1975-07-09

TRIBUTES TO NEW LEADER OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY, MR. EDWARD BROADBENT

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a special question of privilege today in order to congratulate the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) for having been chosen the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As he himself has noted, a number of very distinguished Canadians have preceded him in leading the New Democratic Party and its predecessor, the CCF. We on this side wish him well, but not too well, in his functions.

I would also like to extend my wishes to Mr. David Lewis, our former colleague, who during so many years worked for his party and Canada in the House of Commons.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: After what I said yesterday, perhaps I should make it very clear that I am not a leadership candidate. In associating myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister, I should like to offer a little reassurance to the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). I wish to congratulate him. I wish to suggest that he should not be too concerned about his family life. After the assurances he has received from his colleagues, I am sure he will be able to have a weekend at home at least, say, twice a year.
There was some question as to whether he was far enough left, and I would just like to suggest to him that he could put all those rumours to rest by arranging to have a few children born on May Day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like also to suggest to him that he not be too concerned about any criticism he may receive because leaders of the New Democratic Party come and go, but Stanley Knowles goes on forever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish the hon. member good health, and I hope he receives the same loyal support from his caucus and his party as I have always enjoyed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I join the other members of this House to congratulate heartily the new leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). When we are aware of the heavy responsibility entrusted with a leader, we can only wish him the best of luck within his party and his valuable contribution to the proceedings of this House will surely be rightly appreciated. However, in spite of all the qualities of the new leader and all our best wishes, will you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to make a slight reservation and not wish him too much success at the next election.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the spokesman for the Social Credit Party for their warm and generous comments.
I have some degree of qualified concern for the expressed concern coming from the Leader of the Opposition that I should enjoy the same fullhearted co-operation and support from my colleagues that he has received from his; I detected a slight note of ambiguity in this. I wish him well in turn in his future years. Before very long I am sure he will be spending somewhat more than two weekends a year with his family.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I should like also to thank the Prime Minister for his kind and deserved comments about the former leader of this party and former member of this House for York South, David Lewis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I should like it to be noted that my own spirit of beneficence and generosity toward my formal opponents this afternoon has now to come to a conclusion!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Oral Questions.

July 9, 1975
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. He gave an answer to my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre yesterday concerning the decision of the federal government to reduce substantially its cost contribution for medical and hospital services in Canada vis-a-vis the provinces. Has the Department of Finance done a study of the relative ability of the different provinces, particularly the poorer provinces, to pay for the approach he has announced, including the possibility of a transfer of tax points to the provinces?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we did not talk in terms of tax points. I recalled to the attention of the House yesterday the proposal of the federal government to the provinces during the tenure of my predecessor as minister of finance, the present House leader. We have no current proposal to that effect before the provinces.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to amend the wording in the preamble to the hon. gentleman's question. He put it in terms of cutting the cost and extent of hospitalization and medicare. What we have tried to achieve with the provinces over the last five years is some curtailment in the rate of escalation or increase in health costs in this country to more firmly adjust it to the growth of the country and its ability to sustain those costs.
I repeat what I said to the hon. gentleman's colleague who held the fort in his absence yesterday, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and myself have reaffirmed, and will undoubtedly do so again when the amendments are before the House, the commitment of the federal government to maintain its present high level standard and universality of health and medical care services in this country.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Without accepting the premise which the Minister of Finance implies, namely, that the federal government is more concerned about cutting hospital service costs than the provinces, and assuming, as the minister confirmed, that there is to be an across the board reduction of payments to provinces in the next few years for medical services, may I ask if the relative burden of paying for medical services will not be greater for the poorer provinces than for the richer provinces, because of the action the federal government has taken?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, according to the proposition that was entertained in the discussions which took place with the provinces during the last five years, adjustments were to be made, and the various respective abilities of provinces to pay, according to the tax base, and so on, were noted. Obviously, this is underlying the equalization payments which are given to sustain equality of ability to provide equivalent public services

across the country. Obviously, that must remain the relevant consideration.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may X ask a final supplementary question? Will the minister assure the House that he will not yield to the pressure of the province of Ontario, and of other rich provinces, to give tax points to the provinces in lieu of the government's reduced contributions to medical service payments in the years ahead, as such a move would be regressive?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can agree with the assumptions underlying the hon. gentleman's question. The transfer of tax points to compensate for taking over the administration and total funding of those programs would weigh unevenly across the country, as those tax points are worth more to some provinces than to others.


John Edward Broadbent: What is the answer, then?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the
answer is that I assume the thrust of the hon. gentleman's question is the same as my own.


POSSIBILITY OF LICENSING ITALIAN COMPANY TO MANUFACTURE CANDU REACTOR-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CONTROL OF SALE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, obviously, my caucus is out of control. May I ask the minister a question about the government's policy on CANDU reactors? Has the government given approval to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to negotiate an agreement with an Italian engineering company, with a view to allowing that company to be licensed in future to manufacture and market CANDU reactors elsewhere in the world?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I advised the House on December 20 that AECL had been authorized to enter into a licensing agreement with the Italian company. The terms of such agreement would have to be brought back to the government for final approval.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the government expect to keep control over the destination of the technology and equipment, or reactors, under such an arrangement and, if so, does the government contemplate retaining permanent veto powers over where our CANDU reactors can be sold under that licensing arrangement and over the terms and conditions under which such reactors can be sold by such licensee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir.
July 9, 1975

Oral Questions


SALE OF CANDU REACTORS-DIFFERENCE IN CONDITIONS OF AID-FINANCED SALES EXTERNAL AFFAIRS PROPOSED SALE BY FRANCE TO SOUTH KOREA OF PLUTONIUM SEPARATOR EQUIPMENT-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has received an answer from the Canadian ambassador to Seoul to the question of whether the government of that country is negotiating the acquisition of a reprocessing or separation plant which can be used to manufacture plutonium? I ask this question as the minister told us that asking that question never occurred to him while he was in South Korea, but that he would ask the ambassador to ask the question.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did receive a reply to the inquiry which was transmitted on my behalf to the Korean foreign minister. The Korean foreign minister has informed us that the proposed facility, which I understand is to be secured from France, will be on a research scale and designed to establish technical capability for the reprocessing of spent fuel. I think this is an important subject and I would like to give all the details. He has explained that Korea views recycling spent fuel as a necessary element in the production of fuel through reactors in the years ahead. He has also said that Korea does not plan to process spent fuel from the CANDU reactor in the proposed research scale reprocessing facility. At the present time, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, we are working on a proposed intergovernmental safeguards agreement between Canada and Korea which, in any event, would provide for prior approval of the reprocessing of spent fuel from any Canadian supplied reactor. We are still in the process of negotiating that intergovernmental agreement.


SALE OF CANDU REACTORS-GOVERNMENT POLICY WITH REGARD TO ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA DEALING WITH CUSTOMERS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it the policy of the government to require prior approval by the Department of External Affairs of those nations that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited intends to canvass for the sale of CANDU reactors or is it government policy to allow AECL to first come up with a customer and then worry about the political, military, diplomatic and safeguards implications once there is a real possibility of a CANDU sale?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The general situation is that there is close consultation between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and myself on all these matters at a very early stage. There is consultation at the beginning.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In the past few days the Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated that Canada has not laid down as a precondition to the sale of a CANDU reactor that the country has to be a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but that in the case of aid-financed reactors, the question of the NPT will be a precondition. Will the Prime Minister explain why we have a double standard, one rule for the rich countries and another for the poor?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker,. I think the intention of the government is clear in this rule, that is to get as many countries as possible to ratify the NPT treaty. When we can do that with persuasion, as I said I did in my European trip a couple of months ago, we do it by persuasion. When we do it by the way the hon. member indicated, by talking to proposed customers who want assistance with financing, we do it in that way.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General.
Faced with increasing pressure from the Canadian people, and in view of the statement the minister has just made that he would resign his position should the death penalty be reinstated, could he make our joy complete by announcing his immediate resignation? This would permit the Canadian people to expect the appointment of a new Solicitor General who would really assume his responsibilities, so that the death penalty legislation which was adopted in 1972 would really be enforced in Canada.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the change to the Criminal Code proposed by the minister in that acquittals by juries will no longer be able to be overturned by superior courts, in order to try to ensure conformity as between recent past and the proposed new future, will the minister order a new trial for Dr. Morgen-taler under Section 617(a) of the Criminal Code?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker. I answered that question before and I said that while I thought it best to put to rest the largely hysteric

July 9, 1975
Oral Questions
worry about the jury system which developed after the decision in the Morgentaler case-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -I had no doubt at all about the rightness of the Supreme Court decision.


Mr. Baldwin:: We shall all sleep better tonight after hearing that.


Paul Wyatt Dick: In view of the state having won its legal point that section 45 of the Criminal Code no longer is a defence in cases of abortion and as a result Dr. Morgentaler is serving time, has the Minister of Justice made a decision on whether or not he would invoke his authority under section 683(2) granting a pardon or section 617(a) ordering a new trial for any subsequent prosecutions or persecutions of this man?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that question is not only hypothetical but badly worded.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Ten o'clock.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fisheries. It follows a question I asked last Thursday arising from disastrous ice conditions in many parts of the Atlantic region and the difficulty experienced by fishermen in earning their livelihood. Has the minister consulted with his colleagues concerned, and has a decision been reached with regard to compensating those fishermen for the time lost?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted and I have received representations from both sides of the House on this issue as well as from provincial authorities. I hope to have a full report on this situation within a matter of 48 hours. Maybe I shall have some good news by early next week.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO PREVENT POACHING OF SALMON IN RIVERS
Jack Marshall: related question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister taken any further action with regard to the widespread poaching which is going on in many of the rivers in the Atlantic region in terms of stiffening the penalties which can be imposed by law?


Roméo LeBlanc: We have extended hours of work. Our people are working through the weekends and we are endeavouring to do what we can. I repeat, there will always be those who think of poaching as just another form of sport. For this reason, parliament will have to prescribe stiffer penalties
[Mr. Lang.)
for enforcement by the courts and give our peace officers more power to do their work.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: May I direct a question to the Solicitor General? Has the minister decided to take account of the objections of residents in the Saint John area to the construction of a penal institution there by seeking another location for the proposed new institution?


Hon. Warren Alimand (Solicitor General):: I have not yet received any objection to this institution except from one member of parliament. I wrote to the hon. member and I am still waiting for his reply.


Fred Alward McCain: A supplementary question. How many employment opportunities will be lost to the area of Dorchester, New Brunswick, by the change of status of the institution there when that change takes place?


William Warren Allmand: It is our plan to replace the present Dorchester institution with three smaller institutions as part of the new program of building smaller penal institutions designed to house 150 to 180 inmates instead of 400 to 500. I must say, with respect to the institution in the Saint John area, that we consulted with the provincial government and they agreed with us that such an institution could be built in that area.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very great success which the President of France has had recently in learning of the problems of families in all walks of life in his country by means of private dinners which he and his wife have had with French families in all parts of the country, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has considered a similar kind of program for himself so that he can become acquainted with the problems faced by Canadian families?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows I travel around the country a great deal-


Some hon. Members:: By helicopter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -it is substantially larger than the country which the President of France has to administer, and for that reason I am glad I have the support of the opposite side when I use every means of transportation.
July 9, 1975


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Bob Nixon's old time picnic is not the kind of dinner that I had in mind. Has the Prime Minister taken into consideration the fact that if he can improve his image with people in this way-and I assure him that the scope for improving his image with people is unlimited-he might find it unnecessary in the future to have his two limousines made bullet proof, as is the case today, and this would be a great saving to the people?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the subject of Canadian nuclear reactors and direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the secretary of state seen the letter to the Globe and Mail from General Burns, who is well known as the Canadian representative at numerous disarmament conferences and an expert in the field, to the effect that the sale of a nuclear reactor to South Korea might lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and eventual nuclear war; and in light of the announcement by the government of South Korea that a state of war emergency now exists in that country, will the government now agree that Korea is not an area where we should risk adding to the possibility of nuclear war by such a sale?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the letter to which the hon. gentleman refers; I will look it up. In the meantime, I want to assure my hon. friend that we have taken every conceivable step to ensure that any Canadian supply of nuclear equipment will not be used for explosive purposes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, The best step of all would be to make it clear that we are not negotiating for the sale of a nuclear reactor to that country. May I ask the minister whether he is aware of the statement in Newsweek of July 7 that South Korea is now on the threshold of joining the nuclear club, and is it not midsummer madness for Canada to supply material to South Korea that can be converted to this process?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. member's comments as a representation which we will consider as we develop our negotiations with South Korea for the bilateral agreement. We have taken the decision to provide a nuclear power reactor to South Korea because of the great demand by that country for electricity. It is heavily dependent at present upon imported oil and it must seek alternative sources of electricity. It is for that purpose that we are providing the nuclear reactor under the tightest possible safeguards.
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


POSSIBILITY OF TURNING OVER OPERATIONS TO CROWN CORPORATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that mail service in the borough of Scarborough continues to operate at a level well below standards acceptable to the 375,000 residents of the borough, will the minister indicate what progress may have been made toward a new study or an updating of earlier studies dealing with the probable advantages and disadvantages of transferring the operations of the Department of the Post Office to a Crown corporation?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. gentleman to one of Canada's impeccable sources of information, Time magazine of July 7, which might give the hon. member some indication of what happens when post offices become Crown corporations.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Would the Minister of Transport tell the House what stage the studies of the proposed new runway at the international airport in Vancouver have reached, especially in view of the fact that in early 1973 the then Minister of the Environment for the government said those studies would be completed within one year?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of the question he was going to put this afternoon. As he knows, there are a few reports-I do not know how many-dealing with different aspects of the new runway and I think all of the reports are now in. It will be a matter of weeks before we can put them all together and file them with the House.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I thank the minister for the information he has given us. Can he say whether among the various studies that have been done, some with respect to salmon propagation, others with respect to noise, etc., there is any single study that asks the question whether or not the new runway is necessary and in the interests of the citizens of the area?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I shall have to wait to see all of the reports that have been made on this question.


John Allen Fraser: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When these studies are brought together, as the minister has indicated will be the case within the next few weeks, can he give the House an assurance, and especially the citizen groups in the Vancouver area, that there will

July 9, 1975
Oral Questions
be full public discussion of these reports and an opportunity for appropriate input from the citizens groups that have worked with the government, as the minister knows, up until now, and that these reports will in fact get the public scrutiny that they deserve so that the people of the area will be satisfied that the final decision is based on proper facts?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to table all the reports and have them referred to the Standing Committee on Transportation of this House for full discussion.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of State for Fisheries. Due to ICNAF quotas, some trawlers operating out of east coast ports, in fact out of my home port of Lunenburg, are reportedly dumping up to 100,000 pounds of haddock per trip. Since these fish are dead when they are dumped back into the sea, is it the minister's intention to permit this flagrant waste of fresh fish through government regulation to continue, or will the government make representations to ICNAF for the revision of the haddock quotas in order to permit all fish once caught to be landed at Canadian ports, thereby cutting down on ocean dumping which causes pollution, as well as saving valuable food and increasing the fishermen's income?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, no one deplores waste of food more than I, as I think I have made clear since taking this seat in the House. Last year we did change the regulations, after consultations with the fishermen, allowing a larger amount of fish to be brought in. Most of this fish in many cases is incidental catch, rather than directly fishing for haddock. We allowed a larger amount to be landed in order to avoid wastage.
It is obvious that some of our efforts to restore haddock are successful, and we could hope for an increase in the quota and more flexible regulations. I should like to make one thing very clear, and that is that if I could change the regulations, as we can in the normal Canadian fishery, I would change them tomorrow morning. But in this case, if we abrogated the regulations, every other nation would have access to what we are trying to build up, that is, haddock stocks.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would point out that 100,000 pounds of any kind of fish is not an incidental catch. Under the ICNAF regulations in the United States, the United States fisherman is allowed to catch fish until the U.S. quota is reached. This seems to me to be the solution to the Canadian problem. Would the minister consider adopting the same practice as that adopted by the United States in order to conserve our vital fisheries resources which are literally being wasted under the present government's policies?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, first of all the 100,000-pound figure is an estimate, and is very much a figure picked out of the air. I do not think anybody has any firm facts on that. Even if it were 1,000 pounds I would deplore this. I would say to the hon. member that one of the real problems we have here is a conflict between small inshore fishermen, medium-size boats and very large trawlers. If we were to allow the keeping of all the catch, what would obviously happen is that large trawlers would very quickly serve themselves, the quota would be exhausted. Many small inshore fishermen would be left out.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the latest revelation as reported in today's Globe and Mail to the effect that Air Canada has engaged in some very questionable accounting methods in an attempt to cover up loses, and in an attempt to circumvent the work of the parliamentary committee, and in view of the position taken by Air Canada's lawyer, which appears on the surface at least to be a position somewhat less than open and frank, I would ask the Minister of Transport whether he can assure the House and the country that Mr. Justice Estey is receiving the fullest co-operation from Air Canada officials and Air Canada's lawyers? If he has any reason to believe otherwise, would the minister advise us what action he may be contemplating?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the last report I had about half an hour ago is to the effect that-


An hon. Member:: Half an hour?


Jean Marchand: Yes, and I do not like to comment on inquiries and I do not want to start doing so because there is no end to it. I would just refer to what Mr. Justice Estey said, that he thought the Globe and Mail should correct that story which is not true.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in light of this new development-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member. However, the matter is before a commission of inquiry and I think the hon. member should be guarded in respect of the type of question he is asking.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in view of this latest development, I wonder whether the minister would consider the possibility of broadening the terms of reference of the Estey commission so that all these new issues which are now surfacing can be thoroughly and properly aired I wonder, too, in light of this situation whether the minister would consider immediately undertaking an independent
July 9, 1975

audit of Air Canada, carried out preferably by the Auditor General of Canada?


Jean Marchand: According to an old saying, Mr. Speaker, one need not be more royalist than the Queen.

Mr. Justice Estey did not ask that his mandate be extended. He is satisfied with the mandate he has, and he is satisfied that the story which appeared in the Globe and Mail is not true, and that is all. From now on I will read the reports, and if the reports indicate there is any wrongdoing I think that will be the proper time to ask for a deeper inquiry.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would mind answering the second part of my question as to whether he would consider the possibility, in view of the latest allegations, of an immediate and independent audit, preferably carried out by the Auditor General of Canada?


Jean Marchand: Would you suggest that Mr. Justice Estey is not independent?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The accounts have never been audited properly.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON FAMILY PLANNING IN VIEW OF AMOUNT PAID FOR ABORTIONS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Do I have the Prime Minister's attention?


An hon. Member:: No.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the present estimate of the cost of abortions in Canada, now running at $12 million under our present medicare scheme, about $6 million of which is now paid through federal funding, would the Prime Minister advise the House whether it is government policy to favour abortion over family planning, particularly in view of the fact the Family Planning Association of Canada has received only $600,000 in funding, and the total amount of federal funding for family planning is only $1.75 million? In view of the amount now being paid in respect of abortions does this government favour abortion over family planning?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the question is somewhat argumentative. I just want to point out that the figures given by the hon. member convey the wrong impression because they do not, of course, include the moneys the federal government offers the provinces through costsharing programs and the Canada Assistance Plan for various forms of family planning. These substantial
Oral Questions
amounts should be added to the figures the hon. member quotes. It might be relevant to point out that not every province is acting in this area, and that they, too, have a very important responsibility. Perhaps the hon. member would consider addressing his question to some of the provincial premiers.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Art Lee (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and is addressed to the Solicitor General. In view of the announced cutbacks in the expenditures of the Solicitor General's department, can the minister assure the House that there has been no cutbacks in respect of the building of a new B.C. penitentiary which is sadly needed, as indicated by recent events?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there has been no cutback with regard to the maximum security penitentiary which would replace the B.C. penitentiary. The only holdup is in finding a suitable site. I might say that we are presently well advanced in respect of the penitentiary at Mission and we have also been given approval for the site at Kamloops. We are now looking for sites in the lower mainland area of British Columbia.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Is he aware of the massive imports of American broiler chickens which are threatening the survival of hundreds of poultry producers in Quebec, particularly of those of my area? Can the minister tell us whether his department intends to take steps to prevent those producers from being forced out of business?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any change in the conditions concerning the broiler industry. As the hon. member knows, there is no national plan and we have no control over that production and supply. Such programs come within provincial jurisdiction, so there is not very much we can do about conditions at the present time.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Does the minister mean that he is not aware of the dumping of American broiler chickens in the province of Quebec? Does his department not have daily or weekly figures or data on American exports?

July 9, 1975
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are aware that broilers are being shipped into Canada, not only to the province of Quebec but to other provinces as well. We are checking to find out if these latest shipments are below the cost of production, or if they are being dumped, but I do not have those facts at the present time.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there has been an unprecedented and record number of lost man-days in productivity in recent months due to strikes and walkouts, and all indications suggest a continuation of this unfortunate trend, 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, can the Minister of Labour advise this House whether the government intends to consider the possibility of having union groups in a single public service sector bargaining with the government simultaneously in order to avoid this existing fragmentation of union power and, if so, when can we expect an announcement on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest respect to the hon. member, this is precisely the question he asked in the House a few days ago.


An hon. Member:: And he didn't get an answer then.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of State for Urban Affairs advise the House whether he is aware that the National Capital Commission this year purchased 12 acres of undeveloped land in the LeBreton flats area for the highly inflated price of $6 million and, if not, why was he not advised of this purchase since the National Capital Commission reports to him?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the precise transaction but I will look into it and speak with the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and arises from an answer he gave to a question I raised on Friday about the effect of brucellosis on the herd of one of my constituents. I might point out that the infection was detected when the animals were brought in for sale at the Waterloo County stockyards. In view of the fact that Mr. Flinkert, whose herd it was, has expressed the suspicion that the infection first got to his herd from cattle at the stockyards which were not inspected because the veterinarians had already gone home, I wonder if the minister can give the House the assurance that all cattle purchased in stockyards in Canada, which should be inspected for brucellosis, are in fact inspected by federal veterinarians before being sold at these stockyards?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we would hope that that is so and we also hope that any good cattle breeder would make sure that any cattle he bought to increase his herd was inspected and he could prove that the inspection and the check did take place.


Mr. Horner:: Can you not do more than hope?


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON APPEARANCE OF EL PASO GAS BEFORE ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the government indicated or does it plan to indicate to the National Energy Board whether or not it approves of the application of El Paso Gas of Houston to appear before the board hearings this fall regarding the Mackenzie Valley pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, under the National Energy Board Act parliament has given to the board the sole responsibility for the conduct of its proceedings and, in particular, for determining what party or parties should appear before them. I have no intention as minister of interfering with the actions of the board against the dictates of that statute.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him if he would advise the House
July 9, 1975

of the results of the resumed search ordered by the minister for the missing helicopter carrying Mr. Young and Mr. Seaquist and whether or not the search is continuing?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we did continue the search to double check the area that had been looked at earlier. We have flown more than 120 hours in the renewed search, but unfortunately without result.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport of which he has had notice. With reference to the loss of the Trans West helicopter some five or six weeks ago and in view of the virtual lack of communication between the Department of National Defence, the Department of Transport and the families concerned, can the minister inform the House whether his department has initiated any investigation into this accident, and, if so, when it began and approximately when we might expect to have a report on it?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the co-operation with the Department of National Defence is perfect. We are trying to find the helicopter and if we have any sign that we can find it, we will resume the search, but up to now there is no indication as to where this helicopter is.


BROADCASTING
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. With regard to the recently announced regulations of the CRTC making 30 per cent community content on FM programs mandatory by January 1, 1976, can the minister tell the House why the CRTC felt they had to interfere? Is this not a form of censorship, and should the listening public not be the judge of what the radio station should produce?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be making too much of this to see in it a form of censorship. As to the particulars of the order rendered by the CRTC, I should like to have time to get more detailed information to be able to advise the hon. member.
Oral Questions


URANIUM-SUGGESTED CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON SUPPLY SITUATION
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to go back to the subject of nuclear power for a moment and direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that not only countries of the world but also provinces of Canada are becoming aware that our supply of uranium reserves are getting pretty tight, and in view of the fact that we have had confrontations with the provinces on oil and gas over the last two years, would the Prime Minister consider during the recess recalling the old Canadian Council of Resource Ministers so that the input of the provinces as well as of four or five federal agencies could be brought to bear on this vital energy and mineral resource, namely, uranium?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the subject is vital, as the hon. member puts it, and the federal government of course is interested in sharing with the provinces its knowledge in this field and getting the co-operation of the provinces. I hesitate to agree that the remedy proposed by the hon. gentleman would be a satisfactory one. The Council of Resource Ministers came into disuse, I think, because it was not proving to be a very useful forum for the task at hand. But consultations between our Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and provincial ministers of resources are something to which they are very much committed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the failure of the existing structure, and in view of the dissatisfaction of the provinces because they are not being allowed to make any input into these narrow separate structures with which they have to deal at the federal government level, has the Prime Minister heard any rumours or words of dissatisfaction from any provinces which own this resource?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can respond to that. I should point out to the hon. gentleman that before the reserve requirements which were announced to the House were put into effect they were discussed both with the producing provinces and the provinces which consume uranium. It is true that the government of Ontario in particular, after approving some of the export contracts, has opposed others. The view we take is that the reserves, as established by our resource appraisal, are adequate both to meet the needs of Canadian plants now under operation, under construction or contemplated, or to meet our export commitments. As the export commitments of our Canadian industry are expanded and as supply expands, these requirements will change. But, as I said, the reserve requirements were fully discussed with the provinces before they were put into effect.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a friendly question. Would he consult with the head of the Atomic Energy Control Board and ask him to take the lead to bring the various federal agencies

July 9, 1975
Oral Questions
together and to check with the provinces about the concern they expressed to me?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There has been close coordination between the various federal agencies and provincial governments, and I have to dissent from the viewpoint expressed by the hon. gentleman.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour, without, I hope, causing the President of the Treasury Board any misgivings since it arises from the current negotiations between the government and the dockyard employees at Halifax and Esquimalt. Because dockyard employees, and a few weeks ago, federal nurses, have wage parity on mind-and so did the Atlantic candidates for the Liberal party, for that matter-would his department commission solutions on this topic with a view to bringing the Treasury Board into this part of the twentieth century?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. At a time when the need for law enforcement is on the minds of everyone and when local police detachments are making requests for reinforcements, how does the minister justify supporting the cabinet guidelines to hold expenditures for law enforcement establisments at 6 per cent?


William Warren Allmand: I am not
sure that there is such a guideline with respect to my department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: There were some cuts with respect to the RCMP. They reduced the VIP squads to protect special persons in the capital region, but did not refer to provincial policing.


Benno Friesen: The Solicitor General has been assuring this House that there have been no cut-backs. As a matter of fact he just finished assuring the hon. member for Vancouver East that there had been no cut-backs.


William Warren Allmand: I said there were cut-backs but not with respect to prisons in the B.C. area. There had been cutbacks in the penitentiary service. Those cut-backs I referred to were with regard to the regionalization of administration and not penitentiary construction.


Benno Friesen: Would the Solicitor General assure the House that in areas where there is a high crime incident he would respect the request of RCMP detachments for reinforcements?


William Warren Allmand: We will do our very best to do that.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to the Chair, my point of order deals with the question I asked earlier in the question period today when the Chair ruled it out of order on the basis that I had asked a similar question a few days ago. The misunderstanding arises from the fact that last Friday I introduced a private member's bill, Bill 399, dealing with precisely the same subject. Some of the wording in my question was in my explanation at the introduction of the bill, and therefore I hope the Chair will allow the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to answer the question I posed in question period.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has a well taken point of order, and if in fact upon examination it turns out that a question has not been asked, either by the hon. member or another hon. member, about sector bargaining in the public service-although I have the impression it has-and if that question has not been answered, I will certainly see the hon. member tomorrow so that he can ask the same question.


Mr. Reynolds:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the question put by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). I see that the minister is leaving, but I hope he will sit down. The minister stated yesterday in answering me that the cutback in his budget was for regional administration, but the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) stated in this House last week that $8 million for the construction of penal institutions would be taken out of the Solicitor General's budget. Either the Solicitor General has misled this House or he has not read what the President of the Treasury Board stated. I wish he could clear this matter up because one of the ministers is wrong.


William Warren Allmand: There have been cuts in the capital construction program but not with respect to the B.C. institutions. The cuts which have been made in the capital construction program are not to eliminate the institutions but to delay by a year or two in certain parts of the country where the need is not as great as in B.C.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, a question before the House for some time has been with regard to the admission of the PLO to the UN conference to be held later this year in Toronto, and I wonder if the government House leader or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could indicate to us whether a statement respecting the admission of the PLO to this conference in Canada will be made in the House rather than outside the House.
July 9, 1975


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a valid point of order. When the government is ready to make a statement, it will make it.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and to give notice respecting two questions I have asked of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), during question periods in the past month to which I had expected to receive answers. One was with respect to the assistance to Mozambique enforcing sanctions against Rhodesia, and subsequent questions with respect to amendment of our constitution. In each case the President of the Privy Council undertook to make inquiries and to have an answer brought forward. I raise this point of order because I think it verges on a point of privilege. If the minister gives that kind of undertaking to a questioner, I think it is incumbent upon him to bring forward those answers in a reasonable period of time. I raise this point of order on the basis that if I do not receive an answer as promised by the minister, I shall raise a point of privilege with respect to the rights of individual members.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I raised earlier, I understand that the Minister of Labour will not be in the House for the rest of this week. I also understand that he is prepared to answer this question, which deals with a very important matter, and I hope the Chair will-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have made the ruling that the question may have been previously answered. If upon review it is found that it has not, I will change my ruling, but I cannot control the attendance of the minister.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I have been promised and this House has been promised a report from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), dating back to March and April, on loss of life in the Pacific. Every time I rise in this House to ask for the report I am told that the minister will be having lunch tomorrow with someone, that he will go over the report and that I will receive it tomorrow. Today is yesterday's tomorrow. We do not have the report today, and I was given that promise yesterday.


Gerald William Baldwin: With this government there is no tomorrow.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
1973 INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE-TABLING OF DOCUMENT ON CANADIAN POSITION
['I am\ninformed by the Public Service Commission as follows: (a) There were 14 positions vacant when the competition was announced on March 26, 1975. As of June 23, there are 40 additional vacancies, (b) 800 applications have been received, (c) To date, of the total 54 vacancies, 24 have been filled, (d) This competition is open until December 31, 1975.']
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table a document in English and in French outlining the Canadian position with respect to conventions and recommenda-
Order Paper Questions
tions adopted at the fifty-eighth session of the International Labour Conference in June of 1973.


An hon. Member:: Of 1973?



Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Saint-Henri) moved: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, presented to the House on Tuesday, July 8, 1975, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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: 2,228, 2,243, 2,265, 2,557, 2,638, 2,647, 2,649, 2,801 and 2,807. i Mr. Speaker, if starred questions No. 1,738, 1,739 and 1,808 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,684?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: Of the total television viewing time of all persons in Canada, what percentage is estimated as watching (a) CBC television outlets or programmes originating with CBC (b) independent television outlets or programmes originating with these stations (c) foreign television transmissions?


Gérard Pelletier: The Canadian Radio-Television Commission submits the following information: In an average week, viewing of television by Canadians can be broken down as follows:
English	French	Totalper cent	per cent	per centCBC owned and operated stations Private stations affiliated	12.3	7.4	19.7with CBC	12.5	6.2	18.7 38.4CTV stations	24.0	-	24.0Independent stations	5.5	11.1	16.6 40.6
July 9, 1975
Order Paper Questions
English	French	Totalper cent	per cent	per centPercent of Total Hours Tuned in Average Week to United-States Television Stations	21.0Total	100.0


Mr. Herbert: Of the $644 million estimates for the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year 1975-76, how much can be allocated to each department as being an expense related to that department?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: The
budgetary systems currently in use by the Government of Canada do not permit an objective identification of the portions of the Department of Public Works appropriations attributable to other departments and agencies on a department by department basis. The Department of Public Works does have available, from their computerized Realty Management System, quarterly reports which list all of the buildings currently under their management, together with a rental rate for each building. These status reports in respect of the accommodation inventory are at given points in time and do not relate to the provision in the estimates for the accommodation (operating) programme; the departmental estimates are based on projected requirements, rather than on the current space inventory at the time of Estimates preparation. The 1975-76 provision of $306 million for the accommodation (capital) programme relates to the construction or acquisition of both general purpose and single purpose facilities, the respective amounts being $123 million and $183 million. The general purpose buildings are built to accommodate growth in the government service, to replace buildings which have become obsolete, or to house operations presently accommodated in leased premises. Many of the general purpose projects are large in scope, with construction extending over several years. The new space is not allocated to departments until the buildings near completion. The single purpose buildings differ in that they usually are constructed for the exclusive use of one client. The provision for the administration and the professional and technical services programme is in direct support of all the department's programs. In the case of the other programs, the listed provision is for the Department of Public Works facet of national objectives in which other departments and agencies also have major involvement, examples being the Department of Environment and the Department of Transport.


Mr. Stevens: Has the government any immediate plans to build or rent a new post office in Queensville, Ontario and, if so (a) on what date will tenders be called for the construction of the new building or for rental proposals (b) where will it be located?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes. Present plans call for the construction of a new Post

Office in Queensville, Ontario, (a) Tenders are tentatively scheduled for September, 1975. (b) It is proposed to locate this building on the north side of the Queensville Road approximately 800 feet east of the main road (Concession 2 and 3).


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of Agriculture 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?


Eugene Whelan: 1. $436,000.
2. (a) Nil. (b) $22,000. (c) Nil. (d) $414,000.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Has a butter producer the right to add a butter flavour product in order to standardize his production and, if so, which department supervises the use of such a product?
2.	What is the name of the product and who produces it?


Eugene Whelan: 1. No. The
interpretation section of the Canada Dairy Products Regulations administered by Agriculture Canada defines creamery butter as meaning butter manufactured in a creamery from pasteurized milk fat and containing no substance other than water, milk solids, bacterial culture, common salt and colouring matter.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Will the study project, which is to be completed by February 1976, into the problems of Great Lakes water levels, include examination of the dredging of a carrying channel in the Montreal area?
2.	Will such an examination extend to the channel at Ste. Anne de Bellevue through which the waters of the Ottawa River join the St. Lawrence?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes.
2. Yes.


Mr. Reid: 1.	Is it government policy that the award of a licence for scheduled passenger airline service, if sponsored by a provincial government, shall be automatic?
2.	How are the rights of existing carriers who may hold licences in the area to be served, protected under this policy?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. No.
July 9, 1975

2.	Applications are made by the applicant air carrier and are processed in accordance with the general rules of the Canadian Transport Commission, including public notice and an opportunity for air carriers or other interested parties to intervene in support or in opposition and for the applicant to reply to such interventions. The Commission may, at its option, hold a hearing in the light of the application and materials before it. The granting of a licence is governed by subsection 16(3) of the Aeronautics Act: The Commission shall not issue any such licence unless it is satisfied that the proposed commercial air service is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	How long has the agreement on compensation to owners of animals that have died as a result of rabies existed between the government and that of the (a) Province of Quebec (b) Province of Ontario?
2.	How much has the government paid annually to each province for each category of animals included under the programme?
3.	In what manner are carcasses of animals disposed of which have been ordered slaughtered with compensation to be made on direction of government inspectors or veterinarians?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the Part One of the question is (a) January 31, 1963; (b) July 1, 1960. Mr. Speaker, with the approval of the House and Your Honour I would ask that, because of the number of payments involved, the answer to Part Two of the question be taken as read and inserted in the answer at this stage.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer to Part 2 follows]


John Mercer Reid: 2. Records of payments are not maintained by category of animals, however, the annual expenditure by province is as follows.
	Ontario	Quebec
1960-01	$ 7,788	
1961-62	12,814	
1962-63	20,447	
1963-64	19,657	*13,4681964-65	12,956	6,0331965-66	37,805	9,3271966-67	28,797	4,3071967-68	17,197	5,2301968-69	49,991	4,9441969-70	41,505	7,9001970-71	39,339	3,7531971-72	35,563	4,4651972-73	47,406	9,2811973-74	44,015	10,8911974-75	63,644	14,771
The answer to Part 3 of the question is that instructions are issued to dispose of the carcass by burial.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: Is the government considering the employment of military engineers in the study and control of flooding in areas that frequently suffer flood damage?


Len Marchand: No.


Mr. Herbert: With reference to competition 75-4400-1(18) of the Public Service Commission (a) how many positions were vacant when the competition was announced (b) how many applications were received (c) have all positions been filled (d) is the competition still open?


Hon. Hugh James Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: (a) There were 14 positions vacant when the competition was announced on March 26, 1975. As of June 23, there are 40 additional vacancies, (b) 800 applications have been received, (c) To date, of the total 54 vacancies, 24 have been filled, (d) This competition is open until December 31, 1975.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	In each of the past five years, how many public tender calls were made for dredging in Canada?
2.	In each such case (a) who was the successful tenderer and for what amount (b) what other tender bids were received (i) from whom (ii) for what amount?
3.	In each of the past five years, how many contracts were awarded without tender call for dredging contracts in Canada?
4.	In each such case (a) for what amount (b) for what reasons were tenders not called?
5.	What are the names and addresses of companies in Canada listed with the Department of Supply and Services or any other department who have expressed their desire to tender for dredging and/or related maritime work for the government?
6.	In each such case, is the government satisfied that there is not corporate relationship between the competing tenderers?
Return tabled.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, with regard to starred questions Nos. 1738 and 1739 I should like to thank the government House leader, after four and a half months of waiting and after a representation having been made to him last week, for making sure I received a reply. I also note that these questions are starred questions, and we have to settle for a tabled return when, as a matter of courtesy and because of their importance, they should at least have been appended to Hansard. However, I can understand the government wanting to continue the cover up in this matter.

July 9, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: It has been suggested that the reply in respect to the two questions be appended to Hansard as if it had been read. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Notes: The answers referred to above are as follows]



MR. RICHARD DICERNI

Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	Is Mr. Richard Dicerni employed by any department or agency of the government and, if so, what is his position and annual salary?
2.	What other positions, if any, has Mr. Dicerni held with the government?
3.	For each year 1968 to 1974 (a) how many times was Mr. Dicerni reimbursed for travel expenses by (i) the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (ii) the Privy Council Office (iii) the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (iv) the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (v) the Department of Manpower and Immigration (vi) the Unemployment Insurance Commission (vii) the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (b) what was the amount of each such reimbursement (c) the destination and purpose of each related trip?
4.	For each of the same years (a) what amount was paid by (i) the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (ii) the Privy Council Office (iii) the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (iv) the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (v) the Department of Manpower and Immigration (vi) the Unemployment Insurance Commission (vii) the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for charges on credit cards taken out by these agencies and departments in Mr. Dicerni's name (b) for what purposes were these charges made?


John Mercer Reid: In so far as the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices are concerned: 1. Not applicable.
2. To be answered elsewhere.
3. (ii)
occasions for a total dollar value of $805.41. (b) and (c) Travel expenses; Mr. Dicerni.
nt (b)	Destination (c)	Purpose$25.50	Toronto	Accompany Minister78.80	Montreal	Meetings in Montreal46.75	Thunder Bay	Accompany Minister15.00	Montreal	Accompany Minister23.00	St. John, N.B.	Meetings in St. John21.50	Thunder Bay	On behalf of Minister19.25	Toronto	On behalf of Minister20.00	Montreal	On behalf of Minister32.25	Toronto	Accompany Minister131.25	Toronto	On behalf of Minister174.56	Toronto	On behalf of Minister65.40	Toronto	On behalf of Minister16.70	Not available	On behalf of Minister55.00	Toronto Thunder Bay	On behalf of Minister25.75	Toronto Thunder Bay	On behalf of Minister19.95	Toronto Thunder Bay	On behalf of Minister16.25	Toronto	On behalf of Minister18.50	Not available	On behalf of Minister4.	(iv) Credit charges: Mr. Dicerni.
1968-71, 1973-74 Not applicable. 1972 as follows:
Amount
(b) Purpose

Travel-T ravel -Travel -
Air Canada -Air Canada Air Canada
4.	(ii)
				14.00	Travel -Air Canada
	(a)	(b)	(c)	34.00	Travel-Air Canada
				25.00	Travel -Air Canada
1968/69	-	-	-	78.00	Travel -Air Canada1969/70	-	-	-	116.00	Travel -Air Canada1970/71	1	$20.00	Montreal, to accompany	63.00	Travel -Air Canadathe Hon. R. Andras	Travel -Air Canada1971/72	-	-	-	11.00	Travel-Air Canada1972/73	-	-	-	28.00	Travel-Air Canada1973/74	-	-	-	139.00	Travel -Air Canada1974/75	-	-	-	116.00	Travel -Air Canada14.00	Travel -Air Canada(a)	(b)	14.00	Travel-Air Canada164.00	Travel -Air Canada1968/69	-	-	116.00	Travel-Air Canada1969/70	-	-	78.00 CR	Travel-Air Canada1970/71	$762.00	18 Air fares	58.00	Travel -Air Canada1971/72	-	-	136.00	Travel-Air Canada1972/73	-	-	58.00	Travel-Air Canada1973/74	-	-	116.00	Travel-Air Canada1974/75	-	-	67.00	Travel -Air Canada10.00	Travel-Air Canada
In so far as the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is concerned: 1. to be answered elsewhere.
2.	Special Assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Hon. Robert Andras. 28-1-72 to 27-11-72.
3.	(iv) 1968-71, 1973-74 Not applicable. 1972 as follows: (a) Mr. Dicerni was reimbursed a total of 18 different

12.00	CR
78.00
74.00
Total 1,528.00
Travel -T ravel -Travel -
Air Canada Air Canada Air Canada
In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned the reply is as follows: 1. No.
July 9, 1975

2.	Richard Dicerni was employed from November 27, 1972 to September 1, 1973 as Special Assistant to the Minister.
3.	(A,v) Number of times reimbursed by Manpower and Immigration in 1972-73 is 3. Number of times reimbursed by Manpower and Immigration for travel in 1973-74 is 12.
Date	Amount	Destination	PurposeDec.	12/72-	35.10	Thunder Bay	To accompany the MinisterJan 2/73	Dec.	15-16/72	48.82	Thunder Bay	To accompany the MinisterDec.	15-17/72	37.60	Thunder Bay	To accompany the MinisterJan.	20/73	25.75	Thunder Bay	To accompany the MinisterJan.	20-21/73	38.12	Thunder Bay	To accompany the MinisterFeb.	16-18/73	117.00	Sudbury	To accompany the MinisterFeb.	17/73	43.68	Sudbury	To accompany the MinisterMar.	8-12/73	97.00	Thunder Bay	To accompany the Minister1973-74	Date	Amount	Destination	PurposeApr.	10-11/73	84.92	Montreal	Representing the MinisterApr.	10-11/73	45.17	Montreal	Representing the MinisterApr.	27/73	4.45	Ottawa	Taxi charges on Minister'sbehalfMay	1-3/73	160.66	New York-	Representing the MinisterQuebec	May	3-4/73	49.77	Quebec	Representing the MinisterMay	31-	27.50	Thunder Bay	To accompany the MinisterJune 1/73	July	3-4/73	99.82	Thunder Bay	To accompany the MinisterJuly	26-27/73	37.50	Montreal	Representing the MinisterAug.	4-7/73	315.56	Vancouver-	Representing the MinisterWinnipeg	Aug.	7-8/73	145.60	Toronto	Representing the MinisterAug.	9/73	86.73	Montreal	Representing the MinisterAug.	15-16/73	165.58	Thunder Bay	To accompany the Minister
Part 4. (A,v;B) The amount paid by the Department of Manpower and Immigration for charges on credit cards in Mr. Dicerni's name: 1972-73: Air Fare, $208.50; Auto Rental, $66,53; Total, $275.03. 1973-74: Air Fare, $442.00; Auto Rental, $72.25; Total, $514.25.
In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Mr. Richard Dicerni is employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission as the Secretary to the Commission: Salary Range $22,465-$28,065.
2.	Research Assistant to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Special Assistant to the Minister Without Portfolio, Minister responsible for Housing. Special Assistant to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Special Assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Special Assistant to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Project Manager, Information Services, Unemployment Insurance Commission.
3.	(a) (i) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (ii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iv) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (v) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (vi) 1968 through 1972, not applicable; 1973, once; 1974, seven times; (vii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (b) (i) 1968 through 1974, not appli-
Order Paper Questions
cable; (ii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iv) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (v) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (vi) 1968 through 1972, not applicable; 1973, $437.12; 1974, 1. $201.90, 2. $27.80, 3. $49.30, 4. $228.98, 5. $17.00, 6. $425.79; 7. $139.53; (vii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (c) (i) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (ii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iv) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (v) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (vi) 1968 through 1972, not applicable.
	Destination	Purpose
i.	Montreal	Meeting with the Chairman of the UIC Advisory Committee
	Montreal	Meetings with UIC Officials
	Winnipeg	Meetings with UIC Officials
	Thunder Bay	Meetings with UIC Officials
	Toronto	Meetings with UIC Officials
	Vancouver	Meetings with UIC Officials
	Edmonton	Meetings with UIC Officials
	Charlottetown	Meetings with UIC and Provincial Officials
	Gander	Meetings with UIC and Provincial Officials
	Quebec City	Meetings with UIC and Provincial Officials
	Montreal	Meeting with the Chairman of the UIC Advisory Committee
	Toronto	Meetings with UIC Officials
	Montreal	Meetings with UIC Officials
i.	Montreal (By Air)	Meetings with UIC Officials
	Charlottetown	Meetings with UIC and Provincial
	(By Air)	Officials
	Quebec City	To attend Canadian Construction Association Convention
	Vancouver	To attend meeting of the Advisory Committee
2.	Montreal	To meet with the Chairman of the UIC Advisory Committee3.	Montreal	To attend a Management Conference4.	Thunder Bay	Meetings with UIC Officials5.	Moncton	Meetings with UIC Officials6.	London-Paris	To attend, with Minister and SeniorNuremberg	Officials, Meetings with British, French and German Officials7.	Montreal	To attend a Management ConferenceQuebec City	To attend UIC District Managers Conference4.	(a) (i) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (ii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iv) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (v) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (vi) 1968 through 1972, not applicable; 1973, Nil; 1974, $18.00; (vii) 1968, through 1974, not applicable; (b) This charge was incurred for air transportation costs on official travel.
I am advised that the following applies with respect to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: 1. 2. To be answered elsewhere.
3.	(a)(b)(vii) In each of the years 1968 to 1974, CMHC reimbursed Mr. Dicerni for travel expenses as follows:

July 9, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Year	No. of Trips	Amount $
1968				
1969	-	-1970	33	922.701971	29	1,896.861972	4	610.271973	-	-1974	-	-
(c) Information on the purpose and destination of each of these trips is not now available.
4.	Nil.



MR. DANIEL COATES

Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	Is Mr. Daniel Coates employed by any department or agency of the government and, if so, what is his position and annual salary?
2.	What other positions, if any, has Mr. Coates held with the government?
3.	For each year 1968 to 1974 (a) how many times was Mr. Coates reimbursed for travel expenses by (i) the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (ii) the Privy Council Office (iii) the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (iv) the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (v) the Department of Manpower and Immigration (vi) the Unemployment Insurance Commission (vii) the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (b) what was the amount of each such reimbursement (c) the destination and purpose of each related trip?
4.	For each of the same years (a) what amount was paid by (i) the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (ii) the Privy Council Office (iii) the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (iv) the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (v) the Department of Manpower and Immigration (vi) the Unemployment Insurance Commission (vii) the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for charges on credit cards taken out by these agencies and departments in Mr. Coates' name (b) for what purposes were these charges made?


John Mercer Reid: In so far as the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices are concerned: 1. Not applicable.
2. To be answered elsewhere.
3. (ii)	(a)	(b) (c)1968/69	-	- -1969/70	1	$24.00 Toronto, to accompany the Hon. R. Andras1970/71	-	_ -1971/72	-	- -1972/73	-	- -1973/74	-	- -1974/75	-	- -4. (ii)	(a)	(b)1968/69	$ 911.54	19 Air fares1969/70	$3,784.56	10 Air fares1970/71	$2,747.80	13 Air fares 1 Car rental1971/72	-	-1972/73	-	-1973/74	-	-1974/75	-	-

In so far as the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is concerned: 1. To be answered elsewhere.
2.	Executive Assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Hon. Robert Andras, 28-1-72 to 27-11-72.
3.	(a) Mr. Coates was reimbursed at total of 17 different occasions for a total dollar value of $1,122.05. (iv) 1968-71, 1973-74 Not Applicable. 1972 as follows: (b) & (c) Travel expenses: Mr. Coates.
Total
Amount (b)	Destination (c)
$ 76.60	Winnipeg
33.00	Montreal
60.60	Thunder Bay
87.35	Sault Ste. Marie Thunder Bay North Bay
22.00	Thunder Bay
90.00	Vancouver Calgary
29.00	Montreal
22.00	Toronto
137.50	Vancouver Toronto
54.00	Thunder Bay Toronto
164.00	Montreal Toronto Thunder Bay
40.00	Thunder Bay
32.00	Toronto
73.00	Toronto
37.00	Not available
89.00	Boston
75.00 *1,122.05	Thunder Bay
Purpose
Accompany Minister Official Business at Minister's request. Accompany Minister Accompany Prime Minister and Minister.
Accompany Minister Accompany Minister
Official Business at Minister's request. Accompany Minister Representing the Minister.
Accompany Minister
Accompany Prime Minister and Minister.
Accompany Minister Accompany Minister Accompany Minister Accompany Minister Official Business Accompany Minister
4.	(iv) Credit charges: Mr. Coates. 1968-71, 1973-74 not applicable. 1972 as follows:
Amount (b) $626.28
136.00
378.00 68.00
189.00 68.00
140.00
199.00 60.00
140.00
99.00
198.00
14.00
19.00
387.00
136.00	CR
34.00
34.00
33.00
78.00
129.00
156.00
25.00
102.00
Purpose
Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel-Air Canada Travel-Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel-Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel-Air Canada Travel-Air Canada Travel -Air Canada Travel-Air Canada
July 9, 1975

Total
Amount (b)	Purpose
68.00	Travel-Air Canada
38.00	Travel-Air Canada
121.00	Travel -Air Canada
26.31	Travel -Hertz Canada
101.12	Travel -Hertz Canada
52.62	Travel - Hertz Canada
125.48	Travel -Hertz Canada
17.82	Travel -Hertz Canada
$3,862.63	
In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned the answer is as follows: 1. No.
2.	Executive Assistant to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration Nov. 27/72-Sept. 22/73
3.	(A,v) Total number of reimbursements made by Manpower & Immigration for 1972-73 is 4. Total number of reimbursements made by Manpower & Immigration for 1973-74 is 13.
Date	Amount	Destination	PurposeFeb.	2/73	17.00	Montreal	Representing MinisterMar.	1-17/73	538.37	Boston, Providence, Ithaca	Travelling on Minister's requestMar.	30/73	59.21	Toronto	Accompanying MinisterMar.	31/73	46.68	Toronto	Accompanying MinisterDate	Amount	Destination	PurposeApr. 6-7/73	339.83	Ithaca	Travelling on Minister's requestApr. 8/73	9.50	Toronto	Travelling on Minister's requestMay 2/73	4.50	Ottawa	Taxi ChargesMay 16-19/73	387.81	Vancouver Montreal	Representing MinisterJun. 8-10/73	554.11	Boston	Travelling on Minister's behalfJun. 21-Jul. 3/73	1,477.42	Toronto, Vancouver (Edmonton, Vancouver)	Representing MinisterJul. 9-10/73	237.59	Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury	Travelling on Minister's requestJul. 18-21/73	437.77	Boston (Ithaca-New York)	Travelling on Minister's requestAug, 2-9/73	1,145.95	London, England	Accompanying MinisterAug. 16/17-73	317.11	Boston, Montreal	Travelling on Minister's requestAug. 29-31/73	214.12	Toronto	Travelling on Minister's requestSep. 4-6/73	165.00	Maritimes	Attending conference on Minister's behalfSept. 14-18/73	342.64	Boston	Travelling on Minister's request
Part No. 4 (A,v;B) The amount paid by the Department of Manpower and Immigration for charges on credit cards
Order Paper Questions
in Mr. Coates' name. 1972-73: Air Fare, $722.00; Car Rental, $252.78; Total, $974.78. 1973-74: Air Fare, $1,752.22; Car Rental, $1,221.88; Total, $2,974.10.
In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. Mr. Daniel Coates is employed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission as Executive Director, Administration: Salary Range: $29,000-$37,000. 2. Route Aide, Canadian National Telegraphs; Clerk, Canadian National Telegraphs; Research Assistant, Department of Citizenship and Immigration; Senior Research Assistant, Canada Department of Labour; Research Economist, Task Force on Labour Relations, Privy Council Office; Executive Assistant and Special Advisor (Policy) to the Minister Without Portfolio, Minister responsible for Housing, Minister of State for Urban Affairs, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Minister of Manpower and Immigration; Director of Organizational Development, Unemployment Insurance Commission; Acting Comptroller, Unemployment Insurance Commission.
3. (a) (i) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (ii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iv) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (v) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (vi) 1968 through 1972, not applicable; 1973, Once; 1974, Nine times; (vii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (b) (i) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (ii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iv) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (v) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (vi) 1968 through 1972, not applicable; 1973, $590.55; 1974, 1. $19.75, 2. $22.00, 3. $79.15, 4. $44.50, 5. $5.95, 6. $16.38, 7. $8.25, 8. $93,25,
9.	$59.00. (vii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (c) (i) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (ii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iv) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (v) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (vi) 1968 through 1972, not applicable; 1973, Destination; Cambridge, Mass.
Purpose: Attendance as Research Fellow at John F. Kennedy School of Government, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University.
1974-Destination
Purpose
1.	Toronto
2.	Vancouver
3.	Montreal
4.	Cambridge, Mass.
5.	Vancouver
6.	Montreal
7.	Belleville
8.	Vancouver
9.	Montreal
Meetings with UIC Officials Meetings with UIC Officials Management Conference Attendance as Research Fellow at John F. Kennedy School of Government, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University.
Taxi charge omitted for earlier claim. Meetings with UIC Officials.
Meetings with UIC Officials.
Meetings with UIC Officials.
Meetings with UIC Officials.
(vii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable.
4.	(a) (i) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (ii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iv) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (v) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (vi) 1968 through 1973, not applicable; 1974, $945.00; (vii) 1968 through 1974, not appli-

July 9, 1975
Order Paper Questions
cable; (b) (i) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (ii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (iv) 1968 through 1974, not applicable; (v) 1968 through 1974, not applicable (vi) 1968 through 1973, not applicable; 1974, These charges were incurred for air transportation costs of travel as in 3(b) and 3(c) above; (vii) 1968 through 1974, not applicable.
I am advised that the following applies with respect to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation; 1 and 2. To be answered elsewhere.
3. (a)(b)(vii) In each of the years 1968 to 1974, CMHC reimbursed Mr. Coates for travel expenses as follows:
Year	No. of Trips	Amount S1968	-	-1969	4	420.951970	29	2,029.031971	24	3,296.881972	4	007.841973	-	-1974	-	-
(c) Information on the purpose and destination of each of these trips is not now available.
4.	Nil.
Nil replies have been submitted by other departments.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it has happened before that starred questions have been answered in this way, tabled as orders for return. Starred questions are deliberately starred so that they shall be answered in the House, and I think it should be a matter of regular procedure if they are not answered in the House that they be appended to Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think most hon. members who receive answers which are tabled in the House understand full well why they are tabled. They are fairly bulky documents, and if the answers to the questions which the hon. gentleman put down as starred questions were reasonably short and easily replied to, there would be no question about reading them. I continually have the problem of having to make decisions about this.
The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) raised the point that the last sequence of questions standing in his name ought to have been read in the House. I think when the hon. member sees the answers, and when hon. members read Hansard tomorrow, they will agree with me that there really is no alternative but to make them orders for return. I think hon. members must realize that we do operate within certain limitations. Our desire is to get the information out. Our desire is to put as much as we possibly can into Hansard, but it is the nature of the questions hon. members ask which causes bulky replies, so the only alternative we have is to make them orders for return.
Since we have gone to this system of answering questions every day we have increased the number of questions which have been put into Hansard, and we are reducing the number outstanding, but there are certain physical limitations to what can print in Hansard, and there are limitations as to what is desirable to print in Hansard.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I will be very brief. I can understand some of the problems of the parliamentary secretary, but most of what he has said is straight garbage. I asked some questions that were very very short but very embarrassing, and they have been made orders for return. That had nothing whatsoever to do with the length.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: This is an old difficulty, Mr. Speaker. The general requirement is that the questions shall be answered in the appropriate form. There is an exception, however, if the reason is stated. We should insist that the parliamentary secretary give a brief reason why he is asking for an exception or an exemption from the regular order so that the documents might be tabled. This should be construed narrowly as being an exception. I can assure you that the House would be far less fractious about that if somehow or other it were conveyed to the parliamentary secretary that on applying to Your Honour for this procedure he should state his request briefly on every occasion. We would have far less trouble. We would like to see the Chair help us get that across to the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones).


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to your attention and the attention of the parliamentary secretary question No. 1455 which was asked on February 3, of this year. I am anxious to get an answer and cannot see why there would be a delay. It is a simple question and there should be a simple answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In respect to the point of order raised about the tabling of returns I would call the attention of hon. members to the provisions of Standing Order 39(4) which sets out the procedure. There is a difficulty about lengthy replies and the decision on whether they should be read in the ordinary way or tabled. The control that exists on that is the fact that on each occasion upon which the parliamentary secretary proposes on behalf of a minister that a return be tabled as opposed to being read, or that it be made a return so that the reply could be tabled instead of read, the House of course must give its decision. There is a requirement to ask: "Is it the pleasure of the House that the reply or the question be deemed to have been an order for return in order that the return could be tabled forthwith?" When that question is put it is within the power of any member to dispute or disagree, and say, "There seems to be no reason why that should be done. Can the parliamentary secretary give us some reason?"
The fact of the matter is that the Chair can always impose further restrictions on that practice, but that is


only going to make it more cumbersome. In the long run, the way it operates now works out reasonably well. If it is felt that on a continuing basis the government is abusing that privilege, however, surely hon. members can raise that objection and ask what the reason is for the tabling. If it is not the length of it, then on individual occasions that objection can be raised.
In any case if that procedure is to be changed greatly from the way the Standing Order is now written and the way hon. members on both sides of the House have accepted it for quite some time, surely that ought to be a question for consideration by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization as opposed to a rather ad hoc change made by the Chair. The procedure is well established, it is well written in the rules, and if it is to be changed then hon. members ought to agree on the changes to be made.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I make a comment that might be of some value? It would seem to me that the great problem for members who have put down starred questions is that they do not know, until the parliamentary secretary suddenly makes a statement proposing that the answer be made an order for return rather than answered orally, whether the answer will be of such length as to lend itself to being made an order for return. I would like to suggest that perhaps the parliamentary secretary could give a signal in advance to members whose questions are going to be answered but whose questions or starred questions are going to be the subject of an application for an order for return, and then it could be considered whether their objections were in order. Too often we do not get that opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: The point made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is well taken and in one or another form it has been suggested previously. It would, of course, require no amendments or changes to the practices and procedures of the House nor to Standing Orders. It is evident, of course, that when the parliamentary secretary comes into the House with the answers ready for each day, he knows at least an hour in advance what procedure he will follow, so that it might be a simple matter to notify the House leaders. In turn they could notify the members involved with the particular questions, and so they would be prepared in advance in that way. I think that suggestion would be well worth consideration by both sides.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions stand?
Some hon Members: Agreed.


Mr. Forrestall:: I rise on a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, that follows those already raised. I wonder if I could bring it to the attention of the parliamentary secre-
Excise Tax Act
tary in light of the attitude and declared position of the Chairman of the National Harbours Board, who has indicated that the document being sought could very well be made public. Indeed he undertook to send it to me three months ago. My notices have been on the order paper since April 9, three months ago today. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could have someone on his staff look at that and determine whether this document cannot be made available to us so that I will not have to get up in a week or ten days' time on a question of privilege or a point of order and tear hell out of the government for trying to hide, and using evasive tactics with respect to the document that may or may not be embarrassing to it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-66, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is almost standing practice on the presentation of budget bills since 1971 when the matter first arose. There is lengthy debate reported in Hansard for September of that year in connection with Bill C-259. I indicated at that time that the bill violated Standing Order 60(11), and I indicate now in regard to Bill C-66 that it flagrantly violates Standing Order 60(11) and is therefore an imperfect bill, and it is not possible to introduce it under Standing Order 69.
I do not want to go into the details of Bill C-259 in 1971. Your Honour was parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council at that time and is well aware of what transpired, and of the tacit ruling the Chair made, because an order of the House was made to correct all of the difficulties that had arisen. I want to point out to the minister and the House that we now have a similar occasion.
I say that Bill C-66 transgresses on three points the ways and means resolution introduced at the time of the budget. Standing Order 60(11) provides:
The adoption of any Ways and Means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
In other words, the motion on this occasion is not expressed in a general way; it is expressed in draft bill form. Paragraph 3 of the ways and means motion, as it appears in Votes and Proceedings of June 23, 1975, is a draft amendment to Part VI of the Excise Tax Act. Specifically that part proposes to introduce to the act new section 47. That deals with the rebate of the new tax of 10 cents on gasoline.
7406

July 9, 1975
Excise Tax Act
I note that paragraph 47(1)(b) of the ways and means motion states that there shall be a rebate paid where gasoline has been purchased by a municipality. But in the bill that paragraph affecting a municipality is eliminated. The House passed a budget proposal based upon that exemption. This bill, by excluding it, proposes to reimpose a tax on a municipality, without authority.
The second defect lies in this: paragraph 47(1) (g) of the ways and means resolution, which is now paragraph 47(1)(f) of the bill, by reason of the deletion of subparagraph (b) relating to municipalities is changed in language.
What do we see, Mr. Speaker? In the ways and means motion the, shall we say, catch-all clause, paragraph 47(1) (g) reads:
by a person of such other class of persons as the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe,
In other words, authority is being asked by the governor in council to determine from time to time the categories of persons to whom rebates will be paid. But, lo and behold, proposed section 47(1) (f) of the bill reads:
a person within a class of persons exempt from tax under Part I of the Income Tax Act,
Those who possibly might be exempt under regulation by the governor in council turn out to be a definitive group of people named in Part I of the Income Tax Act. That is an entirely different group of people.
The third violation involves the residual paragraph of proposed section 47(1), which reads in the ways and means motion as follows:
for the sole use of the purchaser and not for resale, and the tax imposed by Part III has been paid in respect of such gasoline, the minister may, upon application by the purchaser, in such form and in such manner as the minister prescribes, pay to the purchaser an amount equal to that tax.
But the bill imposes a two-year time limit. The residual paragraph of proposed section 47(1) reads in part:
... the minister may, upon application in writing by the purchaser to the minister made within two years from the time the gasoline was purchased...
That is also a change, not merely a little change of language, or a small consequential change. One cannot say that language is generally based on the motion.
I remember, when I last raised this particular objection, or a similar point of order, the minister said there was little change in language. Well, municipalities will not now be able to claim the rebate. Is that not a substantial change? Further, the minister in this bill has denied himself the opportunity of further defining persons entitled to rebates-for example, the handicapped who must use their cars to get to work. We are told that this group of exemptions is now to come from Part I of the Income Tax Act.
What is the result of these changes? A tax has been placed on municipalities from which this House exempted them when it adopted the ways and means resolution to amend the Excise Tax Act. This is taxation without consent of parliament. We do not know how much extra tax this provision will levy on the municipalities, but I suggest that the amount could be substantial.
On the second change, Your Honour may find it difficult to determine if there is an important effect on the balance

of ways and means because the matter involves the legal interpretation as to what is provided under that section of the bill and what is provided for in the ways and means motion for that group of persons who might have been given an exemption by order in council.
The third change obviously places a burden on taxpayers by restricting their right to claim within two years. There is that limitation. In the ways and means motion this provision was left open-ended.
In the explanatory note to the bill there is not one title of explanation as to these changes. Therefore I submit that as this bill, as provided in Standing Order 60(11), does not conform to the ways and means motions adopted by this House last week and as it is fundamentally imperfect, it has to be rejected. A proper bill then must be brought in based upon the ways and means motions. The proper bill must be brought in before the House can even consider the matter. I am not bringing forward this point merely as an idle gesture, Mr. Speaker. This point has been raised time and again under our amended procedures, particularly with regard to Standing Order 60(11). The government has not introduced merely some general changes to the Excise Tax Act. The motion spells those changes out and the government, having adopted the practice of following them, must follow through in the present instance.
The House cannot accept, indeed will not accept, some sort of hit or miss bill brought in just because somebody in the treasury has been careless in preparing the bill or because the minister has changed his mind since preparing the ways and means motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), I want to make certain I understand the three points the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised. The first two are clear. The first has to do with removal of the intended exemption for municipalities; the second with the imposition of a two-year limit, if there is application. But the third point, to do with the possibility of actions by the governor in council creating a class of persons which will be either subject to or exempt from tax is not clear. I wonder if the hon. member would explain that point again.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sorry I was not clear enough, Mr. Speaker. Proposed section 47(1) denotes those who will be entitled to the rebate. This comes under part 3 of the ways and means motion. In the ways and means motion section 47(1) reads in part:
Where gasoline has been purchased .. .
(f)	by a person under conditions for which relief from the consumption or sales tax is provided by virtue of any provision of this act other than subsection 27(2), or
(g)	by a person of such other class of persons as the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe,
The pertinent wording of course is, "by a person of such other class of persons as the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe." However, the bill reads as follows:
Where gasoline has been purchased by ...
(f) a person within a class of persons exempt from tax under Part I of the Income Tax Act,
July 9, 1975

That is an entirely different group of people. They are certainly not the people the minister could prescribe for by regulation because he has now limited himself to a particular group of people under the Income Tax Act. Those are the three points.


John Napier Turner: 
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. It is all very well for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to dismiss so cavalierly the cogent argument of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). This is one of those cases that can be compared with the situation where one is appearing for a person charged with a criminal offence. The Crown has a very strong onus upon it to prove the charges to the hilt. Only the Crown can bring in legislation of this kind. It can only be brought in on recommendation by the Governor General. It is forbidden to ordinary members.
I submit that when Your Honour considers the jurisprudence and precedents you must take upon yourself the necessity of judging the government. It must prove conclusively that there is that necessary identity between the bill and the order in council. For the minister to dismiss so simply the differences he has pointed out is quite improper. If that were the case it might not have been necessary for the ways and means motion to include the items that are in there.
The minister is saying the law existed before the ways and means motions were brought in, and consequently it is not necessary for the bill to correspond to the ways and
Excise Tax Act
means motion. He says that the existing law covers it. Under those circumstances, why did he have this in the ways and means motion to start with? It was put in there to provide a basis for a legislative proposal, as followed by this bill.
The minister has failed to sustain the onus which is upon him and the government to see that the bill for all intents and purposes corresponds to what is proposed in the ways and means motion. Certainly if there were nothing else, as the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- I may be anticipating him-he looks as though he will support us-


An hon. Member:: He looks as though he is pregnant.


John Edward Broadbent: Stanley has never looked as though he were pregnant.


Gerald William Baldwin: I anticipate that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will support us in this argument. I see the new Leader of the New Democratic Party is nodding his head.
The fact is the ways and means motion includes these items and they do not appear as they should in the bill. The minister casually dismisses this and says he will find some other statute as a basic. If that is the case, why did he bother to put this in the ways and means motion? The minister shakes his head. In his time he was a very good Minister of Justice. He must have learned the difference between right and wrong at that time, and he knows he is wrong now.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there have been times when I have had to disappoint the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). However, he is quite right today in assuming that I will support the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Indeed, I want to commend the hon. member for Edmonton West on his study of this matter and on pursuing this point which, for him, is not a new one at all. There have been times when I thought the hon. member for Edmonton West was getting concerned about some obscure point. In this case I think he is not only dead right but his position represents the outcome of earlier discussions on this point.
There have been occasions when the ways and means resolution respecting a measure such as the Excise Tax Act was couched in general terms. In that circumstance it was possible for there to be an argument between the hon. member for Edmonton West and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) as to whether the bill based on that resolution really carried out the terms of the resolution. My recollection is that the government decided to get around that kind of difficulty or ambiguity by following the practice of putting down a ways and means resolution that states precisely what is supposed to be in the bill.
That was what was done in the notice of ways and means motion that was filed on June 23, namely:
That it is expedient to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide among other things:
Then we have nine different paragraphs. Most, indeed all of them, spell out in precise language what was to be
29S76-S5>/2

July 9, 1975
Excise Tax Act
put in the bill. I do not see how the government can now come along and use high sounding phrases about mature thinking. That does not impress us when it comes from the government side.


John Napier Turner: That is a term foreign to your vocabulary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is certainly foreign to the practice on the government side. I do not think that excuses the fact that the bill has been introduced in language that is different from the language in the ways and means motion, and different in substance in two or three places. There may be some argument as to how much difference there is in the substance, but it seems that the rulings we have had from the Chair when we have had this kind of issue on recent occasions have been completely in support of the position taken by the hon. member for Edmonton West.
I want to say again, even-at the risk of repetition, and there is no effective rule against that in this place, that the ways and means motion was not in general terms that there be an amendment to the act increasing the tax on gasoline and providing for some sort of refund. No. The ways and means motion was precise in every detail, even to the sections of the Excise Tax Act to be amended, right down to the subsections and the subparagraphs. Any attempt on the part of the government to come along now and say it has done some mature thinking and wants to change things a bit or rearrange them, makes this, as the hon. member for Edmonton West said, an imperfect bill.
I should like to find some way in which we could say the bill is so imperfect that for all time it should be thrown away. There is a story in the books on procedure about an occasion in the British House some years ago when a bill was found to be imperfect and the members generally agreed that it should not be considered at all. In fact there was such complete agreement that the bill was wrong that the Speaker said he himself would join with pleasure in kicking the bill right down the gangway, out of the House altogether. That is what I would like to see done to this bill, and there is no better person to do the kicking than Your Honour. I suppose that in these modern and sophisticated times it cannot be done that way, but it does seem to me that if the bill does not conform with the ways and means resolution which was passed, the Minister of Finance, if he wants this bill, Bill C-66, which is now presented, to be a legal and proper bill, has to undergird it by a new ways and means resolution.
This bill does not conform to the ways and means resolution which was passed; it is not based on the ways and means motion as it was passed in the House last Friday, and the hon. member for Edmonton West is perfectly correct in saying it is an imperfect bill and that steps to correct this improper procedure have to be taken.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there have been three points raised about this bill and I want to deal with them briefly. The first is surely that the notice of the ways and means motion is an explanatory motion to indicate the things the government wishes to do. Within that, it should

be understood that the language of legislation is often different from the language of explanatory motions.
The example raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was that in the notice of ways and means motion under 47(l)(b) it says "by a municipality . But when, of course, one is amending the act, and if the word "municipality" is a class or character contained in an explanatory section of the act in another place, then the normal practice of an amending act is to refer back to that place. That is precisely what is done in the bill in clause 5, amending clause 47(l)(f). Municipalities are indeed contained, but the form is different because one is going from an explanatory resolution to the definitive legislative form. I do not think it was ever intended in the rules that the two must necessarily be the same. Obviously that would not be a proper thing to say.
The other point which has been raised is that 47(l)(g) as outlined in the notice of ways and means motion has been changed. That reads: "-by a person or other such class of persons as the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe." The government felt in this case that the House of Commons would be allowing far too wide a regulatory net and instead is recommending a tightening up, in other words, a restoration of power to the House of Commons. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the government is not in this case asking the House of Commons to delegate powers to it but instead is saying we will come back to the House for a resolution if we want to extend regulations. And that is a diminution of the powers of government.
Surely one of the cardinal rules is that the notice of ways and means motion or recommendation for an expenditure may do no less than originally requested by His Excellency, and I suggest the same principle applies to the ways and means motion here. The government is asking for less authority in the bill than it did in the ways and means motion, and I suggest this is proper and right. Indeed I would have expected the hon. member for Edmonton West to have congratulated the government on not taking this extra regulatory power but turning it back to the House of Commons. That is the attitude which I would have expected from a man who is concerned with protecting the privileges of the House of Commons.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It means less authority to grant exemptions. In other words, they want to impose the tax more widely.


John Mercer Reid: The third item which has been raised concerns the limitation. The limitation is one which falls upon those who have the power to apply for a refund of the gasoline tax. They must make application within two years. This is normal, because when a refund of this nature is given there is usually a time limit. In this case the time limit is two years. Surely this is not contrary to the general principle that a refund be given. What the bill does is set out precisely in law-not by way of regulation-how long a period a person or corporation able to obtain a tax refund can count on, and Mr. Speaker, on the facts of the matter I believe you will have no difficulty in allowing us to proceed forthwith to consider the bill which is before us this afternoon.
July 9, 1975


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This interesting point somehow manages to surface almost every time we are involved in consideration of one of the budget bills. After the last budget this matter came up concerning tax exemption, as I recall, for vessels of a certain type-boats-and the language used in the ways and means motion and in the legislation, and the intent of the two. There is a great similarity between that situation and the situation here.
I do not propose to rule on the point at this time and perhaps, since there seems to be ample evidence that the time available this afternoon will be less than enough to accommodate the comments hon. members will wish to make on the bill, another occasion will present itself on which a ruling can be made.
As I understand one point, that dealing with the two-year limitation, I must say it seems to me to be covered by the language of the recommendation, that is to say, "an application for rebate shall be in such form and in such manner as the minister may prescribe". That, of course, is the recommendation, which is an empowering document to bring in legislation based upon it. Some prescription has to be made. The ways and means motion at least calls upon the minister to prescribe the manner in which a rebate is paid, so a prescription ought to be allowed in the bill. But how far that should go and how detailed it should be, is a question to which I shall have to address myself.
The question about the arbitrary elimination of municipalities from the exemption seems to me to be answered by the inclusion of another phrase, it being one relating to section 1 of the Income Tax Act. However, there is a specific objection to the use of that language, so that if the objection to the use of that language is accepted there would be difficulty about the municipality exemption disappearing. However, it is clear that it is not the intention of the statute to eliminate the exemption for municipalities, which was the basis of that objection.
What it boils down to, really, is once again the language of the Standing Order which says that the introduction of adoption of a ways and means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill based upon that ways and means motion. The question again is for the Chair to interpret whether it means identical to or whether it means something different to. If it means different to, then how different? To that point I propose to address myself as diligently as possible, and when the bill is next called I will endeavour to deliver a ruling. In the meantime I wonder if the House might be disposed to consider the merits of the matter.


Some hon. Members:: What merits?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest, as has been the case on other occasions, that if the House feels it can occupy the next two hours in debating the bill it might do so. However, that is the decision of the Chair. I shall be guided by hon. members as to whether or not there is a disposition to proceed with the debate on the bill pending a ruling.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think so far your judgment has been excellent. We might well go on with the bill since the minister has so much to explain about it. It is such a bad bill that we will give him as much time as he can possibly take to deal with the bill.
Excise Tax Act


Mr. Speaker:: Then the bill having been called, the Minister of Finance has the floor.
Mb'. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): Mr. Speaker, that last remark of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) reminds me of the first speech I made in this House when the then Speaker, the present member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), was in the chair.


Gerald William Baldwin: Was it on debt-free money?


John Napier Turner: It was on the way the
Conservative government of that day had kept knowledge of the movement of the exchange rate from the Canadian people during the 1962 election. In any event, the hon. member reminded me of a remark made by the then Speaker, the present hon. member for Edmonton West, when he cautioned me about moving on the line of being out of order. Mr. Pickersgill, who was then the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, replied: "Surely, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not yet out of order and you will have to wait until he goes out of order". In any event, I walked that narrow line until the conclusion of my speech.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That was his opinion.


John Napier Turner: The legislation before the House today, Bill C-66, is intended to give effect to one of the proposals that forms an integral part of the budget of June 23, namely, the establishment of a 10 cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline used for personal consumption only. The bill also provides for a number of other budget changes involving excise tax which I shall touch on later.
This proposed levy on gasoline for personal consumption-and I repeat, for personal consumption only-has become a matter of pressing financial necessity if we are to preserve the national policy, approved by all provincial governments and all parties in this House, of maintaining one single, basic oil price across the length and breadth of Canada. It will also contribute significantly to energy conservation, an objective that I believe all Canadians support.
As the House knows, for the fiscal year 1974-75 our oil export revenues were sufficient to cover the heavy subsidies required to make high cost imported oil available to eastern Canada at the agreed national base price of $6.50 a barrel. The reason is mathematically easy to determine. At that time we were exporting roughly one million barrels of oil to the United States and importing roughly the same amount of one million barrels of oil daily for consumption in the four Atlantic provinces and in Quebec and eastern Ontario. The export tax, representing the difference between the $6.50 a barrel national price and the international price at that time, equalled of course the amount of subsidy paid against the same international price in eastern Canada, to lower it down by subsidy to $6.50 a barrel and thereby preserve one single price.
It is no longer true that the amounts balance. In recent months the gap between the cost of the subsidy and the revenues from the charge on petroleum sales to the United States has grown rapidly as a result of two factors. The first is that the volume of our exports has fallen from over 300 million barrels in fiscal year 1974-75 to an estimated

July 9, 1975
Excise Tax Act
240 million barrels for this year. The second reason is that, for a variety of competitive reasons, the average subsidy paid on each barrel of imported oil remains higher than the charge on each barrel of exported oil, despite the changes in the compensation program announced by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr . Macdonald), on June 26.
While the increase in the national oil price from $6.50 a barrel to $8 a barrel and recent changes in the import compensation program will help, the net cost of maintaining the subsidy on oil imported into eastern Canada will still remain substantial. Although it is always difficult to be precise about numbers, and about the movement of oil in and out of the country, particularly in the energy field, our best estimate is that the deficit will amount to between $400 million and $600 million this year.
It would, of course, be very much higher if world oil prices were increased significantly by the major petroleum exporting countries. Whatever the future developments may be, it is clear that as our exports continue to fall, and as they are deliberately phased out by government policy in order to protect our dwindling reserves, and as imports continue to rise, the federal treasury will be faced with a very heavy burden in maintaining the national policy of a single Canadian base price for petroleum.
In addition to the very substantial net cost of the import compensation program, it should be noted that the federal government is also faced with appreciably higher equalization payments to the provinces. For example, as a consequence of higher prices for oil and natural gas and of the changes in provincial resource taxes, and notwithstanding the changes to the Fiscal Arrangements Act proposed in Bill C-57, to which this House gave third reading yesterday, equalization payments to the provinces in this fiscal year will be some $200 million higher than they would otherwise be as a result of additional oil and gas revenues attributed to the equalization account.
One of the major questions the government had to consider, a question that understandably is very much an issue for debate in this House and in the country, is how this heavy financial burden should be met. The House will recall that the basic position of the budget was that we should maintain the stimulus injected by the budget measures of last November and the additional stimulus provided by what economists call the operation of the automatic stabilizers in our economy, which by reason of the continued thrust of that expansion, but adjusted by reason of lower tax revenues, higher unemployment insurance payments, and higher cost factors resulting from inflation itself, lead to a record cash deficit this year of $5.3 billion.
It is our judgment-I set this out fully on budget night-that it would be extremely unwise to add further to this cash requirement because of the pervasive impact that could have on inflationary forces, and because of the excessive strain that it could impose on Canadian capital markets by reason of the Minister of Finance haying to go to the market for those amounts. It was because of this crucial constraint that the government decided to undertake a major re-ordering of its priorities.
As I indicated to the House on budget night, it is our intention to cut planned government expenditures in 1975-

76 by some $1 billion, and these cuts were fully outlined and tabled in the House at that time. We are doing this so that we can redeploy our resources over the next two years into special measures to bolster housing construction, expand direct job-creation and job-training programs, and sustain the momentum of capital investment by Canadian industry.
Given our strong conviction that the rapidly growing cost of maintaining a single national oil price across Canada should not result in a further substantial increase in the already large cash deficit in prospect for this year, the government decided there was no other practical and realistic alternative but to seek additional offsetting revenues.
We decided as a matter of principle that it was just and reasonable that the users of petroleum for their own personal use across Canada should be called on to bear the financial burden of implementing the national policy of a single Canadian oil price that remains well below international levels. But we concluded that it was not in the national interest that this additional cost should be imposed on petroleum products used directly to fuel our farms, factories, and other enterprises at a time when our economy is already under pressure and its competitive position threatened by erosion because of escalating costs and prices. Nor was it in the national interest that the excise tax on gasoline be paid by hospitals, or by educational, welfare, and charitable organizations. We also considered that fuel oil for home heating should be exempted because of its essential nature.
The government decided, therefore, to confine the effective application of the excise tax to gasoline for personal consumption, which generally speaking is one of the less essential requirements for this scarce resource and is an area in which there is the greatest immediate scope for discretion in conserving its use. To effect this objective, the special excise tax on gasoline-which is imposed at the manufacturer or importer level-will be refunded to all exempt users. My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford), will shortly be making a statement concerning the actual refund mechanisms which will be used for this purpose.
As I indicated in my budget speech, the special excise tax on gasoline will add $350 million to our revenues in the current fiscal year, and some $525 million on a 12-month basis. It has been suggested in some quarters that this amount, coupled with the additional federal revenues resulting from higher oil and natural gas prices, will constitute an increase in revenues some two or three times greater than that necessary to finance the deficit arising from the import compensation program. This conclusion is absolutely incorrect.
As I have just indicated, the special excise tax on gasoline will yield some $525 million on a full year basis. In addition, the price increases for oil and natural gas will add some $250 million to federal corporate tax revenues. Together these factors will thus add some $775 million to federal revenues.
Against these resources must be set the $400 million to $600 million deficit of the oil subsidy program and the
July 9, 1975

increased equalization payments of approximately $200 million. There is thus a rough balance between the yield of the special excise tax and the higher corporate tax revenues on the one hand and the oil subsidy deficit and higher equalization payments on the other. In other words, the total oil account rests roughly in balance.
I have cited these numbers in order to refute the suggestion that the special excise tax on gasoline is unnecessary to finance the deficit on the oil subsidy program. I would caution members of the House, however, that in the present context a simple balance sheet approach is not appropriate. For example, the $250 million of additional federal corporate tax revenues resulting from the higher prices is not in any way dedicated to energy uses or purposes. It remains in the consolidated revenue fund and is reflected in the general balance of the ways and means budget.
Furthermore, this balance sheet approach would have to be comprehensive and include such federal energy related commitments as Syncrude, Panarctic, New Brunswick Nuclear, Petro-Can and other federally supported enterprises. In the absence of such comprehensiveness I would suggest that naive balance sheet arithmetic does not shed much light on the complex issues of energy finance.
It has also been contended that the modifications to the federal taxation of resource companies will largely cancel any benefits to the industry of the higher prices for oil and natural gas. As I indicated in my November 18, 1974 budget, the respective shares of profits from the production of oil and gas were approximately: the provinces, 46 per cent; the industry, 36 per cent; and the federal government, 18 per cent.
I believe the House should note that the federal percentage share will vary very little as a result of the higher prices or as a result of the federal changes in the taxation of resource companies, assuming the forecasted levels of exploration and development continue. To be precise, the changes in the federal taxation rules will actually cost the federal treasury approximately $25 million per year in respect of oil and natural gas as compared with what the federal government would have received in tax revenues under the old system.
If the petroleum and mineral industries exceed the forecasted levels of exploration, the cost to, the federal treasury will be significantly higher. Also, the impact of the new federal tax rules on any individual company will depend largely on its level of exploration activity in Canada. In other words, the amount of tax revenue lost to the federal government and the amount of tax flow available to any individual petroleum company depend directly on how that extra price increase is dedicated to the exploration and development of oil and gas in Canada.
For example, a company with Alberta production, and which is prepared to invest as much of the $1.50 price increase as it can to increase its exploration activities in Canada, will find that almost one half of that amount is available to it for that purpose after payment of federal and provincial taxes and royalties. If there are any further provincial responses to that already announced by the province of Alberta, either by that province, the province of Saskatchewan, or the province of British .Columbia,
Excise Tax Act
then the cash flow available to the oil companies for exploration and development would be further increased.
On the other hand, by freezing the price of oil within Ontario the government of Ontario is in effect doing what it charges the federal government with doing, that is to say, denying the oil companies sufficient revenue flow to finance exploration. 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 appears to be opposing the single price system for petroleum across Canada, and this will likely have repercussions in other provinces.
To the extent that additional costs imposed by any province bear unequally across the country on a national industry which has to price its product nationally, the actions of particular provinces can be prejudicial to the residents of other provinces.
We believe it is in the national security interest for companies to hold larger rather than smaller stocks, particularly in import-dependent areas such as Atlantic Canada. Last year Ontario was about 15 per cent import dependent. Rising oil prices and high interest rates have already greatly increased the cost of stockholding. Additional measures which in effect penalize the industry for holding large inventories would be contrary to this aspect of the national interest.

Mr. Speaker, I admit that the increase in the retail price as a result of the levy of that excise tax combined with a higher basic price for oil will create adjustment problems for the average Canadian.
However, as I said in the budget, the price of gas will still be lower than the market price in most other industrial countries overseas and almost comparable to the market price in the United States under the proposals put forward by the American government.
Allow me now to refer to some criticisms made about the policy we have chosen.
During the budget debate, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said that, as a resident of the Maritime provinces, it displeased him to know that every time people buy gas in Ontario or the western provinces, they harbour resentment against the people of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. He claimed that the funds required to maintain a single price system should come from the country's general receipts.
Through his remarks, the Progressive Conservative leader seems to recognize that, in some way or other, Canadians must assume the cost of subsidizing, in the national interest, a single price system for gas. He tries to hide the costs, hoping, it seems, that what Canadians do not know does not harm them. Personally, I think Canadians deserve better than that.
May I be allowed to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that outside of all other considerations, and there are other important considerations, charging the cost of oil subsidies to general receipts will not help to encourage greater conservation of our dwindling oil reserves.

July 9, 1975
Excise Tax Act
While Progressive Conservative members in this House and those of the Ontario legislative assembly pay lip service to the need for conservation, they do the same when speaking of the need to face the considerable expenditures required to find and develop new sources of oil. They would have us believe that, regardless of circumstances, we can face those needs without increasing the price of the oil we burn, without altering our consumer habits.

The hard realities are very different. They were well expressed in a recent speech by the energy minister for Ontario, Dennis Timbrell, before the Toronto Building Superintendents' Association on June 17, 1975, even though they stand in sharp contradiction to the position of the Ontario government. These are his words:
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.
Mr. Timbrell underlined the urgent need for Canada to develop new coal and petroleum reserves to replace depleting existing supplies. He pointed out that the first and most obvious consideration "is that the cost of producing energy from these sources may be very much higher than the costs we tolerate today. In other words, wasting energy may become a much greater relative cost to society."
I said a moment ago that the contention of the Leader of the Opposition that the oil subsidy be covered by general revenues also raised other important considerations. Since he referred to the already tremendous deficit, and the word "tremendous" is his, faced by the treasury in the current fiscal year, I can only conclude that he was not suggesting we should add further to that deficit to cover the oil subsidy by adding still further to our cash requirements. Was he proposing that we should cover the deficit through an increase in personal income or other taxes? Presumably not, since his party has contended that personal income taxes should be cut even more than I proposed in the budget of last November. Where would he get the money?
By the way, on the matter of using the personal income tax to finance a national oil price, instead of a personal user tax, surely there would be inherent inequities in imposing a personal income tax increase against millions of Canadians who do not drive a car, a tax which would have no effect on conservation. Surely a tax on personal consumption only is a fairer method, particularly when reinforced by a progressive tax increase imposed against higher income groups in the same budget. Taking the two taxes together-the increase in the tax at the $25,000 level and over, and a general excise tax on gasoline-you have a strongly progressive current.

This seems to be summed up by the repeated statement of Progressive Conservative spokesmen that we could still reduce income taxes by millions of dollars and, moreover,

considerably trim down our cash requirements by simply cutting the ruinous and wasteful expenses of the government.
As a matter of fact, these are the very words used during this debate by hon. members of the Progressive Conservative Party. Nothing could be more sarcastic or hypocritical than that futile attitude.
The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that despite their repeated criticism against the level of government expenses, they have not yet indicated one area in which, according to them, substantial cutbacks in public outlays should be affected. On the contrary, no day goes by in the House, as can be witnessed in Hansard, without a Progressive Conservative or other member rising to urge the government to spend more in one area or another. Even though the Progressive Conservative leader and his colleague the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) emphasize everywhere the need for cutbacks, they are the ones who complained most when I announced in the budget the government expense cutbacks. They are all in favour of cutbacks as long as they do not deprive or disturb anyone.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative leader insisted that oil subsidies should not be funded through an excise tax on gasoline because it would be a source of grudges between eastern and western provinces. Other groups oppose the implementation of the excise tax because of its regressive nature. The same argument could of course be used against any increase in oil prices at any time and in any circumstances, which is a good indication of the fallaciousness of that argument. One has to be totally unrealistic to imagine that we can forever maintain fuel prices at levels very much lower than in other countries of the world, foster fuel use through a low price policy or even gather the vast resources we need to make up for our dwindling energy supplies.
I nevertheless acknowledged in the budget that the more privileged taxpayers would have to shoulder an even greater share in the funding of national programs than they do now, because of the incidence of our progressive income tax system. This has been achieved by lowering from $750 to $500 the maximum deduction under the federal 8 per cent abatement.

I fully realize, as some have pointed out, that the establishment of the excise tax on gasoline for personal consumption and the increase in the base price of petroleum can have adverse effects on inflation and growth. As I emphasized in the budget, we had to seek to strike the best possible balance of policies to deal with related but conflicting problems of inflation, slow growth, and prospective energy shortages. In our judgment the levying of a gasoline excise tax to meet the cost of the oil subsidy and encourage increased conservation will better serve the longer term interest of Canadians than any alternative course open to us to follow.
The bill also proposes increases in the air transportation tax. These increases are necessary to offset heavy deficits in airport construction and operation, and to reflect the general policy that those who benefit most directly from facilities provided by the government should help pay for them.
July 9, 1975

In addition, the bill provides for the removal of the remaining 5 per cent sales tax on building insulating materials. This measure, which will further contribute to our objective of conserving fuel, will affect all purchases of insulating materials, as well as storm windows and doors.
The bill also provides for important reductions in the special excise tax on wines. This measure was felt necessary to assist the domestic wine and grape growing industry which has experienced a significant decline in recent months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Perhaps I might also take a moment or two to comment on the discussion paper on federal sales and excise taxation tabled with the June 24 budget. As I mentioned in the budget speech, the tabling of the discussion paper formally initiates the commodity tax review program. The paper comments on major problems with the present federal sales tax, and evaluates a number of alternatives for improving the sales tax.
Although the discussion paper points out that shifting the federal sales tax from the manufacturing to the wholesale level would provide important improvements, I would once again like to emphasize that the government is not committed to this course of action and welcomes comments from the public on all aspects of commodity taxation.
In summary, the budget emphasized that inflation, slow growth, and prospecting energy shortages are three issues facing Canadians, and that no single approach can solve all three. The special tax on gasoline proposed in Bill C-66 is a necessary step to preserve our one-price policy which shelters Canadians from a harsh and abrupt adjustment to the forces of the world market for energy supplies. I firmly believe that Canadians are prepared to accept reality and the necessity of introducing this tax at the present time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) pointed out, this bill involves the alteration of some excise taxes, sales taxes, user taxes, call them what you will, the removal of a tax on a specific commodity, the institution of a special selective tax of 10 cents a gallon on gasoline, and an increase in the tax on air travel.
I would like to deal first of all with the one pleasant aspect of the bill, with the good news first, so to speak. Last November the minister announced an increase in the excise tax on domestic wines, excluding ciders. This you might consider perhaps as a hangover, so to speak, of the budget of May, 1974. But in May the increase that the Minister of Finance proposed in the excise tax on wines was eightfold, or 800 per cent. In November the increase which the minister proposed became ninefold, or 900 per cent. Now the minister, in his latest report to the House, stated:
I have been persuaded by many representations that the increased excise imposed last fall on wine is seriously affecting the wine and grape growing industry of the country. The excise tax will therefore be reduced to its previous level.
Excise Tax Act
I do not know whether the minister experienced the grapes of wrath or the wrath of grapes, but certainly that represents a vintage reversal, even for this Minister of Finance whose sole vestige of consistency in the course of his ministry is now clearly seen to be his approach to cider, which he did not move in the first place. I am referring, of course, to his taxing approach to cider, not his approach to cider in any other respect. But that is the only pleasant aspect of the bill which is now before us. No, there is one other reasonably pleasant aspect, and that is the removal of the sales tax on building insulation materials. If that measure is viewed in isolation, it is welcome.
I must say that the mind continues to boggle, however, at the reluctance of the government to eliminate the remaining 5 per cent sales tax on all building materials. The minister reversed himself at an earlier time when, having fought the reduction of the 11 per cent sales tax over the years, he decided for the purposes of convenience to do something about it, and he reduced it to 5 per cent. I think the minister has reversed himself so many times that he must be in a considerable state of dizziness most of the time.
At the time he reduced the tax to 5 per cent we argued that the whole tax ought to have been removed because the cost involved in administration, collecting, and policing of the reduced tax had reached the point where the net take would indicate that total removal would make sense. We also argued that a total removal would have a more beneficial effect on the housing situation in the country, which was difficult then, and which has become more difficult since then. I think that is a sound argument, and it makes more sense for the government to remove the sales tax entirely.
There will be even less revenue for the federal treasury from taxation on building material under this new proposal. The government is reducing its take somewhat, but there will certainly be no reduction in the cost of administering this new tax. At the same time the administrative costs in the housing supply industry will increase because of the increased paper work necessary to accommodate a sales tax exception within the general lines of goods handled by that industry. These increased handling costs, administrative costs, and increased paper work costs will be passed on to builders, who in turn will pass them on to consumers who buy the finished product. It is quite possible that some of the increased administrative costs will be added to the price of insulation materials.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame!


John Napier Turner: You have enough insulation already, Steve!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister had better be careful with whom he picks a fight. It is all right to pick a fight with me, but the minister should be careful.
It is possible that some of the increase in administrative costs will be added on to the price of insulation material, thus deleting some of the effect of the 5 per cent sales tax reduction. I think this is a pretty silly way for the govern-
7414

July 9, 1975
Excise Tax Act
ment to proceed-to maintain and, indeed, increase its tax administration costs in what purports to be an effort to bring some relief to the people. Surely the government should go back to the drawing board and start again.
The 1974 report of the Economic Council of Canada entitled "Toward More Stable Growth in Construction" dealt with the principle of the federal sales tax on building materials, and it had this to say:
The building materials tax discriminates against construction investment in favour of production machinery and equipment which generally are not taxed-
Indeed the minister has gone out of his way to increase the bias in favour of investment in production machinery and equipment.
-and it fails to distinguish between investment in intermediate construction for use in the production of other goods and services and direct consumer investment in the form of housing. In the former case, it hinders the growth of construction investment and, in the latter case, it is inequitable in the sense that its burden is disproportionately heavy on low income people.
In terms of the remaining 5 per cent tax on building materials it is pretty difficult to justify, particularly in view of the maintenance of all the administrative costs of collecting this and, indeed, of increasing the administrative costs of dealing with this revised proposal of the Minister of Finance. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government continues to indulge in and compound an administrative nightmare and impose an inequitable and regressive tax. To me it would have made more sense to have given relief on this 5 per cent rather than engage in some of the increased expenditures as the government has done.
I wish to refer to one or two other examples of administrative nightmares in the course of discussing this bill. The air transportation tax increase that is proposed was termed modest by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech but, as hon. members are aware, we have been opposed to this tax in principle, again largely because of the administrative cost load involved in the collection of the tax. My colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), put this case to the House on a number of occasions when this tax was first proposed, and we still reject it in principle for the reasons he gave and to which I have alluded today.
The "modest increase" proposed in the air transportation tax by the Minister of Finance is an increase of 100 per cent. All I can say is that if that is the minister's idea of a modest tax increase, we can be thankful that he did not propose a big increase.


Mr. Boulanger:: Tell us about the other countries.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sure the hon. member would love to hear us all talk about other countries, but we were sent here to talk about Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is precisely what we intend to talk about, and hon. members opposite can talk about any other country they like when they have the floor. They will not fool anyone one little bit in that respect.


Prosper Boulanger: You won't either. You are not fooling anybody either.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have not set out to fool anyone, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members opposite have set out to fool people.


Gerald William Baldwin: They will not be allowed to make speeches on this. They will be kept quiet.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The main concern with this bill is the 10 cents per gallon gasoline tax increase proposed by the minister. Of all the options and of all the measures which one would have thought were open to the minister, who would have guessed prior to the announcement in the House that the minister would have chosen to increase the price of gasoline for personal travel by 10 cents per gallon? Of all the options and of all the measures, who would have guessed the minister would have chosen that one? He recognized in the budget speech, and again today, that the increase in the price of gas and in the price of oil at the wellhead tended to be inflationary, and that they had an inflationary aspect. He recognizes that. So what does he do? He does not try to counter that. He sets out immediately to increase vastly the inflationary aspect of the increase in the cost of energy, recognizing that the increase in the price of oil and gas at the wellhead would be inflationary and would create some inflationary pressure.
If one could think of any measure more inconsistent with what the minister has described as the priorities of his budget, I do not know how one would find it. How does the minister reconcile this 10 cents a gallon tax on gasoline with all his talk in the budget about restraint? How does he reconcile it with his desire to create an atmosphere in this country conducive to the maintenance of restraint? It is directly to the contrary. It works in exactly the opposite direction.
This afternoon the minister criticized the government of Ontario. That government will defend itself, but I would have to say that much of the minister's budget, particularly with regard to the gasoline tax, seems to have been developed in defiance of the well known concern of the government of Ontario as well as the opposition parties, with respect to the increased cost of energy and the effect on the economy and the lives of the people in that province. I say this budget must have been consciously developed in defiance of those concerned.
Various aspects of this measure come to mind. There are the possible conservation aspects of a ten cents per gallon tax on gasoline. The minister said, however, that he could not give the House an estimate of how much gasoline would be conserved as a result. He was frank enough to say during the question period that the purpose of the ten cents increase was to raise revenues. I do not think we need spend much time considering that the ten cents can be justified in any way as a conservation measure because the minister does not make that argument.
The ten cents tax will not aid the supply situation either. It will not encourage companies to go looking for oil or gas. It has nothing to do with easing the supply
July 9, 1975

situation which the minister has always talked about in the past. When he was not blaming inflation or the weather or something that happened in the United States, he was emphasizing the importance of increasing supply in Canada. This ten cents per gallon tax on gasoline is not going to do anything to increase the supply of gasoline in Canada, and I am sure that the minister would not even make the argument that it might.
The tax is clearly inflationary, clearly inconsistent with the emphasis the minister put on restraint in his budget speech-the emphasis he put on the importance of creating an atmosphere conducive to restraint. This ten cents tax, being on a user basis, is very concentrated, very visible, very stark in its effect on the consumer and taxpayer; clearly its tendency will be to encourage the person on a wage or salary to push for a higher increase than might otherwise have been the case. It cannot have any other possible effect. This measure, being in no way conducive to restraint, will have a very clear and stark tendency in the opposite direction.
I think we should bear in mind that it is not only the ten cents tax increase that is inflationary but so is the added cost to the distributor. At the moment he might not be able to pass it on because of competition, but it is a cost to the retailer or distributor, just like wages or anything else, and as such he will tend to take a mark-up on it. So the tax at the wholesale level is not just inflationary but it is also an increase in the cost of marketing the product.
Application of this measure will be an administrative nightmare. Just think of the bureaucracy associated with the administration of the exemption. We know that the imposition of the tax is bound to be unfair, and is bound to hit the working man who may have to travel 40 miles each way to work every day. This is very common in my province, and it is bound to be unfair.


An hon. Member:: They don't care.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not know whether they care or not. Apart from the unfairness of it, just how do they propose to administer it? Can the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) explain that? A couple of days ago I asked the Minister of Finance how much it would cost to administer this, but I did not get an answer. I do not know if the Minister of National Revenue can give one. Indeed I do not think they have the slightest idea how much it will cost to administer the enormous apparatus required to deal with the exemptions and rebates.
1 have a very good opinion of the Canadian people in comparison to the peoples of other countries, but I do not think they should be tempted to engage in skulduggery or tax avoidance. However, when a ten cents per gallon tax is involved there will be a great temptation to try to get into some exempted class. People in business will have to give sales slips for gasoline, and other sales slips for something else. I do not know how large a staff the Department of National Revenue will need to engage to sort the whole thing out, and how many people they will need in the field to catch offenders.
I do not believe the minister can justify bringing this kind of loose proposal before the House. He says it is designed to raise money, but it is going to involve much expenditure to collect the tax and is going to set Canadian
Excise Tax Act
against Canadian. They will say, "We know someone down the street is taking advantage of the situation, and we are trying to play it straight." There are not enough inspectors in the Department of National Revenue nor enough policeman in the country to check everything. There is no way the government can ensure reasonable compliance with this law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When I talked about this in a very gentle way during the budget debate the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) intervened a little later in his polite fashion and said I had a nerve to object to a ten cents tax on gasoline when, as the former premier of Nova Scotia, I had presided over a 19 cents tax on gasoline in that province. Mr. Speaker, this is a well recognized source of provincial financing for road building. In fact if we did not resort to this kind of gasoline tax in Nova Scotia or the other provinces, we would not have been able to build roads.
A gasoline tax makes sense as a road building tax in the hands of provinces. It makes sense if it is considered as a road user tax in the hands of provinces. Even those Nova Scotians I referred to who drove 40 or 50 miles a day to work did not object too much if the result was better roads for travel. That tax made sense. But there is absolutely no link between the ten cents a gallon tax on gasoline and road building. There is no link between the people who will pay this tax and the use to which the tax will be put. So, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stands up in this House and criticizes me or any other provincial premier for imposing or increasing gasoline taxes in the provinces, it shows how little he understands what is going on in this country and what are the financial realities in the provinces. What is more, it shows how hard he and the Minister of Finance find it to defend this tax measure.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said I approve a uniform price across the country for a barrel of oil. I certainly do. I recognize the price must be paid. Then they accused me of being in favour of having the price paid secretly. That was an unjust accusation.
I say that this is not the way to meet our costs. This measure is probably the least desirable way of raising money for a purpose such as the government has in mind. As I said, a gasoline tax in the hands of provinces for road building makes sense, but as a method of paying a subsidy on offshore oil imported to eastern Canada it is for the birds, just for the birds.
The Minister of Finance and his colleague assume that those who must bear the tax can choose. They need not drive. The tax is for personal driving. It is something people can avoid, if they like. The government seems to think that the people concerned can choose, can turn to public transportation. I say the government is completely out of touch with the country. Ministers may travel around the country to political picnics and what not-


John Edward Broadbent: By helicopter.
29576 - 56)4

July 9, 1975
Excise Tax Act


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -but they have no idea how many Canadians drive long distances to work every day, partly because there is a housing problem which the government helped to create.
Many Canadians travel great distances to work every day. The Minister of Finance told us that workers in European countries join car pools. What does he think working people in this country do? Every morning on the roads of Nova Scotia one can see several people in one car driving to work. They join car pools. True, some people can afford not to do this, but even before the price rose it was not unusual to see four or five people in a car on the way to work. Sometimes workers will switch cars from week to week, or pay the fellow who is driving them. How can the minister pretend that the people of this country can choose, that there is something optional about personal travel? For some there is this option, but it does not exist for many others. The tax is bound to create enormous resentment.
Speaking as a maritimer I am very unhappy to think that people who are driving to work, in Ontario, in the west, and elsewhere, will pay ten cents a gallon tax not only toward keeping the price of gasoline down in eastern Canada but also toward keeping down the price of oil used by industry and homes. It is important for the price to be kept down, but the method chosen is objectionable. In addition, this method will generate enormous resentment.
The answer is that the minister should make real savings on expenditure. We do not need the sort of pretence indulged in recently by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). I say, Sir, that the government spills more than this tax will raise. The minister chides opposition members for always suggesting increased expenditures. I challenge him to cast his mind back to little over one year ago, to the election campaign, and contrast the responsible attitude we, as an opposition party, took to increased government expenditures with what he and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said during that campaign.
There is no need to speak on the matter any longer. The proposal is a mess. It will be an administrative monstrosity. It will be enormously costly to administer; it is unfair; and, above all, it is inflationary and completely inconsistent with the alleged thrust of the budget. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That Bill C-66 be not now read the second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Give us a good speech, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: I thank the minister for applauding, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps he will change his mind after he listens to what I must say.
I wish to lend the support of the New Democratic Party to the motion just moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).

Most ministers of the western world presiding over economies similar to ours which are suffering from what has come to be known as stagflation must choose between doing that which will increase inflation and that which will increase unemployment. Those are the two options open to any minister of finance. Yet the Canadian finance minister is alone in that he has just introduced a budget which will bring both effects simultaneously.
As I said previously, a mad genius is at work in the ministry of finance. The budget will increase unemployment and inflation simultaneously. I am sure studies done by the minister's officials show this. If he possesses such studies, as I suspect, it would be interesting to see them tabled, for they would show that the proposals to increase natural gas and oil prices and impose the special excise tax we are now debating will increase unemployment and inflation at the same time.
The measures arising out of this budget will cause a two point increase in the consumer price index. They will cause unemployment in Canada to increase by half a percentage point. Finally, they will cause a reduction by one percentage point in the growth rate of our economy in this year. Surely no more damaging comment than that could be made about a budget brought before any country at this time.
I listened with great care when the minister spoke today. I listened to him during his budget address. He did not deny any of these points. Nowhere did he deny that the net effect of his proposals will be negative on all economic fronts.
I want to list the cumulative effect on the average family as a result of the regressive tax proposals brought forward in the budget, as frequently as not in a disguised form. I then want to deal at greater length with the ten cents excise tax.
What is the effect of the minister's proposals on the average man or woman? We have calculated that the unemployment insurance changes which the minister is going to have us debate before very long, and which will take up a good part of the summer and maybe a good part of the fall as well, are a disguised tax for the average person. They amount to some $10 a year. Added to that is the effect of this gasoline tax of ten cents per gallon which we are talking about today.
Assume that the average motorist travels about 15,000 miles a year and gets approximately 20 miles per gallon, which is very optimistic indeed these days. There is an additional increase for the average man or woman of between $75 and $90 per year.
Then there is the effect of the price increase that the minister has permitted the oil companies to charge on the price per barrel of oil. This will result in an extra charge to the average motorist of $35 to $40 a year.
Finally there is the increased cost of heating one's home as the result of the oil price increase. We have calculated that the net effect will be $60 per year a home. If we add together the excise tax, the disguised tax on unemployment insurance, the increase in the per gallon price for driving a car, plus the increase in heating oil for the home,
July 9, 1975

what do we get? The minister suggested there would be no increase in personal taxes for the average person this year. However, we get a cumulative increase of about $200 per year for the typical family in Canada as the result of this budget.


Mr. Symes:: The people's friend!


John Edward Broadbent: As my colleague says with a great deal of irony, the people's friend. If you look at the budget with any care at all, you discover that it is the most regressive budget that any minister has brought in since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) assumed office in 1968. This budget increases the tax burden through regressive taxes on the average and poor people of this country, and leaves those in the upper income bracket and the corporations virtually scot-free.
I now want to turn to the excise tax which is the essence of the bill before us this afternoon. The minister said that this tax is needed to pay for the increasing gap between the revenue raised by the export tax on our crude oil and the compensation payments we have to make to the oil companies for imported oil on the east coast of Canada.
The minister said earlier, and again this afternoon, that several hundreds of millions of additional dollars are needed in the fiscal year 1975-76 to cover the increased cost. What are our objections? I repeat with emphasis the point made by the Leader of the Opposition. We do not agree at all with assuming the legitimacy of these increased prices, and I will deal with that in a minute. We think this is the most regressive way the minister could possibly have selected of raising the additional revenue to pay the increased cost. Why? Because for most people in this country the automobile is a necessity. It is not a luxury item that one uses simply for recreational purposes.
If we in Canada had developed rapid transit systems in our cities, and an efficient railway system designed to carry millions of people between them, there might be some sense in the minister's argument that the conservation result would be there because people would turn to the alternative method of transportation. The fact is that the alternative method of transportation is not there.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, there are many people in Nova Scotia, and longshoremen in British Columbia, who have to travel many miles every day for employment purposes. This is not in any sense a voluntary exercise. Nor do they have any control over it. They cannot turn to some alternative form of transportation. What does the minister suggest? Bicycles? People would have to travel overnight in order to be there in the morning. We say this is a regressive tax being imposed on ordinary people. They have no option if they are to keep their employment.
It is worth noting the categories of people who are going to be compensated for the tax. Most working people who travel to work in offices or factories will be excluded. However, if I understand the proposals correctly, certain professionals such as doctors and other upper income people will be permitted to claim compensation. Under the tax law they have the right to use their automobiles for professional purposes. As I understand it, those people will be receiving compensation for the tax. Unlike the
Excise Tax Act
ordinary working people who have to use their car to get to and from work, but do not use it during the course of work, they will not have to pay the full amount. There is then a maldistribution of the burden of this tax.
I want to add another point about the personal use of the car. There are real problems in our large cities as a result of automobiles. It is certainly my view that we will have to remove the automobile from the centres of our largest cities if they are to become habitable once again. I am by no means one of those who see the automobile as a creation of unqualified virtue. There certainly are problems associated with the automobile that need correcting or curtailing.
There is, however, one very important aspect of the automobile that will remain with us indefinitely. It will remain as the single most important means for average and low income families taking a holiday in this country, if they are going to travel outside their immediate environment. There can be no doubt that the cheapest way in which the average family can travel from one part of our country to another is by automobile. It is cheaper than air travel and cheaper than the railway.
This tax means that the average person who depends on the automobile for mobility during his vacation will face a substantial increase in the cost burden. Again, it is the average guy who is more locked into the automobile than the more affluent persons in our society. I include members of parliament in this. We can afford to fly from here to Vancouver, or from here to the east coast. We can afford to take our families with us. But the average person cannot afford to do so. He can, or at least he could afford to take his family on holiday in the automobile. The net effect of this kind of tax will hit the ordinary guy harder than it does those in high income brackets, even in terms of vacation travel. This is apart from the more important point I made a while ago about its effect on people of average income using automobiles as a means of reaching their employment.
I say that in any case this is a bad way of raising the revenue which the Minister of Finance tells us he needs. The alternative is to raise it through income tax and general revenue. I notice that the minister this afternoon, when speaking of possible alternatives, referred only to personal income tax. He did not mention corporate taxes. Was this an oversight of some sort? Of course it was not.
The minister is wrong when he says that the only alternative was to raise the money through the personal income tax structure. Getting it out of general revenue means we would be getting it not only out of personal income tax but out of corporation taxes as well, both of which constitute a much more progressive alternative. As it is, the corporations will not be paying any share of the tax which is now proposed, and even if we talk about those who would be paying through the personal income tax structure we should remember that at least 95 per cent of those who pay personal income tax in Canada are also owners of automobiles. So this would be a much more progressive way of raising revenue than to charge all automobile drivers the same fixed rate.

July 9, 1975
Excise Tax Act
As the minister is proposing it, a man who earns $50,000 will pay exactly the same additional amount to drive his car a certain number of miles as the man who earns $6,000. If personal income tax along with corporation taxes were used as an alternative method of financing this scheme, then at least the upper income Canadians would be paying more in taxes than the average Canadian. There is no justification in equity for the means which have been selected to raise the additional funds to which the minister has referred.
I wish to deal now with the legitimacy of the increase itself. I do not deny that part of the increased bill is justified. But I do raise serious questions as to whether the amount running into hundreds of millions of dollars to which the minister has referred is justified. Two ministers of the Crown have now admitted that there might be something less than ethical behaviour going on among the oil companies in terms of the prices they are charging not only Canada but other countries.
Cases in Nova Scotia and the United States suggest that the oil companies have been artificially raising costs by means of paper transactions. This involves perhaps dishonestly charging the people of Canada more than they should be paying for the products they are importing on the east coast. In Nova Scotia it was found in the course of court proceedings a couple of years ago that Imperial Oil owned a Bermuda-based company by the name of Albury Limited. That company bought oil for the east coast of Canada through an Exxon subsidiary, and then sold it to Imperial Oil in Canada. By coincidence, of course, Imperial Oil is another Exxon subsidiary, and the price at which it was sold by one subsidiary to another carried a considerable mark-up. Surely it is legitimate for us to raise questions about a pricing procedure of that kind, and surely it would have been better for the government to have carried out a thorough investigation of the activities of multinational corporations in this field before introducing the kind of legislation we find before us.
I understand that the particular practice to which I have referred has been stopped, that is to say, the Bermuda- Eastern Canada-Exxon triangle relationship.


An hon. Member:: That's the one we know about.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes. The question is: how many don't we know about? How many are still being practised not only by the Exxon Corporation but by Gulf and the other major companies? We all know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has caused his officials to embark upon an investigation into practices of this kind. That minister has, indeed, an obligation to conduct his inquiries with despatch and get the information back not only to his cabinet colleagues but to all hon. members, and thus to the people of Canada, so that we may form some idea of what is going on among the oil companies in terms of pricing policies.
There is another minister who is involved in taking steps to stop not only the oil companies but the multinationals in general from using a variety of tax loopholes to escape legitimately imposed taxes in Canada. I refer to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) and to certain

public statements he made on this subject a few weeks ago. Again I suggest it would have been more appropriate for us to have had before us his specific proposals, based on information that he or his officials gathered, regarding what is inappropriate behaviour. It would have been good to have the information before us before we debated this particular piece of legislation.
So we have two ministers who have implicitly acknowledged that they had serious suspicions about the wrongdoings not only of the oil companies but of other companies. In particular, we know that in the specific case of Exxon and Esso they have been caught making inappropriate price decisions.
Another point to be made is that prior to the government's embarking upon a compensation payments program for oil imported to the east coast, 60 per cent of this imported oil came from Venezuela and 40 per cent from the Middle East. Now, for some very mysterious reason, we import 60 per cent of this oil from the Middle East and 40 per cent from Venezuela.
The people of Canada have a legitimate reason to wonder why all of a sudden these multinational corporations, which operate both in Venezuela and in the Middle East, have decided to import more oil from the Middle East than they used to before the compensation payments were introduced. Would it be entirely inappropriate for us to speculate that the reason for this has a lot to do with the fact that the compensation payments they receive on importing oil into Canada by one route are higher than importing it by their traditional route? I think it is at least worth looking at this kind of transfer of shipments with a good deal of care to see whether the Canadian people are being rooked, are being ripped off by the oil companies, with the active connivance of the Liberal government.
I should like to deal with the minister's argument about conservation in about 30 seconds, which in fact is giving it more time than it deserves. The minister suggested earlier, and repeated this afternoon, that imposing a special excise tax will encourage people to drive less. That is, of course, absurd. The Leader of the Opposition, as well as myself in earlier comments, made the point that the vast majority of people who drive in this country have no option; they must use gasoline unless they want to quit work and collect unemployment insurance, and I am sure the minister would be unhappy about that. His whole conservation argument is a cynical device to delude certain people into supporting this otherwise unjustified piece of legislation.
The minister knows full well that the principal purpose of the legislation is simply to raise additional revenue in a highly regressive way. The minister seeks to dress it up by providing a spurious kind of conservation argument, an argument that is totally without foundation. Let me give the House a piece of statistical evidence to support that statement.
Apart from the fact that people have to drive to work, if the minister would check his own statistics, or get statistics from his colleague, the Minister of Energy, he would discover that between 1971 and 1975 there was a very substantial increase in the consumption of gasoline for automobiles, precisely at the time when we had the largest increase in the price of gasoline. To use technical jargon, there is very little price elasticity in gasoline used for
July 9, 1975

automobiles once they become established in society on a mass basis, and every expert in the field knows this. The minister should go back to his officials and suggest to them that they had better come up with a little better argument than the one of conservation. That argument takes in nobody other than a Liberal cabinet minister.
I want to conclude by saying that we support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. We do so because the government has brought in a regressive form of taxation that hits the average and poor people of this country in a way far out of line when compared with others. If the minister wants to pay for increased costs which he claims are legitimate, he should first of all bring forward the kind of information that two ministers of the Crown are supposedly looking at to justify the increase in the price of gasoline. Then he should obtain the additional revenue, if an increase is justified, from general revenues so that people can pay for the increase on the basis of progressive taxation, relatively speaking, on the one hand, and on the basis of corporation taxes on the other hand. We in this party will in no way support the regressive the taxation measure which is at the heart of this bill.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, in his budget speech the minister almost clearly suggested that the solutions he had put forward to date had not been successful. When the man who holds the country's purse strings confesses that what he already did was not effective there is reason to wonder whether what he proposed in the budget and this bill in particular will produce the results hope for. We have every reason in the world not to believe in the effectiveness of such a measure. Of course, what struck people most in the whole budget speech was that sort of anniversary gift to commemorate last year's election when he announced that they were going to increase the gallon of gas by 10 cents and eventually another 5 cents. I would have liked to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner)-or any other government member-explain in June last year what he would do a year later, and see what the reaction of the people would have been to hear about those solutions advocating increases that only help fuel inflation.
Mr. Speaker, one of the basic points on which one must stop to think before assessing the soundness of such a recommendation as contained in Bill C-66 is to know what is the situation in this country with respect to oil since once and for all those who are called upon to make the decisions for the country as a whole, those who govern, should base their judgments on very specific facts and not border on ridiculousness when passing new laws or regulations. For example, Canada, particularly in certain areas, is an oil producer. That is a fact. Recently I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) on a motion introduced pursuant to Standing Order 43 that he submit to the House a complete inventory of all our resources in that respect. This is some sort of a mystery, we know that the potential exists and may even be fantastic. What stages have prospections reached? Multinational oil firms have been granted tax exemptions to permit them to spur prospection. But what have been the results to date?
Excise Tax Act
What are now Canada's true reserves, and what will these reserves be in the future? How much oil can we produce now? What would be the production capacity? We do not know. What we do know, however, and the minister told us once more this afternoon, is that Canada is exporting one million barrels of oil, if I am not mistaken.
This is a totally absurd situation. When a nation has enough energy, it can produce everything needed for its own consumption. And when it cannot manage to consume its own goods, something is wrong. It would be much easier to achieve uniform prices, referred to by the minister and which seem to be the goal pursued by the bill but which will certainly not be achieved. That goal will not be achieved, because we would first have to bring back to normal a situation that is upside down. Why import oil when we have it at home? This is the basis on which agreement should be reached with every Canadian province.
When I consider such a bill, I wonder whether we should let provinces negotiate between themselves purchases and sales of oil. Why not let Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or Quebec deal directly with producing provinces, instead of doing this? Certainly there must be a way, if good will is to be maintained, for provinces to deal among themselves, so that first we produce what we need, and then that we may consume what we produce. This absurdity I had to point out.
It has been suggested by the opposition leader (Mr. Stanfield) and the NDP leader (Mr. Broadbent) that the increase will promote energy conservation. This is an illusion. Such increases never stopped anything. It is pointless exercise to impose a 5 cent per gallon increase on wines of every kind with up to 7 per cent alcohol content, and to impose a 2lA cent per gallon tax on wines of every kind with up to 7 per cent of alcohol content. Taxes on alcohol have been raised a number of times, but that never prevented people from drinking their gin, their cognac, their rum. And such a measure will never deter people from consuming gasoline. That is going about it the wrong way.
Moreover, if we needed to reduce our gasoline consumption to save our energy, this would certainly not be the way. It is not because it will cost more that we will do without. This is another argument which does not hold. Not at all.
I even dare say that argument is totally invalid, since other measures would have to be taken if we were to really cut down our gas consumption. Let there just be quotas, without necessarily increasing the price; but if there are no quotas, it means that it is not true to say there might be an oil shortage, it means that there can be no possible shortage of oil derivatives. We can doubt that possibility, and therefore I revert to the original argument: If we really had a full knowledge of all our possibilities in that respect, it would be easier to judge, especially as that increase would of course affect small consumers primarily. The bill says, quote:
(b)	a person for commercial or business purposes,
(c)	a farmer for farming purposes,

July 9, 1975
Excise Tax Act
(d)	a fisherman, hunter or trapper for commercial fishing, hunting or trapping,
(e)	a person under conditions for which relief from the consumption or sales tax is provided by virtue of any provision of this Act other than subsection 27(2), or
(/) a person within a class of persons exempt from tax under Part I of the Income Tax Act,
Mr. Speaker, all those people being exempted, what have we left? We have the small consumer! He is the one who has to leave home by car, because he has to drive 25, 30, 50 miles to work. There may be some who use that individual means of transportation excessively when they could easily use public transportation, or even from car pools with their colleagues. But one thing for sure, a good deal of workers have to drive to work and are therefore particularly affected by that measure.
So, when the minister wishes to lower gasoline consumption by increasing prices, in my opinion he is just mocking people, he is trying to bypass the real issue since by striking thus at the small consumer he is just adding fuel to inflation, adding to the production problems of our country, and in fact making matters worse. And when the major argument of the minister is the need for uniform prices, I wonder why uniformity can only mean increase in that case.
Since prices can be levelled through a reduction, why should an increase be necessary to level them? The problem, Mr. Speaker, should be solved realistically and the following questions should be asked: If we have oil in Canada, how much does it cost? We have some underground and it is a gift of providence. We only have to develop it. How much does it cost? When the developers and the provinces which are lucky enough to have some in their area have obtained a reasonable return, what is the cost of a gallon of gas? This is what the government must determine. If the cost price is 60 cents it should be sold 60 cents. If the cost price is 75 cents, sell it 75 cents. If it is 30 cents, sell it 30 cents. This makes economic sense. Since an inventory of oil resources is denied to us, how can we appreciate the conditions when the facts which we need to determine whether an increase is warranted are systematically concealed from us.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, such an increase seems to me entirely inexcusable. The objectives of the minister will surely not be attained. He has merely aggravated economic conditions which were not very promising to begin with. I can then recommend only one thing to the minister: let him come back once and for all to basing his budget on real, logical economic principles, principles that take no account of factors in no way related to the real economy. Let the minister ask himself what capacity for production the country has, what material potential is available to him, and then let him determine costs by giving each and everyone the income he needs to buy the goods that are essential to life.
Mr. Speaker, as long as our government does not understand those rudiments, every year we will end up by getting bills providing for increases under pretexts which, to my mind, are false. I should like to conclude by saying that rather than being faced with this type of bill, I would prefer the provinces negotiated the sale of oil amongst themselves; I am sure Quebec could do so, directly, with

Alberta, for instance, and end up buying oil at a lower price than it has to pay at the present time.
So the role of the federal government becomes unjustifiable because the goal cannot be reached. It is clear that gas consumption will in no way be reduced because of the increase, just as it is obvious that a uniform price throughout the country will only be obtainable when people become logical, that is when Canadian products will be consumed exclusively in Canada. And when the minister says he intends to import as well as export petroleum, the situation becomes ridiculous, and control over uniform prices wished by all Canadians will be possible only when the problem of importing and exporting petroleum products shall have been solved.


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-66, and I would like to put my remarks in the context of my background, which is agriculture and the entrepreneurial world of business. These two aspects of Canadian life are the part of Canada that grows from a productive and disciplined effort. They are a way of life which requires thrift, a work ethic, an ability to pay for your own mistakes. To survive, a business enterprise has to earn a profit, and profits after tax become capital. New capital is a new national and enterprise resource.
Between now and the turn of the century this country will need much new capital if we are to meet the social challenge that is before us. The opportunities within this country go to those with an ability to create new capital. As I said, to come from the business and farm community one has to have respect for thrift, respect for the work effort, respect for law and order, and respect for the sense of fair play and for the quality with which a business enterprise serves man and the community.
To survive in this increasingly complex society a business has to serve people well, it has to serve its customers, and we are starting to see that with new legislation being imposed on that community it has to serve its employees well and it has to serve its suppliers well. The volume of legislation that the government has been imposing on the community since 1968 is causing an unproductive burden to that community and is interfering in many respects with our ability to create capital for the challenge ahead.
The volume of amendments to legislation and regulations is actually destroying the decision making base for the private enterprise sector of this country.
The patchwork nature of budgets by successive finance ministers has really done a job of destroying and neutralizing this decision making base that once was a powerful factor in Canadian business life. Not only has the government added a costly and unproductive administrative burden to the industrial sectors of Canada with all this legislation, it has created so much unco-ordinated legislation that its own administrative sectors are breaking down.
I was rather surprised, in the work of the Public Accounts Committee this year, to find that within the public accounts we have hundreds of millions of dollars in
July 9, 1975

inventories that do not have audit trails through them, that we really only have audit trails that work around their periphery.
I was also surprised to find that 13.5 per cent of superannuation cheques issued by the government are in error. The reason they are in error is that we have had 12 amendments to the act, and some 90 amendments to the regulations. In spite of this, millions of dollars were spent on consulting services and design services for software to try to correct the problem that exists within our administrative structure, but all to no avail. All the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men cannot put this part of our government together again, and we will have to bring down legislation which co-ordinates and simplifies the administration. What is happening in the government is happening in the private sector, and the private sector is the productive sector that really carries the burden and makes all of this possible.
This budget is just another chapter in the election to election policies of the government, and at what price political success? When we moved away from a standard for our medium of exchange, I first learned the term "fiat money system". I was taught that a fiat money economy would be only as good as the integrity of the politicians managing it. I was taught that when political expediency over-ruled truth and integrity in a fiat money system, inflation and collapse were part of the future.
The fact that the government sits and waits for the politically viable moment to implement measures of control rather than using constructively the vast media and educational resources at its disposal to create the climate necessary for economic discipline is to me abandonment of political responsibility. There is very little leadership in this budget. In fact it is really a monkey wrench budget. We are tightening nuts on bolts from which the threads have been stripped during ten years of budgetary bumps and grinds.
In the mid 1960's when the U.S. was inflating its economy with the Viet Nam war and its war on poverty at home, the Liberal government in Canada went for its tenth consecutive deficit budget. Then along came the St. Lawrence Seaway wage settlement, something we are still paying for, and this started the demand and grab, and hold for ransom attitude which is reaching a crescendo in Canada.
In 1971 our wages and salaries peaked to 73 per cent of net national income, and the last ten year average was 68 per cent. It is now coming off that peak and down to more reasonable levels, but the government cannot tell me that the wage increases other than from honest toil and productive effort are not inflationary when this percentage of our net national income is affected by this part of Canadian life.
On top of all this we had the Benson budget which removed the right of people who have saved in this country to an income mix, and this created overnight rental accommodation shortage which the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) is trying to resolve, and cannot. In the Benson budget there was also further legislation which was oppressive to the growth of home grown
Excise Tax Act
Canadian capital. It is a fact of life in this world and in the industrialized nations that capital can be created much less expensively in other countries than it can in Canada, and thus we have this continuous dependency on other countries for borrowings to take care of the capital needs we will have through to the turn of the century.
It is almost unbelievable in light of this history that we now have this 10 cents conservation policy. Some 16 per cent of our energy is used in cars. The minister does not tell us what percentage is used in business and in commerce in this country, and what percentage is used for pleasure. He really does not know what percentage of this tax which is to be collected is to remain in the treasury and what part will be returned and at what cost to this country in the form of another unproductive administrative burden. Certainly there is a need for conservation in this country, but not with this kind of tax.
Here we are in Canada with resources which are the envy of the world. We desperately need new proven resources to bring our use back into line, and the new scales of capital for the development of these resources are well known to us all. We also need capital for the updating of our transportation system, upon which we have now had a report which we are studying. We need a stimulus for housing and the modernization of our productive industries, yet we find the federal government trying to make another end run around the provinces with its 10 cent excise tax on gasoline under the guise that it is for the purposes of conservation. What deception!
The government says this tax is to conserve non renewable energy. The government thinks only of cars driven for personal use, and of boats driven for personal use and pleasure. The government taxes a select user instead of facing the issue of conservation honestly. Until energy for all uses is at world market prices, there will be no stimulus for conservation. We have to go to world market prices in order to justify the capital expense needed for true conservation measures in this country. Why use this 10 cents measure and run around the provinces as an excuse for conservation? That is more Liberal deception. Altruistic attitudes to conserve on renewable resources will not work. An economic club will be the only incentive factor for meaningful conservation non renewable resources in this country, and the piecemeal legislation we have had in this direction from the last two budgets of the minister is really disgusting.
I repeat, what about the fuel used to heat swimming pools in this country? Is that not a use of a non renewable energy resource which should be taxed, if the pleasure driving of automobiles should be taxed? What about diesel cars and diesel engines in boats? What about fuel wasted to heat poorly insulated buildings? The only answer we received is that the government proposes to remove that tax on insulation material. What a gimmick!
The return procedure of this tax, as my leader has said, will just create another administrative nightmare. I will add to that by saying that it is another creation of another unproductive sector, and it adds to the cost of the government. This is only further exploitation of those engaged in the productive work sectors of this economy, and all we have, all we use, and the standard of living in this country all of us benefit from, come from those engaged in mean-

July 9, 1975
Excise Tax Act
ingful, productive work. It only adds to their burden when we create further unproductive administrative burdens such as this tax will create.
Another aspect I have not heard of yet is that the amount of compensatory oil consumed, in the total energy picture of the provinces, varies considerably from province to province. Some provinces have the capability of producing their own gas and oil. Others have tremendous hydro resources and atomic energy. Then there are provinces which consume oil for their electrical energy. In my opinion this 10 cent conservation measure is grossly unfair to a very selective number of payees of this tax in those provinces which do not have heavy hydro resources and do not have atomic energy.
The minister says that the tax is designed to pay for imported oil. He said that here in the House today, and it is in his speech. He says that without this tax the deficit between what the government pays in subsidy and what it receives as a special tax on the export of oil will be, as he mentioned today, between $400 million and $600 million this year. This means that the people in a province with low hydro power and low oil and gas production, like Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, are paying a disproportionately high percentage of this compensatory tax because of the oil being used to produce electrical energy.
If Ontario, for example, produces 50 per cent of its energy from hydro, this means that in fact the payees of this tax in Ontario pay a very low percentage of the compensatory payments when compared to the payees in a province like New Brunswick or Nova Scotia where much of their electrical energy is produced by oil. This obviously will be recognized eventually by the Maritime provinces, and when they wake up to this further imposition on the payees of this tax in those provinces we should be prepared for the screams.
The wine tax was designed to help keep the domestic industry healthy. The minister in his budget said that the domestic wine and grape growing industries of the country are seriously affected and that the excise will therefore be reduced to its previous level effective budget night. Why then has this tax also been reduced on imported wines? I do not understand that, and I think we need an explanation.
Further, it is my understanding that alcohol consumed is a very high consumer of human energy. There is no consistency in the energy conservation programs of this government. It taxes one and removes the tax from the other.
The removal of sales tax on insulation, as I mentioned, is a gimmick, but it is a step in the right direction even if it does add to the unproductive administration load on the over-all federal tax picture in Canada. However, one of the good things in this budget, or accompanying this budget, was the debate requested on the federal sales tax study,
for to me federal sales tax at the manufacturing level is a highly inflationary tax. It has a high multiplier effect between manufacturer and' consumer. It is time we had a very open and thorough study of this tax, and removed this hidden subsidy of many of the social programs and burdens of this country from that level of taxation, and put the cost of that to the end users so that they can fully understand the cost and the value of that which they are demanding.
Even as I stand in this House, Mr. Speaker, I have trouble understanding what $1 million is-what $1 billion is. If I am having that kind of problem then the people of Canada just do not know the cost of anything any more so far as government is concerned. I welcome that special study and I hope I have an opportunity to participate in it.
Inflation is serious in this country. If it is such that revenues at our airports have to be increased-and our party position was made known by my leader today-then I basically support the "user pay" concept wherever practicable.
On the basis of the philosophy expressed in the transportation report, Heaven help the people served by the St. Lawrence Seaway. On a "user pay" basis it just will not work. It is already subsidized by people all across Canada, and I think that probably gives us room to open up the subject in the coming debate.
For various obscure reasons the government continues to ignore the basic fact that the people of this and any other country can only live within the total of what they produce. It continues to ignore that all wages come from the basic function of adding to the value of goods.
When the Canadian people in the work force start worrying about purchasing power instead of catch-up dollars, and when they start measuring government waste and unproductive payrolls and programs in terms of man years of work effort as measured by income tax dollars paid, that might be the day when truth, honesty, and some long range planning for the common good will show up in a budget and the resulting legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member for Pembina.


Mr. Elzinga:: With the permission of the House may I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, July 10, 1975