It is an inflationary measure contained in a disastrously inflationary budget.
According to the OECD, Canada is the only member country, with the exception of Great Britain, that does not have its inflation under control.
The Conference Board of Canada made a prediction on July 4, referring directly to the increase in the price of oil and the excise tax on gasoline. The board said:
Our estimates of the impact of these measures on prices is a 1.7 per cent increase in the Consumer Price Index over the next twelve months.
Statistics Canada took an unusual step when announcing their CPI figures for the month of June. In the preamble to the announcement they said the figures did not include the impact of the increased price of gasoline which will result from this excise tax measure.
The Food Prices Review Board predicts that this measure will increase food prices.
The Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada think food prices will go up. This is the way the Globe and Mail of July 16, 1975, puts it:
A high rate of food inflation is indicated in 1975, G.G.E. Steele, president of the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada, says.
The association estimates that food prices this year will increase by 12 per cent.
Already in the month of June food prices have gone up by 3.3 per cent. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announced measures to restrict the importation of eggs to Canada from the United States. Mr. Speaker, eggs are a most important source of protein for low income earners. We were led to believe and have it on the authority of the minister, that these import restrictions were only imposed after CEMA put its house in order.
It is interesting to note the provisions of the new agreement signed by CEMA and the marketing boards of the provinces. Two provinces had to be forced to sign the agreement. The Minister of Agriculture threatened Alber-
Excise Tax Act
ta and New Brunswick that if they failed to sign, those provinces would be flooded with cheap eggs. Alberta announced, when signing the new agreement, that it will be withdrawing from CEMA, and served the required one year's notice.
The United States has indicated it will retaliate. That retaliation may further affect food prices in Canada. Beef prices alone rose 18 per cent last month owing to restrictions imposed by this same Minister of Agriculture a short time ago. There are indications that the United States will retaliate and, as I say, this could drastically affect Canadian food prices. Already egg prices have responded to the minister's announcement and risen. They could go higher still.
We are discussing this measure at a time when Canada is facing record high unemployment. We are discussing the imposition of this tax at a time when Canada faces another wave of record high inflation, at a time when food prices will continue to escalate and impose a severe burden on low income earners.
What will the proposed tax mean? I estimate that the average family in Canada will have to spend $70 more per year on gasoline. It is all very well to eliminate certain users from the impact of this tax. I maintain that its net result will be inflationary. The net result will be to increase transport costs in Canada. Food production costs in Canada will rise and the increase will be passed directly on to the consumer.
I submit that this is not the time to propose this tax. The government can talk all it wants about filibuster. If this is a filibuster, so be it. We can only tolerate this tax if we force the government to push it through with closure. We can be justified in passing this measure only if there is closure, as this tax will impose an additional burden on the people of this country. I am prepared to stay here and speak as often as necessary. In any event, the government might be well advised to hold this bill over to the fall, if we adjourn. The adjournment will give the government an opportunity to gauge public reaction. Members will talk to their constituents and gauge the reaction of the people who must pay this tax. The unemployed must pay it. The middle income earner, who at this time of year is highly mobile on vacation, will find that his holiday cost more be reason of this tax.
What is happening? There is to be an increase in egg prices, an increase in gasoline prices, an increase in beef prices, and an increase in fuel oil prices. There are to be decreased benefits to low income earners with families, who must depend on unemployment insurance. The old age pensioner is to be eliminated from the unemployment insurance rolls. What kind of budget is this? What kind of Minister of Finance is this? What kind of government is this and, Mr. Speaker, what kind of parliament is this that can tolerate or accept such a measure?
The amendment put forward by my party should be considered seriously by the House. It is not a debating ploy, not a tactic to filibuster. It is a genuine and sincere expression of our concern on behalf of the people of Canada, because we think this tax should not be imposed, at least not at this time.

July 17, 1975
Excise Tax Act
I hope the Minister of Finance can find it in his heart to reconsider this measure and remember the effect it will have on the poor of this country, on our pensioners, on our unemployed and on our low income earners. I say this to the Minister of Finance: if he wants to salvage what little there is left of his reputation, which has suffered badly because of this disastrous budget, he will put this bill over to the fall, reconsider it and, hopefully, after having reconsidered it, have the heart to withdraw it.


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-66, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, and on the amendment to this bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
The amendment to this bill which seeks to delay its introduction for six months is a most significant one. It tells us a great deal about the policies of those who support it. The most charitable description I can think of is that it represents the ostrich school of political thought-"Don't do anything to solve the problem; just stick your head in the sand for six months and maybe it will go away."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: I remind hon. members that the voters of Canada looked at that ostrich just over one year ago and proclaimed it a dead duck. They elected, instead, a government which would provide leadership and was not afraid to tackle serious issues, even if it meant taking some unpopular steps.
I am confident, as a new resident of at least five days a week in this province, that the voters of Ontario will vote similarly this fall and replace the big, blue ostrich of Queen's Park with a progressive and forward-looking bright red Liberal bird, of substance, thought, and good government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Iona Campagnolo: The Leader of the Opposition admits that we have a serious problem to face in ensuring a continued supply of energy for Canadians at a realistic price, but from there his policies seem to hesitate and slow down like the pace of a turgid river.
He does not approve of the excise tax, but he does not want to increase income taxes. Nor does he want to increase government debt. Yet he is in favour of a singleprice system for petroleum products as long as we who are supposedly thought of in intellectual metropolitan Tory circles as "nasty" westerners do not feel too badly about subsidizing the Atlantic provinces.
No wonder he wants to hide his head in the sand for six months. In his position I think I would be tempted to keep it there until some time early next February.
I think that all Canadians, with the possible exception of big blue ostriches, realize that we face in the months ahead some very serious and very difficult decisions about the future, and particularly the future of our energy sup-

plies-where they are to come from, how we are to obtain them, and then how we are to pay for them. Our known petroleum reserves are diminishing at our current rate of consumption, doing so steadily during the next ten years. Our untapped resources can only be obtained at a price much higher than that we are now used to paying, or perhaps even willing to pay.
We will pay more for oil and gas in the future. That is an irreversible fact, a simple statement of demand and supply, and not a sinister plot of Leninist communism, as the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) would have us believe.
However, since the parliamentary guide says he has 274 Leninists in his own constituency, I must assume he knows whereof he speaks, so I bow to the hon. gentleman from Pembina in his definition of Leninists, though I must confess I laugh out loud at the thought that he considers the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a Leninist or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) a communist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: The hon. member for Waterloo-Cam-bridge (Mr. Saltsman) ought to know and, if he read the budget, so should my hon. friend from Pembina know that this is a stringent right-leaning budget geared to tough times. The question of oil and gas prices is one which is critical to our country's future as a major industrial nation, and I wish to commend the Minister of Finance and his colleagues in the federal cabinet for having the political integrity to face this problem now, and for their leadership in determining to resolve it while it is still only a problem, and not waiting for it to become a flaming crisis in this nation, as the ostriches would have us do.


Mr. Elzinga:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) is usually correct in what she says in this House. However, there are two areas which she mentioned here that are incorrect. I would like them corrected for the record. I did not refer to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) as a communist. Nor did I refer to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as a Leninist. I said the Prime Minister followed the teachings of Lenin.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I do not see any point of order in that. However, the facts are clear in the parliamentary guide book. Marxist, Leninist and communist candidates ran in the hon. member's constituency. I bow to him with all the grace I can muster in his knowledge of Leninists.
The question of oil and gas prices is critical to this country's future. I was saying, when I was interrupted, not by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) I hasten to add, but by some outcries from the opposite side, that ostriches are notably quiescent and tranquil. They are big birds, but they are seldom noted for their brightness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: This tax is an unpopular one, and this legislation is not popular legislation. Paying taxes is never popular. But the real test of leadership is the ability
July 17, 1975

to make difficult decisions and not blow in the wind like blue ostrich feathers, tinted and curled, and ready to fly away with every passing breeze.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: The June 23 budget showed leadership, leadership which will provide us with a fair and equitable energy policy in the years and decades ahead. This government is not afraid to look at ihe long term needs of Canadians, perhaps not even born yet, as priorities.
We know that prices for oil and gas are going to continue to rise. We know that it will take a massive commitment, and equally massive amounts of money, to bring the tar sands and the oil deposits in the high Arctic into full production.
The question then is not whether these things are going to happen, but what policies are we going to have to ensure that their impact on Canadians is as minimal, and as fair and equitable as possible.
That is why we now have a single national price for petroleum products in Canada. That is why the export charge on petroleum sold outside of the country is used to subsidize the cost of petroleum for those Canadians who are still dependent on Venezuelan and Mid-Eastern oil. That is why we accept that petroleum prices must be brought closer to international levels in order to encourage the development of our untapped resources and ensure a continued supply of Canadian oil for Canadian users.
The ostriches would have us sit with our heads in the sand until our current reserves are used up, dried and dead, and then place us at the mercy of the OPEC cartel. I do not accept the ostrich school of thought, formidable though it might be in aviary circles. Neither do my constituents.
I would tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition if he were here that we do not harbour resentment toward the eastern part of this country every time we buy gasoline because we are subsidizing those Canadians who are dependent on imported petroleum products. For, Mr. Speaker, even in far away Skeena, we are Canadians too, and we are proud of it. We have no time for short-sighted politicians who feel they must put their picayune interests ahead of the good of the country.
We do not like paying the extra ten cents a gallon when we buy our gas, but we are willing to do it because we are aware of the need for it, and are aware that it is a part of the price we must pay to keep our country growing and developing, and to ensure that the people of this nation do not suffer severe financial hardship just because they live in a certain part of the country.
Ours is a young and growing country, and the costs of its growth must be as equally divided as the benefits. Surely, Mr. Speaker, all members are aware of and accept that basic principle. That is the basis on which our country was founded.
Certainly the ten cents per gallon is unpopular and expensive, even exasperating to some, but they are the users and able to pay. I might remind hon. members that the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway was pretty expensive, and pretty unpopular as well, until Pierre
Excise Tax Act
Berton made it profitable. So were those high tariffs designed to create and protect the Ontario and Quebec manufacturing industries. They were considered necessary, despite the cost, as part of the price of the shaping of our country as we know it today.
A responsible and constructive opposition would have accepted this basis-a basis accepted by the people of our country as part of the price of unity and confederation- and would have offered positive and realistic criticisms of the government's policies. Hopefully they would have put forward some alternate proposals. Instead, what have we seen?
The main criticisms, once you wade through all of the high and mighty verbiage and a few ostrich feathers, appear to be that the excise tax is the wrong way to collect the money, and that anyway, it is not necessary. The only need for it, in the words of the biggest ostrich in Queen's Park, is the "propensity of the Government of Canada to consume money". Well, I would like to see him explain that one to the residents of his present federal leader's riding in Halifax, who would be paying well over $1 per gallon for gas if it had not been for the leadership of this federal government. As it is, the oil subsidy program will operate this year at a deficit of between $400 million and $600 million. So, simply stated, the money is needed.
Which brings me to the second criticism by the opposition-that the excise tax is a vile, iniquitous, and a generally nasty way to raise money. On the other hand, however, they agree the money should not be raised by increasing personal income taxes, and the government deficit is already too large. I do not really know what else that leaves, unless the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has something else up his sleeve-perhaps another bank.
The excise tax is not perfect, and I have my own criticisms of it which I will come to shortly, but I believe it is the fairest means of collecting the needed revenues because it is based on the principle that those persons who buy petroleum for their own personal use should be called on to bear the financial burden of implementing an agreed upon national petroleum policy.
I accept that there are inequities in this tax, and it penalizes those who must rely on an automobile for their only means of transport. But let me point out to hon. members that in my constituency it is not a drive of 50 or 60 miles into the city, but a drive of 500 to 600 miles-1,008 miles if one wishes to visit the beautiful metropolis of Vancouver.
However, we must accept the fact that we have to change our energy consumption habits, and I would sooner have the car driving residents of my constituency pay this tax than I would have them subsidized by my constituents who do not drive automobiles, and by the senior citizens who practise conservation not through choice but through economic necessity. As I indicated earlier, however, I do feel that this tax is, in areas, unfair, and that it places a special burden on the residents of my constituency as well as the residents of other more remote parts of our country.
I regret to advise the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) that

July 17, 1975
Excise Tax Act
this excise tax will not have a significant conservation effect in Skeena. Are all hon. members ready to accept the fact that the people there are paying $1.03.9 cents per gallon for regular gasoline? That is what I paid last week in Dease Lake, which is in my constituency, and when you pay that price you are fully aware of the need not to waste gas.
I mentioned earlier that the prices of confederation must be high, and that there is a need to share equally the costs as well as the benefits of building our great country. In Skeena we accept that principle, and we do not object to sharing the costs of the oil subsidy program or any of the other elements of national unity which are essential to Canada's future.
It seems to me that too many hon. members from all sides of the House, who sit here complacently and smugly representing their "comfortable cat" urban ridings and then complain about something like this excise tax, have forgotten that there are still parts of Canada which do not have the facilities and services they take for granted. Some of these hon. members seem to forget that the mines that produce the metals that feed the automobile plants do not operate themselves, that the trees in the wilderness forests do not chop themselves down, that the fish do not jump out of the ocean into nice, neat little cans, ready for the grocery store in Scarborough.
It takes people to do these things, Mr. Speaker-Canadians. And these Canadians from not only my own riding of Skeena but from other ridings in our north and mid-north all across Canada do their jobs and live their lives without the social, recreational, cultural or medical amenities considered necessities by our country's comfortable southern urban population.
This last Tuesday was a very important day in my home town of Price Rupert. A ceremony was held to mark the opening of a new dental clinic. And why was this such an eventful day? Because this city of 20,000 people now has a grand total of three, instead of two, dentists, and each dentist has only 7,000 people to look after instead of 10,000.
As I have said, my constituents accept the necessity of this excise tax as one of the costs of keeping our country together. But they are also beginning to wonder when they can expect some consideration regarding costs themselves. Those in the mid-north would like a little more regional assistance.
Expensive gasoline is not something new to us. I recall that there was a royal commission on gas prices in British Columbia in 1964, and the average price of regular gasoline in Vancouver was then 39.9 cents per gallon. In Prince Rupert it was 49.4 cents per gallon. Today the average price of regular gasoline in Vancouver is 71.9 cents per gallon. In Prince Rupert it is 84.9 cents; in Terrace and in the Bulkley Valley 86.9; and, as I have mentioned, in Dease Lake I paid $1.03.9 per gallon for regular gasoline.
What my constituents would like to know, Mr. Speaker, is why it is so much more expensive for gasoline in our part of the country. When you take away the new ten cents excise tax, the 3.2 cents in other federal excise taxes, and the 17 cents in provincial road taxes on a gallon of regular gasoline, the price in Vancouver is 41.7 cents per gallon, and in Burns Lake 56.7 cents, or 36 per cent higher.

And that money is not staying in Burns Lake; it is going to Vancouver, or Calgary, or Houston, Texas.
My constituents do not object to paying ten cents per gallon to ensure a reasonable gasoline price for those Canadians dependent on imported oil. But we are a little less enthusiastic about subsidizing multinational oil companies who swear by their belief in competition so long as it does not interfere with their ability to charge whatever the traffic will bear.
In 1963 the previous government of the province of British Columbia authorized a royal commission on the gasoline price structure in B.C. as is the case with most such studies under that administration, it was essentially a manoeuvre to cool off a too hot political issue, and little consideration was paid to its recommendations. But this report contains some very interesting information, such as the conclusion by the commissioner, Mr. Justice William Morrow, that "the present high retail mark-up in some areas is unfair", and his statement that "the figures do show that there are a number of centres in B.C., such as Prince Rupert.. . where the average gasoline sales per station are not very much below those in metropolitan Vancouver. This is an important fact, inasmuch as the major oil companies have mentioned that one of the reasons for the high dealer mark-up in outlying centres is the relatively low gallonage going through the service stations in those areas, as compared with the lower mainland."
The commissioner further reported that, according to the oil companies' own figures, of the 9.4 cents per gallon mark up on regular gas between Vancouver and Prince Rupert in 1964, only 2.58 cents per gallon could be attributed to transportation costs. There were 6.82 cents of fat in there in 1964, and there is a lot of fat in there somewhere today, Mr. Speaker, and it's certainly not going to my constituents in Skeena. I only hope that hon. members opposite will pull their heads out of the sand for long enough in the near future so that we just might be able to pass phase one of the competition act and allow the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to examine closely situations such as this.
What does this have to do with excise taxes? A great deal, as hon. members from the comfortable south will see. In researching this subject for my speech today I talked for a considerable time with a resident of my constituency, Mr. Cyril Shelford, who was a cabinet minister in the previous Social Credit government of the province of British Columbia, a man who has for many years pursued the inequities of the gasoline prices we in the north must pay; a man, too, who was investigated twice for being a communist simply for saying what I am saying now. He is a Social Crediter, and as the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) will tell you, Mr. Speaker, a Social Crediter is just a little bit further right than he is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The chief ostrich has just walked in.


Iona Campagnolo: I received considerable information on the subject from this constituent as well as from many
July 17, 1975

other people to whom I have spoken throughout my riding. Perhaps their thoughts are best summarized in this quotation from a letter I have received from Mr. Hank Hoornen-borg, who, by the way, would never be considered a leftist since he was the head of a local conservative organization and is President of the Chamber of Commerce in the town of Houston. Mr. Hoornenborg says:
The Houston Chamber proposes that efforts should be made to equalize fuel costs across the province. It is a well-known fact that because of the environment, distance and fewer opportunities, Canadian in northern areas make use of their automobiles to a larger extent. Because of often rigorous conditions of climate and roads they must purchase more costly vehicles and face higher maintenance costs and insurance premiums .. . Ottawa, we feel, must find a means by which to come to grips with the inequities Canadians in the north are constantly facing.
This land needs its northern residents, yet at the same time it penalizes these same people time and again for their willingness to withstand harsher conditions of life, and having the independence of mind to become personally involved in development of our nation.
Energy is such a basic commodity that the whole nation might well make it its responsibility to help carry the costs of energy expended in Canada's north.
Mr. Hoornenborg's point is a most important one, and it reflects accurately the concern felt not only by my constituents but by persons across Canada with the initiative to become personally involved in the development of our country instead of sitting back in the comfortable southern cities. In the light of the 10 cents a gallon we are now debating the ensure the continuation of an equitable and reasonable price for gasoline in all parts of our country, I suggest to hon. members that they give consideration to the extension of this equitable and reasonable price to the more northern areas of Canada as well as to the fortunate south.
I have been advised that, based on the total volume of gasoline sold in the province of British Columbia, it would require an over-all increase in price of only three-quarters of a cent per gallon to equalize the north-south differential in the price of gasoline in all parts of the province. Transposed into national figures and applied to the situation in northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan, northern Ontario, northern Quebec, and even northern Alberta, I am sure the cost would not be significantly different.
I leave this thought with hon. members and ask them to consider it if and when they return to their amenity-filled ridings in the comfortable south-ridings to which we will be welcomed back with questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Iona Campagnolo: I say to our outstanding Minister of Finance that, unlike the members of the Progressive Ostrich Party, my constituents accept the measures he is introducing in this legislation and accept the cost of ensuring that we have a strong and united country. When I vote for this bill and against the amendment I will do so knowing that this is another aspect of the price of being a federal nation, and in the full knowledge that ultimately northern disparities will be as visible as eastern energy disparities and that appropriately just action will be taken to share in larger measure the benefits of confederation from south to north as well as from sea to shining sea.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Excise Tax Act


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys who spoke last evening was soundly rebuked for referring to the previous speaker as "a delightful lady". I read her comments with regard to that. She was not, she insisted, a delightful lady, but a member of the House of Commons. So I thought I had better be careful about entering this debate immediately following her contribution.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Better not!


Alexander Bell Patterson: I hear a comment from the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi. I have not heard him make any reasonable or decipherable statement since I have been here.


An hon. Member:: You have not been listening.


Alexander Bell Patterson: If we keep him here long enough maybe he will reach the point at which he is able to get up and make a reasonable contribution to these debates.


An hon. Member:: Don't count on it.


Alexander Bell Patterson: The hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) told us there was sound and decisive leadership by the present government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, if there were sound and decisive leadership we should not be facing the massive problems we are facing in Canada at the present time.
With reference to her comments on certain individuals not wishing to do anything to solve these problems, I would only refer her to the fact that in several successive budgets the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) told us he was tackling some of our major problems in Canada, specifically, inflation and unemployment. I have heard him make that comment when introducing several budgets at various times. I also heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) state that he intended to wrestle inflation into the ground. Well, these problems are still with us and, whether the government has done anything at all or not, the fact remains that unemployment is still a major problem, that inflation is a gruelling problem, and that as far as the economy is concerned it is much worse than a great many Canadians realize.
We have been told that the policies being followed by the government are geared to tough times. If I may make an observation, it is that if we are experiencing tough times now they are nothing compared with those ahead of us unless the government does, in fact, show some decisive leadership and take appropriate action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: For a number of weeks we were waiting for the introduction of the budget. Time and time again we were advised that its presentation had been delayed. Finally he minister brought it down on June 23. I wonder why he waited so long. Was it because he could not make up his mind about what he wanted to do? Or did he wish to delay the budget to the point at which he felt the opposition would not be prepared to sit it out and debate
7690

July 17, 1975
Excise Tax Act
the legislation based on the budget resolutions he was introducing? Mr. Speaker, we are still here, and I am not sure how long we are going to be here. As I look at some of these resolutions I believe I can say we are justified in carrying this debate on in spite of the charges of filibuster.
We know the people of this country are desperately concerned about the implications of this measure we are currently debating. The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) speaking in this debate stated that he represents a party which is 100 per cent behind this resolution in respect of the gas tax. Could it be that 100 per cent of the Liberal supporters in this House tonight believe without any reservation that this is a policy which could be justified in the eyes of those who elected them to this House? If so, I am sure we will not hear them because there are many who would be embarrassed if they stood and made statements such as those we have heard from the one or two government members who have spoken, because they know they will have to go back and answer to those who elected them to the House of Commons.
Although there are a number of items contained in this bill, the item of prime importance is the application of the ten cents tax on gasoline across this nation. This brings us back to consideration of the government's policies in respect of energy. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and the government want to make Canada self-sufficient in resources and bring down the price of oil for Canadians, I suggest they could not have chosen a worse course over the last two years to achieve that goal. In addition to that, they have introduced this tax.
I would go so far as to say that if the government wanted to make Canada dependent on world energy supplies and ensure that Canada would have to pay high prices for oil and gas, it could not have adopted any better policies than those which have been placed before this House and submitted to the Canadian people. In other words, I believe the government has botched its energy program. It has failed miserably in everything it has tried to do in this regard down through the past months.
Let me illustrate the way in which this whole situation has been bungled. In 1973 Canada was potentially self-sufficient in respect of oil. There were some 334 oil drilling rigs operating in Canada. However, the course the government has followed since that time has driven the oil people out of the country because of its oppressive tax system, its intrusion into the tax field, as illustrated by the National Petroleum Act, the Petro-Can legislation, and the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) policies of confrontation in respect of taxation, as well as the government's wishy-washy ad hocery in dealing with the very crucial problem of exploration in this country. Because of this, as pointed out by my colleague from Battle River in the debate on Petro-Can last week, one-third of all those oil rigs have left Canada, and oil exploration activity has declined something like 20 per cent since 1974, while production of Canadian crude has dropped 17 per cent since 1974. It appears that the government, having set the stage and having created a problem, is trying to put in place some policy to solve the problem it has already created.

The government claims that exploration for oil is down. This is one of the justifications for the introduction of the bill to form a national petroleum corporation. I say again that this is the reason. This is why we are faced with the situation before us today. The government, which is supposed to be giving leadership to thhis country, seemingly has dedicated itself to the abolition of the free enterprise, private enterprise, system in this country. It could not resist the temptation to have a contrived crisis and to jump into the private sector with both feet and trample both the consumer and the producer underfoot. Needless to say, the uncertainty created by the government with regard to an energy policy has meant an undermining of the confidence the oil industry has traditionally had in the Canadian industrial environment. This uncertainty has resulted in a substantial decline in activity in Canada simply because the industry could not depend on what the government would do next.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says he is dedicated to the goal of keeping down the price of oil and gas for Canadians. This seems rather ludicrous in view of what is before us at the present time. Where was the minister on the night of June 23? No doubt he was in the House, but I am sure he must have been cringing in his seat as the Minister of Finance announced his ten cents a gallon tax increase, which is diametrically opposed to the principle announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Perhaps we might have an explanation of this. On the one hand we have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stating that he wants to keep down oil prices for Canadians, while on the other hand we have the Minister of Finance raising the price of gasoline by ten cents a gallon in one shot.
The situation is not that the oil companies will have more money for exploration but that the government's take from the pockets of the poor, the oppressed, and the already overtaxed Canadian consumer will be increased. So here we have one minister wanting to keep prices down while another overrules him and unilaterally increases them. I suggest this is indicative of the situation in respect of cabinet ministers in this government.
There is a policy conflict. We witnessed this some time ago when there was a conflict between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). They were at each other's throat because one was enunciating a policy that was undercut by the other minister. Then in order to try to smooth over the difficulty the Prime Minister stated that it is a healthy exercise, a healthy symptom, to have disagreement in the cabinet. That was a change from the cabinet solidarity we heard so much about.


John Napier Turner: I remember your old Social Credit Party.


Alexander Bell Patterson: That party had some tremendous policies when we were here in times past, and I am glad to see that a great many of them are being advocated by us today. I believe the minister would like to move a little in that direction if he were not held back by his cabinet. I can think of no more oppressive a tax the government could put on the working people of this nation than that contained in Bill C-66. This increase places an unjust
July 17, 1975

direct tax on all private motorists. It creates another hardship for the majority of motorists who are in the lower and middle income groups.
It has been pointed out very clearly that this tax will add tremendously to the burden of the Canadian taxpayer in general, and will fall particularly on those who use their automobiles in order to struggle to make a living. In this connection we realize that the minister is not too concerned about that, because if he was very concerned he certainly would not have brought in this measure. The burden will fall on those people who have retirement in mind and the hope of enjoying a little of the fruits of their labours over a period of 30, 40 or 50 years. Now the minister plunks another ten cents tax on them and thus curtails the enjoyment they were looking for in their retirement. So the tax is falling upon those who have every right to expect some consideration from this government. Surely to goodness they will come to the realization pretty soon that they cannot expect it from the administration that we have at present.
The government's complete bungling of the housing situation over the years has forced many Canadians further and further away from the cities in search of reasonably priced land for their accommodation. Here again this tax will fall directly upon them. I had a letter just the other day from a constituent who pointed out that he had to travel 80 miles a day to and from his place of employment. If you figure 20 miles on a gallon of gas, it just shows how much extra money he will have to spend on getting to and from his place of employment.


An hon. Member:: How much?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Surely to goodness you have the competence to figure it out in your head.


Mr. Corbin:: Say it.


Alexander Bell Patterson: As we consider this particular aspect, we realize that this measure will not conserve gasoline, if that is the reason for the imposition of this tax. I do not believe it is. I believe it is just a matter of getting some more money. If there is any justification in the claim that has been advanced that this tax will conserve gas, let me point out that it will not conserve gasoline because that man will still have to drive to and from work, but he will have that much less with which to buy food for his family. So the whole situation is ridiculous.
We find now that people are being forced, because of government policy-the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) is here in the House tonight and I am sure he realizes this-and because people will have to move farther and farther away from their place of employment in order to find accommodation, to become more dependent upon energy in the form of gasoline. So this tax will fall upon them in a very real sense.
It is all very well for the Minister of Finance to talk cavalierly about people cutting down on their driving and switching to public transportation, but this has no relevance to Canadians who live out in the fringe areas of the cities. Here we come to another area of hardship imposed
Excise Tax Act
on the people of this nation, that is, the lack of protective and efficient rapid transit systems in our cities. Some may say that this is not relevant to the bill before us, but it certainly is because the minister and the government said, "Let them find other means of transportation". But there is no other form of transportation. An automobile today is not a luxury; it is an absolute necessity.


Harold Thomas Herbert: It depends on what you drive.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I did not hear that interjection.


Walter David Baker: You did not miss much.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I do not worry about them. I am saying there is no other mode of transportation, and these people will have to use their automobiles and will have to use gasoline. So the minister comes along now and says, "Too bad, folks, you are using too much gasoline to drive back and forth, you will have to walk now". This places him in a position beyond reason altogether, and the imposition of his tax will add an additional burden on the people.
I have in my hand a document which I received in the mail entitled "Notes for a Speech by the Hon. Herb Gray, P.C. M.P. to a meeting of the Ottawa Kiwanis Club, Chateau Laurier, Ottawa, Friday, July 4, 1975". I would like the privilege of putting a paragraph or two on the record. It reads:
The Minister of Finance stated the purposes of the excise tax are to encourage conservation of petroleum energy and to provide additional government revenues needed to make up the deficit in the program to cushion eastern Canada against the burden of paying the full world price for the oil it has to import-
As a conservation device, the new excise tax in unrealistic and is also unfair to millions of Canadians. It implies a government view that Canadians who use their cars to travel to work, for essential family purposes like food shopping and visits to physicians, can turn to alternative forms of public transit instead.
By allowing a rebate of the tax to those using cars for so called commercial purposes (basically those who can deduct the cost as a business expense) the government is implying that all other use has elements of frivolity and be cut down easily or that rapid transit can be a realistic substitute for it. There may be some element of discretionary use which can be reduced-people can cut down perhaps on pure pleasure trips and the recreational use of snowmobiles and boats. But for millions of Canadians who have little or no opportunity for this type of activity because of their already hard pressed incomes, there are no alternatives to continue using their cars as before and therefore to paying the tax.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Stay home and drink wine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: That is a great platform. You can run on that one.


Alexander Bell Patterson: For the edification of the minister I would like to quote further from this statement. The hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) said:
Contrast this with the transportation policy in the election platform of a year ago. In it were a number of clearly spelled out commitments to specific federal government action-action to bring about the speedy development of urban rapid transit.
However, the government's recent transportation policy document did not even say (as it might have) that the government continues to hold to these commitments, but has reluctantly come to the view they would have to be carried out over a longer period of time.
29669-4%

July 17, 1975
Excise Tax Act
Where is the 100 per cent support for the imposition of this tax to which reference was made in debate a short time ago?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Whose statement did you read from?


Alexander Bell Patterson: It was a statement by the hon. member for Windsor West.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alexander Bell Patterson: By the way, talking about rapid transit, may I say that during the election campaign I was amazed to read in the paper or hear over the news a statement by the right hon. Prime Minister, who said that a rapid transit system would be implemented through Fraser Valley, B.C.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Run by beavers.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I was reminded of the statement he made right in this House that he would do everything he possibly could to help his friend-


An hon. Member:: Gerry Pringle.


Alexander Bell Patterson: The gentleman whom I had the privilege of dethroning in the last election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: The Prime Minister said that he would do everything he possibly could to help his friend in Fraser Valley East. I suppose that was a promise pulled out of thin air, and I do not believe there was ever any intention to implement that policy. I must say that the Prime Minister's friend has gone to his reward.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I should point out to him that we are now discussing Bill C-66, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I am conscious of that fact, and I am talking about the Prime Minister of Canada making the statement that he would put in a rapid transit system in my riding to facilitate travel, and the ministers are now saying that people have to go to that type of operation in order to conserve energy and not to use automobiles. With all due deference, I would think this is very relevant to the issue we are debating.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: In passing I wish to point out that the gentleman to whom the Prime Minister made reference has gone to his reward, or come to his reward, because like all good Liberals who were defeated, he is finding a job provided by the government, as are some of the others who were appointed just recently.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Oh, oh!


Alexander Bell Patterson: There is my hon. friend over there again. It is good to hear his voice even though he does not say anything.
In his budget speech the minister referred to the fact that even with a 10 cents tax per gallon added on, Canadians still pay less for their gas than people in countries like France, where the price is $2; Tokyo, where it is $1.80; London and Geneva where it is $1.70; and Bonn and Stockholm where it is $1.60. What in the world has that to do with the price of gas in Canada?


Mr. Kempling:: It's 15 cents in Saudi Arabia.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I cannot see any relevance in those references.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Oh, oh!


Alexander Bell Patterson: We hear again from our friend, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi. We are glad to hear from him even though he makes no sense.
If Canada were a small nation like the ones referred to by the minister where even on our old 50 mile per hour trains we could get from one end of the country to the other in eight hours or so, I am sure Canadians would get by with a 10 cents per gallon increase, but none of those countries have a 300 mile per hour train, and the fact is that those countries are so small that one can go anywhere in them in a very short period of time.
I had the privilege of going over to Marville, France, some years ago. I wanted to see a friend, and I asked a question of the officers in charge. I asked them if my friend was there, and they said that he was over in Holland for the weekend. Later I went back again and asked if my friend was around. I was told that he was in Spain for the weekend. Here we have a reference to the price of oil in countries where people can go wherever they want in a very few hours, whereas in Canada hundreds and thousands of miles are involved.
This tax will not conserve gasoline. It will not make Canadians cut down their use of the automobile, simply because they must travel that way. This tax will further increase the inflationary spiral. Now that we are supposed to wrestle inflation to the ground, the minister slaps on another tax which will add perhaps l'/2 percentage points to the cost of living. I wonder if that is the kind of rationale the minister is accustomed to using. The tremendous increase in the cost of living has been pointed out by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). In other countries the inflationary spiral is declining, but at a time when in Canada the rate is increasing the minister imposes a new 10 cents tax on gasoline.
What effect will this have on wage demands? If workers have to pay an extra 10 cents per gallon for gas to get to work, they will say that they need higher incomes and that they need to go on strike to get them or they will lose ground. So there is a pressure exerted for higher wage settlements.
This tax will place an increased load of work upon businessmen. Those who are using their automobiles are to receive rebates. How much more work will they have to do? How much added cost will there be for these people? They are overloaded now with work they are doing for the
July 17, 1975

government. Right across the country they are saying they are doing much work for nothing because the government is imposing this and that, and requiring forms. These people are spending much of their time doing work which does not increase their income one cent, but it adds to their cost of operation.
If this tax is not for conservation, the government says it is to subsidize the price of gasoline. My leader and my colleagues have already placed our position on the record. While all parties have agreed that there should be one price for gasoline across the country, there are different ways in which this can be done.


John Napier Turner: How would you do it?


Alexander Bell Patterson: We have equalization taxes. Western Canadians are saying that they are already paying millions of dollars to equalization funds, and they are not complaining, but this is something which should be borne by all taxpayers and by society as a whole instead of having the burden of responsibility placed upon those who must use their automobiles for transportation in order to make a living.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: If the minister wants more money, why does he not cancel, for example. Information Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: If he wants to save money and use it for other purposes, why in the world is he trying to set up Petro-Can?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: I believe he knows as well as anyone else that private enterprise can operate a business better than can a government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: What about the continued growth in the public service, in spite of the fact that the government says it will reduce it or hold the line? What about unemployment insurance deficits? The government claims it will solve the unemployment problem, but it is because of government policies that unemployment rates are as high as they are. This is another problem the government has created, and for which it is now seeking some solution.
The amendment introduced by my leader certainly should be seriously considered by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: The hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Cam-pagnolo) said that we do not want to make any decisions, and that we do not want to do anything; but we do not want to impose a further burden upon the working people of this country. We do not want to impose a further burden upon those who thought they would be able to enjoy their leisure years travelling around and seeing Canada, beautiful as it is. It is because we do want to do something that we believe the government ought to accept
Excise Tax Act
this amendment, give this bill at least a six months' hoist, and take another look at it.
Perhaps the government can come up with some measure which is far more reasonable and far more equitable as far as the whole nation is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, we have had one or two rather interesting speeches this evening.


Mr. Cullen:: Two out of three is not bad!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I heard, for the first time, the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), who left me with the distinct impression that most of the poverty in this country is in northern Canada. There is no doubt that in northern Canada a great many people are suffering, principally because of the policies of the government.
We are speaking about Bill C-66 tonight. I do not know why people have to be penalized in their pocketbooks if they go to the riding of Skeena to live, or go to the Northwest Territories, or the Yukon, or northern Ontario, or any other part of northern Canada. I do not know why they have to be penalized to help develop the frontiers of this country. Yet the hon. member for Skeena, while she was very sincere in her remarks and said she was not happy with the 10 cents per gallon increase in the price of gasoline, did not really drive this point home.
One of the major weaknesses in the development of this country is that we do not have a government that will look to the north, and the northwest, and the northeast, and say that we have to put people into those parts of the country and therefore we must make special provisions for them to settle there without being penalized financially.
I should like to remind the hon. member for Skeena that in the province of Ontario where we are supposedly all millionaires-thanks to the Ontario Progressive Conservative government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: -there are over 350,000 families, not individuals but families, who tonight are living below the poverty line. That is a despicable thing considering the wealth of the province.
Here we have Bill C-66, and the amendment to hoist it for six months, that is again going to put a burden-not on me because I have a big income-bigger than I could get when I was teaching school although their salaries are coming up rather rapidly-that 10 cents per gallon is not going to hurt me. Who is it going to hurt? It is going to hurt average Canadians, those making $8,000 or $9,000 a year, or up to $12,000 or $13,000 a year. That is where the burden is going to fall. It is going to fall equally in monetary terms, but when it comes to coping with the problems of living today it does not fall equally. It falls in a most unequal way.
In trying to justify this budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said repeatedly that the main reason for the tax was to acquire further revenues. We know on this side

July 17, 1975
Excise Tax Act
of the House, and they know on the other side of the House, that this is not the major purpose. The major purpose is to work out some kind of common national petroleum policy.


James McPhail Gillies: The major purpose is to penalize the poor.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: As the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) says, its main purpose is to penalize the poor. I will not say it is the major purpose, but unfortunately that is what happens when this kind of tax is imposed.
Take physicians, for example, I do not oppose the fact that physicians have a write-off on their cars and an exemption if they use their cars in their day to day work. We know, however, that a lot of doctors make very few house calls today. They do make some, but usually the patient goes to the surgery or the hospital. Yet doctors can deduct this 10 cents per gallon, and they can claim a high depreciation on their cars. If a doctor lives in a large city and is not ashamed to drive a Cadillac or a Lincoln and changes his car every year, the amount of depreciation is immense. We have had that under successive Liberal and Conservative governments since income tax was first introduced.


John Napier Turner: That was in 1917.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Right. But what about the working man or woman today who has to drive to work? A car is an absolute necessity in most of our cities, particularly the middle sized cities. It is also a necessity in rural areas where people might have to drive 15 or 20 miles each way to go to work. But they neither get a write-off for that ten cents a gallon excise tax nor a depreciation allowance on their automobiles. I dare say they put a lot more miles on per day, however, than the physician who goes from his home to his office.
When is this kind of thing going to change? When are we going to realize that while we are not all equal when it comes to ability, or ambition, or intelligence, we are equal before the law and deserve the same kind of treatment based on equality when it comes to taxation? The problem today is that the Liberal government still has not come to grips with this kind of equality.
We have talked about how this tax will affect home heating fuels, and we realize that natural gas is going up in price. We are living in a very high inflationary period and yet we have in this budget and this bill an inflationary spiral built in. I do not know why the Minister of Finance would bring in a bill at this time that would increase the cost of living by about two percentage points. We are paying $2.20 for a pound of bacon, and over a dollar for a dozen of eggs, and these are basic commodities. A modest apartment in the city of Brantford for a family with one or two children cannot be had for less than $150 or $160 per month.
We have unemployment, and certainly this bill will not help that problem. By next January we will probably have in the neighbourhood of 900,000 or maybe even a million people out of work in this country.
What does it all add up to, Madam Speaker? We were expecting the budget and this bill in particular to relieve the inflationary spiral, or at least reduce it, and we were

also looking for measures to put Canadians back to work. In this bill we are to get neither. We have before us a typically hodge-podge, band aid approach-"If you can solve a little part of the problem now, wait for another three or four months and see what happens".
That is not the way to approach the problem. We need to plan our onshore economy, that is, the economy of this country, in such a way that we do not suffer from these ups and downs, from periods in which there is high inflation and high unemployment at the same time, and from periods of boom followed by periods of bust. There is no indication that Bill C-66 will even out the business cycle of this country. I am not talking about the effects of offshore inflation, or of offshore foreign economies. I am talking about this country, about our problems in urbanization, problems to do with rents, mortgages and housing. This budget does little for housing.
I want to address myself to other aspects of Bill C-66. This bill actually touches on the nub of the problem confronting this country. We are trying to fight inflation but, at the same time, we are adding to it. We are forcing, not just a few Canadians, not just wealthy Canadians, not just middle income Canadians, but all Canadians, the great majority of whom are low and middle income earners, to pay more for a commodity which comes from our country's own soil, which is produced by Canadian workers, and which is largely financed, and could be entirely financed if we went the right way about it, by Canadians.
The opposition party to my right and the Liberal party have always drawn across our path that good old red herring that the inflation rate of Great Britain is 25 per cent, of Italy, 17 per cent, and so on. The people of Canada are not buying this argument any more. If we had to rely on Italy or Great Britain for our oil, O.K.; what could we do but pay their prices? But we have the oil; we have great potential for oil in the tar sands. We need not pay $2 per gallon for gasoline. We need not pay what we pay right now. Members talk about what they must pay in northern Canada. I assure you, Madam Speaker, that in southern Ontario, where gasoline prices supposedly are lowest, you will pay between 78 and 82 cents a gallon, depending on where you buy.


An hon. Member:: You should see the prices on Highway 401.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The hon. member refers to prices on Highway 401. No doubt those prices are high, but perhaps you could drive a few miles off the highway and buy cheaper gasoline.
The difficulty is that we don't know how to handle our own resources. We can develop them, yes, if we beg foreign corporations to do this. The problem lies in the distribution of our national resources. The government's excuse for imposing this excise tax is that it supposedly wants to conserve oil, whereas, in reality, it wants to create revenue; and I say the people of Canada are being had. I think the people know it.
I have been a member of this House for going on five years; I know many members have been here longer. Granted this is a political forum, this is the place to
July 17, 1975

declaim and to exude confidence. I have always been under the impression that the Liberal party thinks of itself as representing both God and the majority of Canadian voters. I do not know much about God, but I remind my Liberal friends and adversaries in this House, you do not represent, electorally, the majority of Canadians. We, on my side, represent the majority of Canadian voters. You should keep that in mind when you bring in bills like Bill C-66. You seem to think that you can bring in a bill three years before an election, stuff it down our throats, and then feel justified in being angry with us for holding up its passage. You accuse us of blocking the legislation.
Is it any wonder the people of Canada are becoming disillusioned with the electoral and parliamentary process? Is it any wonder that we are debating at length this issue? I don't care what you call it; I will stay here all next month, if necessary, and all September, if I think I can hold up this bill, or if we can pass the amendment to hoist this bill for six months. And when it comes forward again in the House, we will want to hoist it for another six months, if possible.
It is an iniquitous bill. It is unfair, and is unfair to people that you, on your side of the House, represent; and do not forget it.
Hon. members opposite try to leave the impression that they are not getting flak from their constituents. Let me tell you something: they are getting more flak from their constituents than we are from ours. But they will not stand up to admit it. They have to kow-tow to the cabinet.


An hon. Member:: Pure demagoguery.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That is what that great solidarity of their means. They cannot stand up and really say what they want to say on the bill.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I wonder if we can confirm if we are to consider this bill tomorrow, as there was some question about this earlier today.


John Napier Turner: Madam Speaker, I understand that we are to consider this bill tomorrow, subject to discussions which my colleague, the House leader, may have with the House leaders of the other parties at ten o'clock tomorrow morning, in which case, if there is any mutual consent, there might be a change.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We can stay here to the end of September, if you want to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought we were to consider the recess tomorrow.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, the subject I am proposing for debate on the adjournment motion relates to a question I raised in the House on May 28. Then I requested some information from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) regarding an incident that took place on May 6, 1975, when a secret cabinet document was exposed to officials of the National Indian Brotherhood and subsequently found its way into the hands of the national press.
I raised this matter originally because the occurrence I spoke of was similar to one of about two years earlier. The earlier incident took place on October 5, 1973. The situation was identical, and resulted in the firing of a senior official, Mr. Walter Rudniki of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, his secretary, and other officials of the department.
May I enumerate the events involved in these two incidents? In December, 1974, a meeting was held between representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood, and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for the purpose of reviewing Indian housing. At that meeting the Brotherhood submitted their proposal for a new housing policy, and the commitment to the consultation process was re-affirmed to the National Indian Brotherhood at that time.
On September 20, 1973, a meeting was held between the National Assembly of the Native Council of Canada and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. At this meeting the National Assembly of the Native Council presented their proposals on Metis housing and obtained commitments to a consultation process. Mr. Leseaux, deputy minister, wrote to the National Indian Brotherhood committing the Minister to a consultation process subsequent to the meeting of December 1974.
In March two representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood met with the minister to discuss Mr. Leseaux's letter of January 15. During this meeting the National Indian Brotherhood asked for funding for a consultation process on housing with their provincial associations, and insisted on further meetings to discuss the housing proposals in detail. The minister agreed that no action would be taken to place the housing proposals before cabinet until there were further meetings with the National Indian Brotherhood. This is almost identical to the commitment made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford).
A draft cabinet document was prepared, mostly in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and was ready by April 2, 1975. It was reviewed between the minister and his

July 17, 1975
Adjournment Debate
senior officials and apparently approved by him. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) signed the original of this cabinet document and forwarded it to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) with a covering letter dated April 3. In this letter he indicates that both ministers had discussed the document the previous week, presumably an earlier draft, that some revisions had been made as a result, and suggests that both ministers should meet again to review the manner in which the presentation to cabinet should be made.
In the case of the Metis housing draft policy, it had not been reviewed with the minister or signed by him, although he had a copy at the time of the consultation meeting on October 5, 1973.
On May 6, 1975, a consultation meeting was held including representatives of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the National Indian Brotherhood. The representatives from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development were Arthur Kroeger, the deputy minister, Peter Leseaux, the assistant deputy minister, and Bob Connelly.
The Central Mortgage and Housing representatives were Alain Nantel, vice-president, and Sam Cormier. There were 11 representatives from the National Indian Brotherhood, including George Manual, the president. At this meeting the provisions of the draft cabinet document were reviewed in detail and copies were distributed to the representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood to take away for study. The deputy minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development chaired the meeting.
The draft proposals on Metis housing were similarly distributed to the Metis consulting group on October 5, 1973, by a junior member of CMHC who presumably thought he was acting with the sanction of the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the minister. In this case, however, the papers did not leave the room.
The situation currently is that the National Indian Brotherhood have rejected many of the proposals in the joint Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development policy draft. The National Indian Brotherhood object to placing their housing needs at the tender mercies of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation priorities which, in the past year, have done little or nothing for Metis housing. The National Indian Brotherhood suspect that the proposals are simply a device for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to dilute responsibility for future failures throughout the public service so that they, themselves, will not be such a large target.
Indian housing policy is still under development. The question which is relevant now is whether this will continue to be done in consultation with the National Indian Brotherhood or whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will try to force an unacceptable housing policy down the throats of the Indians. He should at least be prepared to present the Indian point of view to cabinet.
In terms of the parallels in the Indian and Metis consultation process, there are a number of interesting questions that remain unanswered. First, can the incident involving the joint review by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the National Indian Brotherhood of a draft cabinet document on Indian housing on May 6 be viewed as a new departure by the government from its former excessive preoccupation with the confidentiality of such documents?
Secondly, if the government has not introduced a new policy with respect to the preparation of cabinet submissions, is it contemplating disciplinary action against officials of the Indian affairs department and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
If such action is not being contemplated, could the government explain the difference in the consultation process that has just taken place on Indian housing and the consultation process on Metis housing that was authorized by the previous minister and the president of the Central Mortgage and Housing in September, 1973? The issue here is both consultation and justice.
The late Lester B. Pearson, on October 25, 1963, stated the policy that that government and subsequent Liberal governments would follow in the area of cabinet secrecy. He laid out two points that would have to be followed, both of which were ignored in the first and second instances that I have outlined here tonight. As reported at page 4044 of Hansard for October 25, 1963, the right hon. gentleman said:
The first of the new requirements is to inform the person involved when his security or reliability is in doubt and may have to involve his dismissal.


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


Iona Campagnolo: Madam Speaker, in replying to this question I should perhaps point out at the outset that a document does not become a cabinet document until it has been approved by the responsible minister, signed by him or her, and forwarded to the Privy Council office. The document being distributed at the meeting with the National Indian Brotherhood is not of this character. Each copy was clearly marked "Draft-for discussion purposes only".
The action taken by departmental officials in distributing the draft document had been explicitly authorized in advance by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan). It was the objective of the minister and departmental officials to make the meeting as productive as possible, and for this purpose they thought they should take Indian representatives fully into their confidence. It was also anticipated that, after examining the draft document, the National Indian Brotherhood would wish to suggest changes and improvements in it.
Discussions with the National Indian Brotherhood have not yet been concluded. The nature of any proposals that the Minister of Indian Affairs may decide to submit to cabinet therefore remain undertermined. In view of the

July 17, 1975

explanation I have just given I think the hon. member will agree that the issue of a release of a secret cabinet document does not arise in this case.


Frank Oberle: Would the hon. lady allow a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. There can be no question, point of privilege, or point of order at this time.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-SUGGESTED REPRESENTATIONS TO QUEBEC MINISTER OF JUSTICE CONCERNING TREATMENT OF DR. MORGENTALER
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Madam Speaker, this matter arises from a question that I asked the Minister of Justice some time ago in which I requested that he intercede in the case of Dr. Henry Morgentaler of Montreal. In addition, and perhaps more important, I asked that consideration be given under section 680 of the Criminal Code to granting a full pardon, or that at the very least exceptional parole be granted in the case of Dr. Morgentaler.
I raised this point not out of any sense of partisanship or out of any differences we may have in this House over the question of abortion. I raised it because of the minister's admission-through the amendments which were introduced in the House today and promised a short time ago, amendments on which I congratulate the hon. gentleman, removing, as they do, what he calls an anomaly in the Criminal Code which allows a court of appeal to superimpose its own verdict over that of a jury without referring the case back for trial-that there was a situation which needed to be remedied.
The fact is that Dr. Morgentaler, regardless of the view one might take about the case, continues to sit in jail in Quebec as a direct result of this anomaly. And when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) says to the House that he is guilty, the hon. gentleman-I say with the greatest respect to him-shows a misunderstanding of the traditions of English justice. When a jury of one's peers, not once, but twice, acquits someone who comes before it, it has rendered a judgment in that community, and the person concerned is not only entitled to the benefit of that verdict, he is entitled to the position which it gives him among the rest of the citizens.
In this particular case, such was not to be. No special consideration has been given to the fact that in spite of the government's admission that there is an anomaly in the law, and that we cannot permit a situation to prevail in which a court of appeal is able to superimpose its own judgment as to facts over that of a jury, no provision has been mad? for exceptional parole, or a pardon, or a new trial under Section 617 of the code.
This, I think, is tragic for all of us who respect the law, who respect the ancient democratic process which has been so important in British and Canadian jurisprudence, namely, that one can be tried, not by one's superiors, not by the elite, not by judges, but by 12 good men and true who can decide on the facts. This is what is being denied in this case, and it is fundamental to our system of justice
Adjournment Debate
that the situation should not prevail. As long as we allow this man Morgentaler to remain in jail we are denying our democratic heritage, and that is a mark of shame upon this government.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, rather remarkably the hon. member's question seems to indicate that he is completely unaware of the fact that the provincial attorneys general are responsible for the administration of justice. That responsibility, of course, includes all matters relating to investigating breaches of the criminal laws, the laying of charges, and appeals by the Crown. I can only suggest, therefore, that if the hon. member is in fact serious in asking his question, he should not try to confuse this issue in the minds of the public by suggesting the federal government is in any way involved in the case, but should direct his query to the attorney general of the province concerned.
The hon. member also seems to have some difficulty in remembering that, in keeping with the traditions of this House, cases before the courts are not discussed. The reasons are clear and hardly need elaboration, even for the hon. member opposite. But I would suggest to him that, in the interest of justice he keeps them in mind.

I should like to add for my hon. friend, and this is the first time I have the opportunity of saying this, that the people of Quebec have had their fill of those who intervene in the administration of justice. I can say that in the minds of the majority of Quebecers, Dr. Morgentaler defied the law. He bragged about have done do; he paid a just price for having thus shown contempt for our laws, as he boasted of doing. My hon. friend forgets that thousands of human beings disappeared because of the illegal acts of Dr. Morgentaler. May I bring my excellent friend to his senses and tell him that Quebecers feel that the administration of justice is a matter for the Quebec government; the vast majority approve that decision, though I recognize that it may not coincide with the opinion of my hon. friend, whom I respect; but I must say I also respect the opinion of the majority of the Quebecers I represent here in the House of Commons, as well as all Canadians.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF STATUS OF SECUREX AND DISCHARGE OF OFFICERS BRUNET AND McLEERY TO JUDGE MARIN'S COMMISSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: ) Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is here tonight to take part in this debate. As he is well aware, many questions have been asked in committee and in this House up to this point about the pure injustice in the case of two former policemen, namely, Don McCleery and Gilles Brunet.
I understand that the Solicitor General has been preoccupied with other issues these days, including capital punishment. However, I am becoming annoyed with the apparent inability in this particular instance to take control over the situation and find out from the responsible officials of the RCMP the truth of the circumstances,

July 17, 1975
Adjournment Debate
background, and considerations that exist in the matter of Messrs. McCleery and Brunet. I would also be very interested in asking the Solicitor General at this point how many other such instances have come to the attention of his office since he assumed his portfolio. But we can perhaps pursue that at another time.
I would suggest to the Solicitor General, without going into excessive detail, that many of the problems in which McCleery and Brunet were unfortunate to find themselves were caused by a misunderstanding and arbitrary approach by certain RCMP officials in their particular case.
The minister was neither right nor very careful in his answer to me a couple of days ago when he said that McCleery and Brunet were before Judge Marin's commission, implying that the purpose for which they were there had to do with the issues I raised. In point of fact, as the Solicitor General will discover if the checks carefully, Brunet was never before Judge Marin. McCleery was, but his purpose, as I understand it, was to outline some of the deficiencies and injustices in the way in which members of the force were treated, presumably to prevent others being treated like he was. McCleery felt then, and must still feel, that it is a simple matter of justice that members of the RCMP be afforded protection and a chance to have a fair hearing and answer any charges made against them.
If the Solicitor General is as concerned with matters of conscience and philosophy as he maintains he is, and I believe he is, he should want the people of Canada to believe that he would be interested enough and have sufficient control over his department to make sure that this matter, which may be a continuing injustice, is resolved.
He ought to realize the paradox in expecting police officers to have the proper attitude for the rights of others and to uphold our laws when they themselves are not afforded the same rights as other Canadians in matters of fundamental protection for themselves.
I say to the minister sincerely that unfortunately it is becoming apparent that he is not running his department, that his department is running him. He is not giving the guidance and direction to the RCMP that a man in his position should. If there is any department of government that the people of Canada cannot afford to have running itself, it is this particular department over which the Solicitor General has jurisdiction.
I am further suggesting to the minister and to the House that the one reason Messrs. McCleary and Brunet were ultimately discharged-although no one has yet had the decency to give them their discharge papers, which I believe in itself is contrary to the RCMP Act-is that no one on the force would take the responsibility of issuing the proper orders to either one of these gentlemen to cease the so called activities which were used as a justification for their discharge.
To be more specific, when assistant commissioner Gorman, as he then was and still is, made his investigation which finally led to their discharge pursuant to section 173 of the RCMP Act, he first recommended that they be transferred. However, a series of events changed the atti-[Mr. MacKay.J
tude of the force and led to the unfortunate situation which now exists.
It is also interesting that, at the time of the investigation, assistant commissioner Gorman refused to give an order that these two officers should have had, if that indeed was to be a serious offence, to desist from any contact with Mitchell Bronfman. Mitchell Bronfman, by the way, was on occasion of some assistance, and may still be, to the security service division of the RCMP, a fact which the minister can easily determine if he wishes to check the proper records. But that is another story.
The national crime intelligence unit, which either lacks the basic understanding of the situation or did not interpret it properly, amassed a lot of information which was and is demonstrably false, unsupported and speculative, and will not stand up to any competent and impartial analysis.
The investigation concerned more than simply the alleged misconduct of Brunet and McCleery. It involved, among other things, the true status of Mitchell Bronfman. The investigation at times assumed almost a comic opera atmosphere. Superintendent Marcoux flew to British Columbia on a supposedly ultra secret mission to check into certain aspects, and I suppose he was quite perplexed when he came back to Ottawa when he received a call from Brunet asking him how the weather was in British Columbia.
I would think that even in an organization which, justifiably, is not known for having a sense of humour, this should have brought at least a smile to the officer's face, but apparently this was not the case judging from what happened as a result.
I suggest that up to the point that Gilles Brunet telephoned superintendent Marcoux on this occasion the worst that was slated for him was a transfer to Newfoundland-Grand Falls as a matter of fact-which apparently was going to be sufficiently distant from the baleful influence of his associate, Don McCleery, who was slated to be transferred at the same time to Moncton, New Brunswick.
However, because of Gilles Brunet's telephone call to see how the investigation was proceeding-an investigation which concerned him-and about Don McCleery about whom he had no word for weeks, because of the audacity of this simple act which was the only recourse he had under the circumstances, and he was understandably curious, I am suggesting that was one reason why what was supposed to be a transfer, and perhaps a rap on the knuckles, turned into a discharge from the force with tremendous consequences and implications for these men. I therefore feel responsible for directing questions to the minister on the status of the company which they are using as a vehicle, and which also involves Mitchell Bronfman.
I see you are indicating that my time is up, Madam Speaker, so I will finish briefly by suggesting to the Solicitor General that he make every effort to look into this matter on a more factual and detailed basis and, if possible, as soon as we come back in the fall-if we have a recess-arrange for these gentlemen to come before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to give their testimony and tell us their story.
July 17, 1975


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I was only given notice of the hon. member's adjournment debate question at 6 p.m., and consequently I am not able to give him as complete an answer as I would like.
In any case I must tell him that this matter was first brought to my attention near the end of 1973. 1 was approached by the attorney for Securex as well as the attorneys for Messrs. McCleery and Brunet. Although I did not know and have never met Messrs. McCleery and Brunet, it appeared to me that they were seriously pursuing their grievance and that they wanted to clear their name. As a result, I immediately looked into the case and determined to see if anything could be done for the two officers who had been dismissed from the RCMP under section 173 of the RCMP regulations. I was told that these cases had been fully investigated and that nothing could be done.
When a new commissioner was appointed on January 1, 1974, I approached him to have these cases reviewed. He later replied to me that he was fully aware of these cases and that he saw no grounds for reversing the decision of the former commissioner, and in any case there was no legal basis to do so.
Later, in order to pursue all avenues, I sought an independent legal opinion to determine whether the dismissal of the two officers was fully legal and in accordance with all the statutes and regulations of the force. I received an opinion that the dismissals were legal, and I wrote to their attorneys to give them this information.
In the fall of 1974, Messrs. McCleery and Brunet brought their case before the Federal Court and I re-examined it
Adjournment Debate
completely once more. Later the members decided to withdraw their cases and no decision was made by the court.
I should point out that the RCMP have maintained time and again that Messrs. McCleery and Brunet were properly dismissed and that they were ready to go to court to defend their behaviour, that is, the behaviour of the administration.
During the last two weeks I was approached once more by one of the principals in Securex and his attorney, and asked to look into this case again. They alleged that they were losing certain contracts because of allegations made against them. I promised them that I would look into this case once more, and I am doing so at the present time.
I will also look into the point raised by the hon. member that the two members have not received their dismissal papers. The commissioner of the RCMP tells me furthermore that the RCMP has never made a recommendation against Securex.
The hon. member asked me if any other cases of this nature had ever come to my attention since I was appointed Solicitor General, and I must say yes, there have been cases of this nature, and it was for this reason that I established the Marin Commission to investigate the whole matter of discipline and related procedures within the RCMP. I must point out that the Marin Commission was not appointed to review individual cases but to review the entire disciplinary procedures, and we will expect a report in the fall.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Friday, July 18, 1975