1975-07-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43, the circumstances of which appear in the motion itself and are prompted by the disappointing response given to me yesterday by the Minister of Justice. I move that:
This House, aware of and alarmed by the glacial progress of reform in the field of domestic relations and divorce and the urgent need to rectify certain obvious and pressing problems, urges the government immediately to prepare and introduce for debate and discussion in an appropriate committee of parliament a green paper on divorce reform, including changes covering maintenance and support.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED PROGRAMS TO EXPEDITE CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of increasing evidence that Canadian amateur sport requires additional emphasis and encouragement in order that Canadian athletes can take part successfully in world level competition and more importantly to foster greater participation by Canadians in various forms of physical recreation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare initiate more specific programs for this purpose in conjunction with provinces to expedite the construction of additional sporting facilities, and that funds for this purpose be provided to communities which have demonstrated by their own initiative that they are willing to utilize and manage such projects.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development may I address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government been in contact with United States government officials concerning the release by the U.S. department of the interior of its study of the Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Limited's Mackenzie valley pipeline proposal?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will either take that as notice, or I believe the Minister of Indian Affairs will be in the House shortly and perhaps it can be redirected to him when he arrives.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-SUGGESTED FOLLOW UP OF DEFECTS IN PROPOSAL ALLEGED BY UNITED STATES STUDY
Douglas Charles Neil: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the U.S. study determines safety factors, leak detection, operating plans and seismic monitoring to be inadequate for the scope of the project as well as criticizes proposals by the consortium for seasonal maintenance and an unrealistic operating schedule, what was the degree of awareness on the part of the government of these concerns expressed by the U.S. department of the interior, and will the government be doing a follow up study on the particular items of contention expressed in the U.S. study to ensure correction of the inadequacies in the proposal as they apply to Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Perhaps I can deal with some of those points, Mr. Speaker, because they relate to the hearing which will be conducted before the National Energy Board. It is precisely for dealing with that kind of question that the law provides for a National Energy Board hearing. Indeed, the board would require the applicants to submit evidence in response to those kinds of criteria. I presume that my colleague will have drawn this to the attention of Mr. Justice Berger, if his Lordship has not already taken it into account. In addition, of course, these

July 29, 1975
Oral Questions
are precisely the questions upon which the applicants will have to satisfy the National Energy Board before the board would make any finding regarding the Mackenzie pipeline application, the hearing of which, as the hon. member knows, has not yet commenced.


Douglas Charles Neil: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the pipeline people have submitted proposals to the United States and the U.S. department of the interior on its own has made a study. Does the government plan on doing a study of its own relating to this problem?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the National Energy Board has been constituted to do.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Douglas Charles Neil: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I will direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the concern raised by the study, can the minister advise whether or not his department has yet had any kind of consultations with the U.S. state department regarding use of oil tankers in the Northwest Passage?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, consultations on that subject have been going on for quite sometime.


NATURAL GAS-POSSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT PROMOTING POLAR PIPELINE ROUTE THROUGH MANITOBA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Due to the difficulties being experienced with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline route, will the federal government now be concentrating more effort on promoting the polar gasline route through Manitoba, which the participants of Panarctic Oils Limited claim can be ready before the Mackenzie Valley route?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada does have an indirect interest in the polar gas route as a 45 per cent shareholder in Panarctic. I really cannot say at this point which of the two pipeline applications will first be completed. We will naturally continue to pursue with Panarctic, because of our interest in having a full assessment of the polar gas route, the possibility of having the study of the Polar gas route go ahead to completion. At this point the government has not taken a preference between one or other of the two possible pipeline routes.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO OBTAIN COPY OF UNITED STATES STUDY OF PROPOSAL
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same minister. Given the probable consequences of the U.S. study on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, will the minister inform the House whether the government has already or plans to take steps to obtain from the United States the documentation and the final report of the study itself?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we provided the United States Department of the Interior with the Canadian documents which are in the public area regarding many of the questions dealt with in the report, so there already has been liaison between my department, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the United States concerning that study. Of course, we will be very interested in pursuing with the American authorities any elements which have not been covered by previous discussions. Regarding the energy part of the question, as I have said, there is a distinct responsibility under the National Energy Board Act to examine these very questions the Department of the Interior has been examining.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ENERGY BOARD STUDY WILL BE AS COMPREHENSIVE AS UNITED STATES STUDY
John Edward Broadbent: Given the comprehensiveness of the United States study, which is comprised of 17 volumes in its final form, will the minister assure the House that the Mackenzie study undertaken by the government through the National Energy Board will be at least as comprehensive as that done by the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is the authority parliament has given the National Energy Board, and I think we can be confident that the board will examine all of these questions including gas availability, markets, safety and the environment, and that it will discharge its responsibilities in this regard.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF EXPERTS WHO PREPARED UNITED STATES STUDY APPEARING AS WITNESSES BEFORE BERGER COMMISSION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the United States has already completed its study in terms of this phase of the work-a very comprehensive study-I wonder whether the government would consider facilitating the attendance of a number of experts who prepared that report for the United States study as witnesses before the Berger Commission?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad, as I am sure my colleague would, to hear from Mr. Justice Berger in this regard whether this would be of assistance. I might add that there was, of course, nearly $50 million expended for studies prepared in relation to the Canadian route, and I think this is possibly one of the reasons it has been

indicated that the Canadian route was better documented than the El Paso route.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can the minister tell the House if there are any new developments with regard to the PLO, in view of their protests against the fact that the crime conference will not be held in Toronto, next September, as previously planned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received any protest from the PLO.


INQUIRY AS TO UNITED NATIONS DECISION ON REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF CRIME CONFERENCE IN TORONTO
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is my understanding that the UN Committee on Conferences was meeting this morning to come to a conclusion regarding the Canadian request to postpone the conference in Toronto in September. I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to let the House and the public know what was the conclusion of that committee and what the attitude of the government now is in respect of that determination?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Conferences I believe met for the third time this morning, and will meet tomorrow afternoon. No final conclusions have been reached, although there has been a developing consensus in favour of not postponing the conference and holding it in another venue in September, but no final decision has been made as yet.


ALLEGATION ARGENTINA DIVERTED PLUTONIUM WASTE FROM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask him what action Canada has taken in light of the report by United States intelligence sources that Argentina has diverted some 50 kilograms of plutonium waste from its Atucha atomic power station, an amount sufficient to produce five atomic bombs. What attitude is the Government of Canada taking in respect of this?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, our attitude with regard
Oral Questions
to the question of nuclear proliferation is conditioned by our effort to secure with Argentina the most rigid safeguards possible. As the hon. member knows we have not yet completed our bilateral discussion with Argentina. There are a number of outstanding items still to be determined which are in the process of negotiation.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary again for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am wondering whether the minister can tell us whether or not the Government of Canada has been in consultation with the Government of the United States and whether in fact it is true that Argentina has diverted this amount of plutonium from one of its stations so that it could in fact, build atomic bombs.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in general, of course, Canada and the United States as part of the exporter group have been consulting generally on these questions, but on this particular point I would have to check and will do so.


FUNDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROGRESS OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources further to questions I posed to him yesterday. I wonder whether he is in a position now to give me an up-to-date report on the activities of the Fundy Tidal Power Review Committee.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The report is not very precise, except to say that the federal-provincial study on the development of the Bay of Fundy tidal power is moving ahead under the supervision of the Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Review Board. Current activity is with regard to settlement of a specific investigation and study program, and it is expected that the new studies will be completed within the deadline envisaged in the September 1974 report summary on the question.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minister will take some time during the recess-which will come later today-to visit Nova Scotia and derive some of the benefits that were available to his forefathers down there. I wonder whether, during that visit, he would take some time to come into Amherst and look at the maritime resources management services which are sponsored by the Council of Maritime Premiers and look at the facilities they have there as well as take a look at Spring-hill and what is available there in the way of coal for the development of new coal mines. I would be happy to make the arrangements for him if he would be willing to co-operate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am most obliged to the hon. gentleman. My plans include a rather broader perspective of the whole estuary rather than a visit to Amherst, but I will certainly consider whether it

July 29, 1975
Oral Questions
might be possible to arrange visits there as well as visits to be made to Cape Breton Island, Saint John and Eastport, and to include this matter as well in my studies.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. On May 28 I directed a question to the Minister of Transport concerning the BILCOM report on air traffic control communications which did not receive the support of the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association. The minister stated that when he had reviewed all the representations which are of any value he would see what kind of policy the government would design in that field. In view of the fact that almost two months have passed since this promise was made, and in the interest of safety, will the minister either place geographical restrictions on unilingual pilots or provide them with English language training so that they can communicate with ground stations in controlled air space?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that the air division of my department met with the Pilots Association and discussed the whole matter. A ruling was made. Unfortunately, I do not have it with me here but I can let the hon. member know exactly what the understanding was.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have one brief supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the policy is announced by the minister, would he assure the House that this policy will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for further evaluation?


Jean Marchand: When I give the hon. member the answer I will tell him exactly what we are discussing.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, one that I know he will want to answer in view of the importance of the issue and the possibility, however remote, that the House may recess within the next few days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: Can the minister confirm a press report indicating that Canadian and U.S. negotiators have reached agreement or near agreement on the issues affecting agricultural trade between the two countries, and can

he inform the House now whether the Canadian quotas on cattle and beef and the U.S. quotas on cattle, beef, hogs and pork will expire on August 11?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday in the House and also previously, that we would be making an announcement before August 12 explaining the current position, and we will do so.


UNITED STATES QUOTAS ON BEEF-EFFECT OF CANADIAN QUOTA ON EGGS FROM UNITED STATES ON NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING BEEF TRADE
William Arnold Peters: In view of the number of press reports indicating congressional demands for U.S. retaliation in response to the recently imposed quotas on U.S. eggs coming into Canada, can the minister inform the House whether the egg issue has seriously complicated negotiations on the meat trade, and to what extent the Canadian negotiators have been able to convince their U.S. counterparts that the egg quotas were both necessary and consistent with our obligations under GATT?


Eugene Whelan: I am sure the hon. member knows better than to pay attention to press reports-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Watch that!


Eugene Whelan: -because some of the press reports have been most inaccurate. I sometimes wonder if the public has been informed at all about the talks that have been going on in a very congenial manner with our trading counterparts and about the position concerning retaliation with regard to eggs, etc. They seem to think the main concern is that Canada still wants to export eggs over there. I can tell the hon. member that our exports of eggs over there are mainly necessary because of their eggs coming here. We are not desirous of exporting eggs to the United States. If they want to put an embargo on our eggs coming into their country, that is perfectly all right by us.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Can he advise the House if it is correct that the Prime Minister, after hearing the news from Nigeria, has asked that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of National Health and Welfare be sent to join him in Helsinki?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the idea never crossed his mind. This is the most united and loyal government that ever stood behind the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
July 29, 1975


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As the special federal-provincial agreement for the economic development of the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe Peninsula and Iles-de-la-Madeleine area will soon expire, and as the funds made available to Quebec by the federal government for the reconstruction of the road network in that area have long since been exhausted, can the minister tell the House and the people of the area concerned whether the Quebec government has asked for additional funds from the federal government to complete those highways that are essential to the economic development of that important area of the country?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely certain whether there are actual, formal negotiations underway with regard to the portion of the highway to which the hon. member referred. I can tell him that in conversations with representatives of the government of Quebec, the matter of assistance for highway construction in the Gaspe was discussed in general terms. I will undertake to inquire from our officials in the province of Quebec as to whether these matters have now proceeded to the point where actual negotiations are under way.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture, now that he has finished paging through his briefing notes. In respect of reports coming from the meeting of the minister with the various provincial agriculture ministers, it is reported that the minister indicated that legislation will be introduced shortly which would provide for better compensation for farmers who suffer cattle losses from brucellosis. I would like to ask the minister when that legislation will be introduced and whether it will also include cattle losses due to TB.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say that that is another erroneous press report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Another?


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member who is being vocal should know because he used to write more than anyone else I know.
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Super bull strikes again.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: I was right more often than you are.


Eugene Whelan: Amendments were presented in the House last October to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and I said at the meeting to which the hon. member referred that if the provincial ministers of agriculture could persuade the members of the opposition and their leaders and if we could get unanimous consent to bring in the bill, it would be passed in as short a time as possible, and we could pay more compensation to the farmers as well as do all these other things.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Regardless of the rhetoric the minister wants to use, the farmers in my riding want to have answers about what the minister will do with respect to the cattle losses they are now suffering as a result of TB, and I ask the minister when that will-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Is he still suffering from foot and mouth disease?


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Joe, put a zipper on it, will you?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I wonder if the hon. member for St. Boniface is also suffering from foot and mouth disease and wants compensation.
I ask the minister when that legislation will be brought forward and whether it will be an update-because present compensation is simply not in keeping with replacement costs-and whether that legislation will also include losses incurred as a result of loss of herds.


Eugene Whelan: The legislation covers all diseases under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and it covers TB. I heard what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said, and I think that the hon. member who asked the question should probably report him and he should be kept in quarantine.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it follows on the series of questions which began the question period relating to the use of the Arctic by United States icebreaker cargo vessels. Since the minister has indicated that he has been kept fully informed of the use of these vessels in the Arctic, can he tell us whether the Americans are planning to use the eastern route following the Manhattan route or the western route, and whether the Americans are planning the tanker icebreaker device as a supplement to the pipeline or as an alternative to the pipeline?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, they have not had any
July 29, 1975

Oral Questions
discussions with us about any of the alternatives mentioned.



INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSION WITH UNITED STATES CONCERNING USE OF HEAD HARBOUR PASSAGE BY TANKERS EN ROUTE TO EASTPORT, MAINE OR ALTERNATIVES

Donald W. Munro: In the
general question of oil pipelines and the American need for oil, another part of Canada has been deeply affected, and I am wondering whether the minister could let us know whether there have been any contacts by his department with the Pittston Company to see whether it is planning to send, without Canadian government consent or approval, tankers through the Head Harbour Passage to Eastport, Maine. Has the Canadian government any plans to prevent them from doing this?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear that any such movement would be quite unacceptable to Canada. The environmental board in Maine, as I recollect the situation, authorized the Pittston Company officials to proceed with the oil terminal on the condition that certain permissions would be secured from Canada for the movement through Head Harbour Passage. To my knowledge the United States government has not spoken to us about these requirements of Pittston. I might say that if they did, the answer would still be that any such movement would be quite unacceptable because of the environmental hazards involved.


Donald W. Munro: A final supplementary. In his discussions with the United States officials has the minister made any alternative suggestions, such as offloading in Lennoxville or St. John's and a pipeline from St. John's to Eastport, Maine. The government might as well be at least constructive.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have not made specific proposals along those lines, although I believe in general terms we expressed interest in exploring alternatives with them. In the light of proceedings under way, we have not made specific proposals.



POST OFFICE


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Some months ago, knowing his respect for the heritage of our country, I asked the minister to consider issuing a special stamp in 1976 to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of the founding of Canada's famous and distinguished Royal Military College at Kingston. Is the minister in a position to tell the House if the anniversary will be suitably recognized by his department?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quite correct in stating we have exchanged much correspondence on the subject and there has been a great deal of representation from other members of the House as well as the general public. I am pleased to announce that we will issue a stamp to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of the Royal Military College.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications and I am sorry I did not have an opportunity to give him notice. May I ask him if the planned symposium on violence on television which is to take place in Kingston next month, and is sponsored by the CRTC, means that the CRTC will not be holding public hearings on this very disturbing problem across the country. There is a great deal of concern about the question, especially in the light of the alleged connection with the growth of crimes of violence.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that this symposium excludes the possibility of the CRTC holding hearings. But to be more precise in my reply, I would have to refer the question before hand to the chairman of the CRTC.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture a question? He has had notice of it since last Thursday through the Acting Minister of Agriculture when I suppose the minister was unavoidably absent. Does the government intend that dairy farmers should bear the cost of deficits created as a result of the government's inefficient marketing methods pertaining to powdered milk?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the preamble to the hon. member's question. We have the most efficient pricing system available to industrial milk producers anywhere in the world. The agreement we are abiding by is one to which the producers agreed. I have said before in this House that I think it is unfair that we ask nobody else in society to take lesser incomes because of world conditions. We are trying very hard to work out a solution for our dairy farmers. I said last week we are still working with them to try to solve their problem concerning the export of skim milk powder. They are competing with the producers and treasuries in the countries of the European Community.
(Mr. MacEachen.]
July 29, 1975


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I should like to ask the minister why he has permitted a 100 per cent penalty levy on powdered milk for Canadian dairy farmers during the past year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Central Nova.



HARBOURS


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour who stated on July 16 that he would comment later concerning the resolution of the city of Hamilton demanding a full and open inquiry into Hamilton Harbour affairs. Does the minister intend to make a statement or give an answer today? Has "later on" now arrived?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated a few days ago in Hamilton that, as the member of parliament for Hamilton East, I would recommend to my colleagues that they seriously consider a judicial inquiry if anyone in Hamilton, including city council, came up with any specific allegations of wrongdoing not already dealt with in the trial. I believe the city council is considering that matter now. I am sure that the hon. member, who asked questions in the House while the preliminary hearing was going on, will join with me and members of the Liberal Party in expressing satisfaction that the two federal appointees on the harbour commission, Mr. Hickey and Mr. Lanza were thoroughly exonerated by the judge in charge of the trial of Mr. Kenneth Elliott.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer and I should like to ask him what prerequisites does he, as a member of parliament from Hamilton think the city has to do in view of their long standing request. What does he want?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member is aware that by our procedures he is not entitled to address questions to the hon. member for Hamilton East.
Oral Questions
Quang's criminal background, would the minister investigate how Quang was able to slip through when his criminal record was known to the vice consul? In view of the fact that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has enough information to deport Quang, the same information that Mr. Morin had when he met Quang, can the minister say whether Morin told Ottawa or was told by anybody in Ottawa to let him in regardless of his criminal background?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that a detailed question like that is proper for the question period, but if the minister wants to answer he may.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice. I think the information is probably in the possession of my colleague.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Some days ago I raised the question of the alleged dumping of steel in the province of Nova Scotia and the drastic effect this would have on the already ailing steel industry. I wonder if the hon. Minister has anything further to add to what he said on this subject the other day?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Not
really, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated to the hon. member the other day, my officials have been in touch with the two companies that might be concerned by the alleged dumping of steel. They want to determine whether these companies wished to lay a complaint under the anti-dumping act. If they so choose to do, my deputy minister, under the anti-dumping act, is statutorilly charged with the function of primarily determining whether there is a case for dumping, on which he would make a ruling. The matter would then be referred to the anti-dumping tribunal. As I indicated to the hon. member, I asked my officials to treat this as a matter of importance and urgency.

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS	AGRICULTURE



REASON FOR ADMITTANCE OF GENERAL QUANG IN VIEW OF ALLEGED KNOWLEDGE OF CONSUL GENERAL MORIN OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES DURING INTERVIEW

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the startling revelation today that consul general Albert Morin had been apprised of General Dang Van Quang's background, including criminal activities, a full ten days before Quang was interviewed by Morin at Port Chaffey and in view of the fact that Mr. Morin informed the press and officials in Canada that he was not aware of



LEVY ON INDUSTRIAL MILK-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Given that the purported reason for the increased levy on industrial milk is to support the export of powdered skim milk, and given that 20 per cent of all exports go to the United States, and another 20 per cent go to Cuba, does the government think it fair that farmers of Canada should be forced to go broke to support Canadian consumers who can surely look after themselves, and Cuban consumers who are already supported quite heavily with aid from Canada.

July 29, 1075
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, on the export market we are competing against world prices. The producers agreed to do that, that being part of the agreement we worked out with them. They are meeting the export world price, and meeting competition mainly from the European community, which dropped the price of skim milk powder since the first of the year by $300 or $400 a ton.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and has to do with the hydro development project which will bring adverse affects to Nelson House in my province. As relations between the two levels of government have deteriorated to threats of lawsuits and counter threats of lawsuits, will the minister indicate to the House if he has asked for the resignation of all his top officials who either knew of the project and failed to take action to uphold the trusteeship of the federal government over those Indian reserve lands, or who did not know about those developments in Manitoba and ought to have known about them.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in reply to a question yesterday concerning this project, I do not share the hon. member's pessimism over the current situation between the government of Manitoba and the Government of Canada.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Whether or not the minister agrees with my pessimism, I point out that I asked him a question. Has he asked for the resignation of those departmental officials who failed to take action to protect the rights of native peoples.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is obviously repeating the question which the minister has just answered.
 * *



POST OFFICE


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General and arises from the frustration of advertisers and business people living 35 miles from each other who kept a record for 90 days of postal service. The fastest delivery took one day, and the longest took 13 days, the average being five days. My question is this: Is this an internal problem, or can the minister give some explanation, so that business people may have available a mail service upon which they can depend and so that the time span between postage and delivery may be a uniform one.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I could help the hon. member in his frustration if he would be prepared to explain whether he is talking about first class, second class, third class, fourth class or bulk mail. Until I know his statistics, and compare them with those of the post office, there is not much I can say at this moment.


Arnold John Malone: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the particular advertiser about whom I am speaking is spending $11,000 per year on stamps and since much of the mail is first class, I wonder if the minister would advise those who wish to have first class mail delivered within one day to post their mail five days in advance or, alternatively, could he talk to all 35 Liberals of the province of Alberta and have each of them jog a mile to deliver such mail?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman was really concerned about the problem of the advertiser in his constituency he would, instead of taking political advantage of the situation, call the post office and we should be glad to send him a marketing representative who would sit down with the gentleman and find out what is the exact problem. That is the responsible way of settling problems on behalf of constituents.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The Minister of National Defence issued a press release dated July 25, 1975, stating that the long range patrol aircraft proposals had been narrowed to two, one each from Lockheed and Boeing. Given the fact that this is exactly the same news as released by the Minister of National Defence on December 4, 1973, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House if this means that the concept of a mix containing Lock-heeds, Boeings, plus some de Havilland DASH 7's has now been discarded?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot give the answer at present. I will have to take the question as notice. We made some advance in narrowing the options, but whether this particular one is still open I am not quite certain.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. The option, according to the press release dated December, 1973, was narrowed to two aircraft a year and a half ago. Can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the government will come to a firm decision at some future date and can he let us know the firm date on which the government will finally decide as between the Boeing and the Lockheed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, one of the reasons we were unable to reach a decision at our recent meeting was that on almost the day
July 29, 1975

before we had our meeting we obtained fresh proposals from some of those who are interested in undertaking the work. In the circumstances we felt it desirable to give all of these proposals further study.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. In view of the uncertainty surrounding the holding of future meetings of the standing committee, can the chairman indicate on what dates the committee proposes to meet and what witnesses it proposes to hear?


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for York-Simcoe knows, there is no uncertainty whatever about the dates on which the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections is to meet. The steering committee had made its recommendation, and I will, accordingly, call meetings for August 11, 12, 13 and 14. In order, the witnesses appearing will be the learned parliamentary counsel, the representatives of the Gazette, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and several witnesses whose names appeared in the Gazette articles. They will appear on the fourteenth, the Thursday of that week.



POSSIBILITY MINISTER OF FINANCE WILL APPEAR AS WITNESS-INQUIRY AS TO CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MINISTER AND MEMBER FOR KENORA-RAINY RIVER

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister be willing to appear before the committee. Second, has he ascertained whether there was any correspondence between himself and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River between the dates in May and November, that is, between the two budget dates. If so, will he table the correspondence in the House, as I requested him to do on July 25.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am at the disposal of any committee of the House of Commons, at their request-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: You are at
their disposal, but not disposable.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the second part of the question is that we have searched our records and there is no correspondence between the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and myself between the dates of the May and the November budgets relating to the matter involved in this inquiry.
Oral Questions VETERANS AFFAIRS



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF BILL RELATING TO HONG KONG AND EUROPEAN PRISONERS OF WAR

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will the minister consider tabling, before the House rises for its recess, the government's bill implementing the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs with respect to Canadian prisoners of war, both Hong Kong and European?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I feel, judging by rumours on Parliament Hill, that I probably will not have time to do this. The presentation of the committee was made available to parliament a few weeks ago. There has not been enough time to work on it. It is being prepared for presentation to cabinet. If the House rises at the time predicted, I do not think I will have time to do what the hon. member asks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If there is not time for the minister to present the bill before we recess, can he tell us today if the government has accepted the recommendations of the standing committee?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the matter will go through the proper procedure, and when I have the information to that effect, I will be glad to let the House know.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: In view of the fact that there are several matters concerning the hon. gentleman's department concerning which I am trying to get responsible action, would the Postmaster General undertake to come to the Moncton riding during the coming recess so that the communities concerned can meet with the Postmaster General to get his reaction to the situation.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Like all cabinet ministers I shall not be having a recess.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: However, I would be awfully happy to go to Moncton at the earliest opportunity for a variety of reasons, not all of them connected with the Post Office.
Oral Questions



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
July 29, 1975

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: In view of the fact there may be a recess some time this summer or this fall, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It arises from comments at a Liberal pow-wow of the minister of communications in Quebec attributing bias to the Supreme Court of Canada, and since the minister of communications is a Liberal I wondered, since the Supreme Court of Canada cannot defend itself, whether the Minister of Justice has had a chance to look at the remarks of the hon. Mr. L'Allier and discuss this with the premier of Quebec so that something can be put on the record to clarify the situation, or will the minister use the opportunity of the Canadian Bar meetings to be held in Quebec City this fall to say something about this question?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: I have not yet had a chance to see the remarks in question. Certainly, the press reports indicate that it would be worth emphasizing the value, quality and independence of the Supreme Court. But I do not think I would want to comment further without seeing the actual remarks.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have not seen the program of the Canadian Bar which is meeting in Quebec City this fall, but ordinarily the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister is one of the main speakers at that convention. Does the minister think it is important enough, if there is not a forum in which to say something before then, for the hon. gentleman or the Prime Minister to make that one of his main points at the Canadian Bar meeting and if this is really a point in the minister's mind which is causing a problem between the ministers of communication of the country shouldn't this be clarified so that the stalemate might be resolved?


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member is wrong in thinking that such a speech is ordinarily made at the Canadian Bar. That does happen from time to time, but I am sure the hon. member does not really mind very much in which forum such a statement will be made.



SUGGESTED SENDING TO MR. L'ALLIER OF COPIES OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS UPHOLDING PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Would the minister of Justice consider sending to Mr. L'Allier copies of decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada over the years which have upheld provincial jurisdiction in all the provinces because this is an extremely important matter having regard to the position of the court in our constitutional system?


Otto Emil Lang: If the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has a spare set of the Supreme Court reports that he would like to see shipped, and is willing to give them, I might be able to arrange the freight.


Walter David Baker: I will get them for you.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Where's your leadership?



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to address my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, his presence having been promised us yesterday; I do not know whether the Postmaster General is still acting for him today. Can the minister provide some explanation of the acute shortage of home canning supplies, particularly wide mouth jar lids being experienced in South Central British Columbia and elsewhere and, if so, what steps are being taken to overcome the shortage?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I was quite honest in my remarks yesterday in saying the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was unavoidably absent because of illness. He telephoned this morning to tell me that this illness makes it impossible for him to be here today. I know that this subject is one of continuing interest to the hon. member and that he first brought it to the attention of the minister many months ago. I imagine there has been an intensive study of the position, and I am sure my colleague will be glad to turn it over to the hon. member as soon as he returns.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture; it is supplementary to others which have been asked in the House. In view of the continuing concern which has been expressed by members on this side of the House and by milk producers, industrial producers in particular, and having some appreciation of the problem the minister faces with reference to this situation, I ask the minister, if he does not intend to amend the present dairy policy, and I appreciate the difficulty in that regard, whether he will discuss the possibility of producing a special program to cope with this situation in co-operation with his cabinet colleagues-I have in mind the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Eugene Whelan: We have already had meetings with the dairy industry and with one of the provincial dairy organizations. We have discussed all the pros and cons of what can be done. I have never at any time said I thought that what they were being subjected to was fair. They realize the position they are in. They have made suggestions and we are considering those suggestions. We have made some ourselves for
July 29, 1975

consideration, but as to what will come of this, we shall have to be a little patient and wait and see what is going to happen. It is a problem which is not easy to solve. It is a condition which did not exist last year but exists this year.
I may say, in all honesty, that I do not think the condition which exists is going to be a long term condition.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one which was put to the Minister of Transport by the hon. member for South Shore. In view of a statement made by the Canadian Airline Pilots Association on behalf of seven major Canadian aviation associations to the effect that the very concept of bilingual air traffic services should be rejected because of the inherent degradation of safety standards due to the possibility of misunderstanding, will the minister assure the House that the government will not take any unilateral action which would jeopardize complete and rapid comprehension of all communications by all pilots so as to ensure passenger safety?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Did he say "No"?



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. How did Canada vote at the International Women's Year Conference in Mexico City on a resolution condemning Zionism?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that technically the question is directed to the hon. parliamentary secretary through the Minister of Health.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Canadian delegation, in Committee I as well as in the plenary sessions, any time the word "Zionism" was put into a clause or an attempt was made to do so, voted with Israel against any inclusion of the word.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why did Canada abstain rather than vote "No"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening I gave notice of a question of privilege that I intended to raise
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
today. I do not intend to pursue my question of privilege. I am pleased to report that a further steering committee meeting was held at 12 noon today, at which time four standing committee meetings of the privileges and elections committee were arranged and witnesses proposed. I believe that my point of privilege which I intended to raise is no longer necessary, and I hope that in future we will not have the frustration that we went through last night with the chairman using a double vote.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights and privileges of all members of parliament. On July 17 I wrote you expressing my concern over a newspaper report that the government had contracted with Bell Canada for a computerized device that will log the source, time, date, duration and, most important, the destination of long distance telephone calls made over the government's leased lines.
At the' time I wrote you it was unclear whether these devices could be used to log calls made from the offices of members of parliament or from the press gallery. This morning my office was able to confirm with the government telecommunications agency that long distance telephone calls made by members of parliament over the direct inter-city lines may indeed be logged. It is for that reason that I rise now to raise this question of privilege at the earliest possible opportunity.
The facts of the case are as follows. This June the Department of Communications contracted with Bell Canada for traffic data service for the 35,000 line government telephone system in the national capital region at a cost of $1.5 million. The contract is for a duration of five years, beginning last month. What the equipment does is to log calls being placed on the inter-city lines in order to provide departments with information they can use to prevent improper use of the leased lines by government employees. As I indicated earlier, it will record the source, date, duration, time and destination of calls made over the leased lines. My understanding is that such a system is already in effect in Vancouver and Edmonton, and is also being considered for other centres.
I should stress that this system does not listen in on calls in any way; what it does is to record vital information about the nature of the calls, including the telephones from which calls are placed and those to which they are placed.
The implications of this new program for our ability to discharge our responsibilities as members of parliament are serious. One of the most basic principles in a representative democracy is that citizens should be able to talk freely with their representatives about confidential mat-

July 29, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
ters, and this new computerized equipment will give the government the ability to log calls made legally and properly between a member of parliament and a citizen of this country. The installation of this equipment thus represents a substantial new encroachment upon the rights and privileges of all members of parliament.
If your Honour finds that I have a prima facie case of privilege, then I would propose to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark):
That this House instructs the government to program its telephone logging equipment not to record the destination of calls made from the offices of members of parliament on the government's leased inter-city telephone lines.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) is anxious to make an intervention, but before he does so may I inform the House that upon receipt of the letter to which the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) referred in his remarks I asked that an investigation be commenced. My preliminary reports are reassuring in respect to the nature of this equipment that is involved; however, they are only in the nature of preliminary reports.
My proposal is to reserve on this question and hold it over for whatever recess does take place, and when the investigation for which I asked is completed the hon. member will see a copy of the report. Then other hon. members might have an opportunity to consider it at a later time. If any member of the House is not entirely satisfied with respect to the nature of the equipment and any dangers involved in it in regard to the protection of privacy, the matter can stand over until that time for further determination of whether or not it should be referred to one of the standing committees of the House.


Gérard Pelletier: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out the existence-which I already knew-of the inquiry recommended by your Honour, and the fact that the hon. member has a rather dangerous way of using words. For instance, when he was speaking of that equipment as revealing the nature of a telephone call, I fail to understand what he means; he is using words in a very, very dangerous way. He spoke about the nature of the calls, insisting that the word nature did not mean contents. But what is the nature if not the contents? Then he went on to say that members of Parliament must be free to receive confidential calls. Confidentiality has nothing to do in the present circumstances. I wanted to suggest what you have just suggested yourself, your Honour, that the inquiry actually take place and that such abuse of vocabulary be avoided in the meantime, otherwise an overall commotion may occur throughout the country for nothing at all. This may happen now and again, but it should not be an every day occurrence.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank both hon. members for their intervention. I have indicated that I will take the matter under consideration and ask that a further report be given to me. When I receive it I will send both the minister and the

hon. member a copy. The matter will be held over for further discussion at a later date.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order relating to the way that the Minister of Labour answered my question. I feel that he has, inadvertently I am sure, brought in extraneous, non-collateral matters. Although he is extremely sensitive on this matter, I would point out to him and to Your Honour that the trial to which he referred at Hamilton concerned specific criminal charges against persons whose names are well known, not respecting the general administration but facilities involving the port. I say to the minister, with all respect, even keeping in mind his reluctance to call an inquiry into the SIU, which was later justified, that he should welcome a judicial inquiry, where people could have a little more assurance than his own self-serving protestations about how good things are in Hamilton.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is distinguishing himself in this House for his indecency in casting innuendoes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: It is not a reputation that I think, over the long haul, he is going to enjoy, among even the members of his own particular party. I made reference to the total exoneration of Mr. Hickey and Mr. Lanza because the hon. member himself, and others, I think improperly, at the time raised questions during the preliminary hearing, by implication, indicating some wrong doing on this side of the House. It was impossible to answer the hon. member at that time because I myself, or others who might have attempted to answer, might have been in contempt of court. To take the position that he did, knowing that the people against whom he was casting innuendoes could not properly answer or defend themselves, I believe was disgraceful conduct, and I still believe it. I believe that the hon. member who has just risen is guilty of that kind of conduct.


Gerald William Baldwin: Make a charge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Both hon. members have now contributed to a point which was raised as a point of order in the first place. In fact it is a complaint about, or disagreement with the answer the minister initially either gave or failed to give at the time the question was put. As such it is not a valid point of order in the first instance. This simply points out the continuing difficulty that arises when the Chair permits hon. members to carry on points of order or privilege which are not even valid or prima facie. They only evoke a response from the other side which frequently contributes to further disorder in the House, and which ought to stop before it goes too far.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, without wanting to protract my comments with respect to the problem I have just raised, the minister, for some reason, I think inadvertently, clouded the issue. I stress again that I did not in any way suggest that the government was listening in on telephone calls. What I said was that it recorded vital information respecting the nature of the calls, including the telephones from which the calls were made and the
July 29, 1975

telephones to which they were made. That is very different from recording the contents. What it does is allow the government if it wants, to determine who we have been calling on government telephone lines.


An hon. Member:: How do you find out the name if you don't know the content?
Order Paper Questions


DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT-LANGUAGE TRAINING
Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of the Environment 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?


An hon. Member:: You just don't understand the English language.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest respect to the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty), in view of what the minister was raising I think this does cause some confusion. In order to have this understood I think it ought to be perfectly clear that the hon. member at one point said, and this is certainly my understanding, that the equipment is not capable of recording anything or listening to the content of a call.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: The question which has been raised, and the hon. member repeated the words, and was good enough to give me a copy of his notes, is that what it does is record vital information about the nature of the call. I take it from that that the hon. member really means information such as the origin, destination, and duration, but not the content.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is correct.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take much time of the House, but I do want to say to you, Sir, that I challenge the Minister of Labour, who has just imputed several motives to me, suggesting that I was being disgraceful in my conduct in this House and so on, to check Hansard carefully and show me and the House any questions which I asked concerning the hon. member for Hamilton East, or involving him or anyone else in this House, which were not accurate and true but were malicious and misleading in any way. I would also ask him to point out any of those questions which I asked that were ruled out of order by the Chair.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 2,561, 2,573, 2,777, 2,780, 2,815, 2,855, 2,868, 2,881, 2,901 and 2,916.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. The total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates for the Department of the Environment for language training are nil. However $777,700 was provided from Treasury Board (Vote 15) for language training.
2. (a) Nil; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) $777,700 for persons replacing employees on continuous language training.


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


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1.


[Stage Direction]
2. (a) Salaries of personnel receiving instruction are not included in the above figure since they are covered in the budget relating to their own activity, (b) and (c) Salaries of instructional staff are covered in the provision of $500,000 within the foregoing figure for the purchase of instructional services from the Public Service Commission, (d) Other costs amount to $1,135,599, made up of $541,899 for salaries of those involved in the administration of the Official Languages Program, $420,000 for travel by personnel under instruction, $30,000 for administrative travel, $100,600 for training equipment and training aids and $43,100 for miscellaneous expenses.
Mr. Lefebvre: 1.	During the fiscal year 1974-75, what was the total amount claimed in repayment for damages caused by flooding in (a) the Province of Quebec (b) the Constituency of Pontiac (c) each municipality in the Constituency of Pontiac?
2.	Of the total amount claimed in the Constituency of Pontiac, what was the amount of money and the number of claims accepted for reimbursement under the federal-provincial agreement for (a) individuals (b) provincial government (c) provincial government agencies (d) municipal governments (e) school boards (f) business and manufacturing establishments (g) any other group?
3.	Of the total amount accepted for payment in the Province of Quebec under the federal-provincial agreement, what amount will be provided by the (a) government (b) provincial government?


John Napier Turner: 1. The
federal government has offered to share the cost of assistance provided by the Province of Quebec to the victims of

Order Paper Questions
the 1974 flood. The offer of assistance was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the federal disaster assistance program, under which the federal government assumes a share of the actual costs incurred by the province. The Province of Quebec's claim for the federal share of cost covering the 1974 flood is now in the final stages of preparation, and we expect to receive this claim in the very near future.
2.	See above.
3.	See above.


Mr. Clermont: 1.	During the fiscal year 1974-75, what was the total amount claimed in repayment for damages caused by flooding in (a) the Province of Quebec (b) the Constituency of Gatineau (c) each municipality in the Constituency of Gatineau?
2.	Of the total amount claimed in the Constituency of Gatineau, what was the amount of money and the number of claims accepted for reimbursement under the federal-provincial agreement for (a) individuals (b) provincial government (c) provincial government agencies (d) municipal governments (e) school boards (f) business and manufacturing establishments (g) any other group?
3.	Of the total amount accepted for payment in the Province of Quebec under the federal-provincial agreement, what amount will be provided by the (a) government (b) provincial government?


John Napier Turner: 1. The
federal government has offered to share the cost of assistance provided by the Province of Quebec to the victims of the 1974 flood. The offer of assistance was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the federal disaster assistance program, under which the federal government assumes a share of the actual costs incurred by the province. The Province of Quebec's claim for the federal share of cost covering the 1974 flood is now in the final stages of preparation, and we expect to receive this claim in the very near future.
2.	See above.
3.	See above.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	During the fiscal year 1974-75, what was the total amount claimed in repayment for damages caused by flooding in (a) the Constituency of Vaudreuil (b) each municipality in the Constituency of Vaudreuil?
2.	Of the amount claimed in the Constituency of Vaudreuil, what was the amount of money and the number of claims accepted for reimbursement under the federal-provincial agreement for (a) individuals (b) provincial government (c) provincial government agencies (d) municipal governments (e) school boards (f) business and manufacturing establishments (g) any other group?


John Napier Turner: 1. The
federal government has offered to share the cost of assistance provided by the Province of Quebec to the victims of the 1974 flood. The offer of assistance was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the federal disaster assistance program, under which the federal government assumes a share of the actual costs incurred by the province. The Province of Quebec's claim for the federal share

of cost covering the 1974 flood is now in the final stages of preparation, and we expect to receive this claim in the very near future.
2. See above.


Mr. Blais: 1.	What is the total amount of outstanding loans made by the Industrial Development Bank in Northeastern Ontario in offices served by the Northern Ontario district office in Sault Ste-Marie?
2.	What is the total amount of outstanding loans administered by the Sudbury office of the Industrial Development Bank and, how many were made in the judicial district of Nipissing?
3.	What percentage of loans made by the Sudbury office during the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74, were advanced to borrowers carrying on business in the district of Nipissing?


John Napier Turner: 1. At
March 31, 1975 IDB had $44,151,000 outstanding in loans, investments, and guarantees to 1,279 customers in the Northern Ontario District. In the six months ended Marc 31, 1975 IDB approved 222 loans for a total amount of $7,836,000 to borrowers in Northern Ontario District.
2.	The IDB does not publish in its annual report or in periodic press releases information concerning its lending activities by branches or by judicial districts.
3.	The IDB does not publish in its annual report or in periodic press releases information concerning its lending activities by branches or by judicial districts.


Mr. Brisco: Was the organization of Scientology investigated by the Department of National Revenue and, if so, what were the findings?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Customs and Excise: On December 30, 1970, the Department's Customs Tariff Division ruled that the Church of Scientology was entitled to import goods free of duty under tariff item 69605-1. Tariff item 69605-1 provides for the importation of numerous products when for the use of any society or institution incorporated or established solely for religious, educational, scientific and certain other purposes. In 1974 the matter was reviewed and on December 19, 1974 a ruling was issued which withdrew the privileges of tariff item 69605-1 inasmuch as the Church of Scientology was not considered to be solely a religious institution. Taxation: Under the secrecy provision of the Income Tax Act, the Department is unable to provide the information requested.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1. For the 1974 taxation year, how many individual tax filers claimed deductions from personal income tax for contributions to Registered
July 29, 1975

Homeownership Savings Plans and what was the total amount claimed?
2.	For Canada and for each province, how many individual tax filers claimed deductions and what was the total amount claimed by (a) income group (i) under $5,000 (ii) $5,000-$9,999 (iii) $10,000-$14,999 (iv) $15,000-$19,999 (v) $20,000-$24,999 (vi) $25,000-$49,999 (vii) over $50,000 (b) age group (i) under 20 (ii) 20-30 (iii) 31-40 (iv) 41-50 (v) 51-60 (vi) over 60?
3.	How many individual tax filers claimed deductions and what was the total amount claimed, by type of financial institution dealt with (chartered banks, life insurance, trust or mortgage companies)?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The
information requested is not available at the present time as Registered Home Ownership Savings Plans are a new deduction for 1974. A detailed analysis of this item will not be made until all 1974 tax returns are processed.


Mr. Forrestall: Will the $.5 million cutback in the Airport Security Programme affect the employment in Atlantic Canada of any members of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires and, if so, in what locations?


Jean Marchand: It is not
anticipated that the $.5 million cutback in the Airport Security Programme will affect the employment of any members of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Mazankowski: Will the expansion of the Office of the Auditor General and the investigation by Judge Estey of the financial structure of Air Canada lead the Minister of Transport to consider amending the CNR Act to permit the Auditor General to investigate annually the books of Air Canada and CNR?


Jean Marchand: Until Mr. Estey's enquiry has been completed and his recommendations made and studied, we will not proceed with any specific action on matters within Mr. Estey's jurisdiction.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, on June 20 I placed on the order paper, a very simple but obviously embarrassing question to the government, question No. 2833 as follows:
1.	How many consultants were hired by the Fisheries and Marine Service, Department of the Environment, in the past two years?
2.	(a) What were their names and salaries (b) what was their length of employment?
3.	Were public tenders called before they were hired?
Because over a month has passed since that very simple question was placed on the order paper, it seems to me that the government could provide an answer, and I wish it would do so soon as I should like to have that information.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a similar question of privilege in that all the questions answered today were asked at a period of time after one I asked, the answer to which is certainly within the knowledge of the Prime Minister. It pertains to potential conflicts of inter-
Excise Tax Act
est on the part of members of his cabinet. For the life of me I cannot understand why the question has not been answered before now. If this is the last day of the session and that question is permitted to die on the order paper, I warn the hon. member right now that it will be asked again in many more ways than that single way.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I very rarely abuse the House with this kind of a question of privilege having to do with a question on the order paper. I have had one question on the order paper since January 22. The answers involved will be very relevant to the royal commission inquiry on railways in western Canada this fall. The parliamentary secretary would do all of western Canada a favour if he would ascertain what has happened to that question. Since it is the twelfth oldest question on the order paper and the only one standing in my name, I would appreciate if the hon. member would advise when it will be answered.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I too very seldom rise to ask when answers will be given to questions I have placed on the order paper. On November 25, 1974, I placed the following question on the order paper, to which I have not yet received an answer:
1.	Does Power Corporation have any direct or indirect interest in exploration, importation, sale or transmission of any energy resource and, if so, what aspects and what resources?
2.	Does the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have a direct or indirect interest by trust, family, or corporate device in Power Corporation or in any corporation providing capital of any kind in these areas and, if so, what is the nature of his holdings?
This question, which has been on the order paper since November and to which I have not yet received an answer, is extremely important to our conduct as opposition members in this House.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I just want to assure hon. members who have made representations that I will undertake to get a progress report on their questions. I am sure that all hon. members will be interested to know that a total of 83 per cent of the questions on the order paper have been answered to date.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, July 28, consideration in committee of Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Penner in the chair.
On Clause 5 as amended.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose last evening Clause 5 as amended was under consideration, with an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and the hon. member for Nickel Belt had the floor.

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, to recap what we were doing last evening let me say that my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, had introduced an amendment.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no; not again.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was not in the House all day yesterday so I will have to repeat what I said.
Last evening the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre introduced an amendment to Clause 5 which asks that the rebate be extended to workers who must use their cars to go to and from work. In responding last evening the Minister of Finance pointed out in effect that it was essential to his program that no rebate be given to workers who must use their cars to go to and from work.
One of the interesting comments the minister made at that time was to the effect that one aim of Bill C-66 was to change the lifestyle of Canadians, dissuading them from using their cars for what he called luxurious travel. At the time I asked whose lifestyle would be changed by the bill. Certainly it would not force the rich to conserve energy because they can jolly well afford to continue to drive the largest cars possible, for any purpose whatsoever. Therefore no change will result in the lifestyle of the rich.
I also pointed out at the time that the government must maintain some credibility in the eyes of the electorate or the people the government governs. When the Canadian people see members of the cabinet sitting in the backs of great big limousines being driven from the Centre Block to the Confederation Building they lose confidence in respect of government credibility. This is not credibility in the eyes of the Canadian consumer.
The minister suggested last evening, in his reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that people should get involved in car pools. I do not see ministers getting involved in all kinds of car pools.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has now expired.


John R. Rodriguez: Could I get an extension?


Some hon. Members:: No.


B. Keith Penner: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


B. Keith Penner: The question is on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)) negatived: Yeas, 22; nays, 51.


B. Keith Penner: I declare the amendment negatived. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I rise to-
[The Deputy Chairman.]


B. Keith Penner: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, Sir. I am rising to continue discussion on Clause 5 and to move an amendment.


B. Keith Penner: I regret, but the hon. member for Victoria was to be recognized for that purpose.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are in committee of the whole; you recognized me and I have the floor. Are you taking it away from me?


B. Keith Penner: I recognized the hon. member, having the impression he was rising on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order may I say I at no time said "point of order". I rose because you recognized me. I proceeded to speak. I was not rising on a point of order. You have no grounds to assume I was rising on a point of order.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The Chair has no intention to enter into a debate with the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. The Chair rose to ask whether the hon. member was rising on a point of order. The hon. member for Victoria.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can only say to my hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre that if he had been recognized I probably would have risen on a point of order because I have been waiting for several days, through several New Democratic Party amendments, for an opportunity to move my amendment. I shall not take up a great deal of the time of the House. I should like first to state my amendment. I have copies of it. I have had some difficulty because, having had the amendment prepared, I was somewhat discomfited by the Minister of Finance producing an amendment which made some difference in the numbering of the paragraphs. I have had it redrafted, with the help of the finest legal advice I can obtain free of charge in this House. The amendment is as follows:
That Bill C-66, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, be amended in Clause 5 by
(a)	striking out 'or' at the end of line 31 and adding 'or' at the end of
line 36 on page 2 thereof;
(b)	adding immediately after line 36 on page 2 the following:
(f) a person for the purpose of commuting between his residence and place of employment, where such person is unable by reason of physical disability to commute conveniently by another means.
(c)	striking out lines 9 and 10 on page 3 thereof and substituting the
following therefor:
the expressions 'commercial or business purposes' and 'physical disability' shall have much meaning as the
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you will realize that as time went on it became more and more difficult to keep track of the amendments. I introduced into my consideration the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which has just been dealt with, and the other amendment, and I now again have a newly revised version of my amendment. I therefore move:
That Bill C-66, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, be amended in clause 5, as amended, by
July 29, 1975

(a)	striking out 'or' at the end of line 31 and adding 'or' at the end of
sub-para, (g) thereof;
(b)	adding after sub-para, (g) on page 2 the following:
(h) a person for the purpose of commuting between his residence and place of employment, where such person is unable by reason of physical disability to commute conveniently by another means.
(c)	striking out lines 9 and 10 on page 3 thereof and substituting the
following therefor:
the expressions 'commercial or business purposes' and 'physical disability' shall have such meaning as the
That is the amendment I should like to see adopted. I spoke on this subject twice previously during this debate. The simple thrust of the amendment is that handicapped people would receive rebates in the same manner as some other people. I am aware that the minister in paragraph (g) of his amendment included the following:
a person of such other class of persons as the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe,
This may or may not relate to handicapped people. I leave it to the discretion of the Chair and the House, but I ask for very careful consideration of this amendment. I do not see why handicapped people, at a very small cost to the government, could not be included in this. It is important to these people that they have the support of the community. I ask, and would be most grateful for, the support of the House in respect of this amendment.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. member has said. He referred to the clause which was reinserted as a result of reconciling the bill with the ways and means motion in subparagraph (g) which he recited, in paragraph (a) of Clause 5. I can give the hon. member an undertaking that I will seek out ways of achieving what he wants to achieve. I prefer to do it by regulation because of the wide variety of circumstances involved, because of the necessity of establishing the availability of transportation, and because of the necessity of establishing how we determine who is and who is not handicapped, which is difficult to do when you have a bland statement, if I may say so, in a statute, and also because of the difficulty of defining, for instance, such words as "commute conveniently" and other such language in the proposed amendment. These are difficulties which are anticipated, and the matter can be dealt with more flexibly and more to the hon. gentleman's liking, and also meet his purpose better than if it were put in the statute.
Having given him this undertaking, I gather the hon. member has the choice of either pursuing his amendment or of relying on my determination to achieve what he wants to achieve by regulation under this clause.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I am very pleased with the words of the Minister of Finance. It was precisely to enable the governor in council to define the meaning of those words that I thought they should be part of an amendment which applied to page three of the bill, which gives the governor in council the right to define the phrases "commercial or business purposes" and "physical disability". The only reservation I have about taking the word of the Minister of Finance is, of course, the uncertainty of the cabinet positions. I accept his word on almost anything, but there
Excise Tax Act
are others on the other side in whom I would not place so much trust, unfortunately. However, I do thank the minister, and perhaps any speakers who care to follow me might care to express an opinion on this matter. At present I appear to be in a "no lose" situation. I can either lose the amendment or have the minister break his given word to me.
I certainly accept the word of the minister that handicapped people will be allowed to get rebates if it is on the clear understanding that people generally known as handicapped, who have special provisions made to get to work and back, may claim a rebate. If that is so, it will be quite acceptable to me.


B. Keith Penner: May I inquire of the hon. member for Victoria whether he wishes to proceed with the debate on this amendment or seek leave of the committee to have the amendment withdrawn?


John Napier Turner: I want to make it perfectly clear that there are many variables in what the hon. member is trying to achieve. There is the definition of handicapped, there is the nature of the transportation which is eligible or not eligible for a rebate, there is the availability of substitute transportation, there is the purpose of transportation, and so on. I will attempt to incorporate all this into the regulations, if that could be achieved, to meet the requirements so far as possible, but the variety of situations is immense.
So far as possible I will try to meet the purpose of his amendment, but I think that no one can give him a guarantee. What I say as Minister of Finance binds the government, but no one can guarantee that the full blanket purpose he wants can be achieved because of the variety of situations which exists. However, I will do my best to try to reconcile the variables inherent in the situation.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: In view of the promise which I believe I have from the Minister of Finance, I will accept the minister's undertaking and withdraw my amendment.


B. Keith Penner: Does the hon. member have leave of the committee to withdraw the amendment he proposed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. McKinnon) withdrawn.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I regret the fact that the hon. member has withdrawn his excellent amendment. The minister has said that there might be difficulty in defining the word "handicapped". Surely that is not an argument. The Minister of National Health and Welfare and all provincial ministers can tell the Minister of Finance what the definition of "handicapped" is, and so can the Welfare Council of Canada and the people who administer the Canada Pension Plan. This reminds me of the kind of advice President Nixon received regarding the disadvantaged and black people in the United States, that is, "let us treat them with benign neglect".
We should not have had to ask the government to include something in this legislation that should be obvious. The handicapped should automatically be entitled to a

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act
full rebate, whether they are driving for pleasure, driving to work, or driving for any other purpose. The government wants to chisel a few cents a gallon from paraplegics and people suffering from multiple sclerosis.
If the Liberals were true Liberals they would not need to be asked for such a provision. No member of the House should have had to move such an amendment. It should have been in the legislation. But oh, the cabinet, these benign fellows, these benevolent people, will do it by order in council and will define who is handicapped and who is not handicapped, whether they are driving a car or travelling by bus. The few tens of thousands of people in this country who are handicapped should be automatically precluded from paying the tax-they should be getting the full rebate.
I have a letter from a senior official in a branch of the government of Saskatchewan. He is a full time employee, a paraplegic who drives a specially equipped car. He is driving his car in contravention of this bill. He drives to work five days a week, twice a day. He is not entitled to a rebate. That would be in contravention of this legislation. The minister says he will give an undertaking to consider the situation. That is very nice and very big of him. Big deal! He gives an undertaking to consider this. I would think he should have moved his own amendment to the legislation. This shows the inadequacy of his dummy advisers on this legislation.
I am sorry the hon. member for Victoria has withdrawn his amendment. This is so obvious that it should be part and parcel of the law, not part and parcel of the benign neglect or benign consideration or benevolence of the cabinet. I will move an amendment, Mr. Chairman. I move:
That Clause 5, as amended, be amended by adding to subclause (c) immediately after the word "purposes", the words: "or a person who is handicapped,"


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I certainly did not intend to take up more time of the House on this matter. In my opinion the House can only operate when both sides co-operate. If the Minister of Finance tells me that it would make it easier to leave it to his discretion to define exactly what a handicapped person is and what commute means, I am willing to accept his word as a gentleman and as minister of the Crown. For that reason I intend to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre because I have confidence that the Minister of Finance will bring this in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a very brief comment on the amendment. I intended to do so on the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Victoria, and I would just like the minister to add to the very generous, real, and honest undertaking he has given, a provision to the effect that it will not just be persons who are handicapped using their vehicles to travel but also those who have to be taken in vehicles. I am thinking of some of the vehicles provided by service clubs which carry handicapped people to clinics where they receive treatment. The service clubs should also be included in the list of exemptions, and I really feel that

this is what the minister has in mind, but I would not want the opportunity to go by without giving him the opportunity to confirm my understanding.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria, but it is not a question of accepting the minister's word. I accept the minister's word, and if he will examine my amendment again, he will find that it does not just deal with people driving to and from work. This would exclude the handicapped completely whether driving for work, pleasure, or anything else. Is this country so hard up that we have to chisel ten cents per gallon from people who are handicapped no matter how they move around? The purpose of my amendment is to prevent that. That is all we are asking, and in no way can the minister give his word or his undertaking to incorporate that in an order in council. I would not expect him to do that. He cannot give us that kind of commitment at this point in time. There is no way he can, and I would not be so bold as to ask him to do so. All I am suggesting is that this amendment covers all the handicapped. They are entitled to a full rebate no matter how they travel. That is the thrust and the purpose of my amendment.
I wish to read to the House from a letter I received as follows:
... I am writing to you to seek advice on a matter which is giving me cause for considerable concern. It relates to the recent tax increases on gasoline.
In my professional capacity ... one of my senior staff members, our Chief Record Review Officer, is a paraplegic. His only means of transportation, other than his wheel chair, is his car.
While it is quite apparent that the rest of Canadian society has to put up with the current gasoline price increases, I am wondering whether the government in Ottawa might be approached to give some kind of consideration to providing some relief to handicapped persons who rely exclusively on their vehicles for the purposes of transportation.
I appreciate full well that structuring and programming a proposal of this kind would probably create difficulties. However, in view of the fact that so many handicapped people, after rehabilitation, are able to lead relatively normal lives, I think it is a proposal which might be worthy of consideration, especially in view of the fact that most handicapped people-particularly in the category to which I have made reference-would find it virtually impossible to use a smaller vehicle.
There should be no question about agreement on this matter, even if my amendment is not worded well enough or is improperly placed in clause 5 as amended in order to accomplish the total exclusion of the handicapped from the payment of this tax, whether it is for driving to and from work, for pleasure, or for the countless times every year they have to go to clinics for physical therapy, considering the money they must spend on specially equipped cars, despite the money which service clubs raise for that purpose. It should not have to go to a cabinet meeting.


Gerald William Baldwin: They shouldn't even have to pay the tax.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They should not have to pay it in the first place, but they should at least be entitled to a rebate for every mile driven in a specially equipped car, and I will not accept this nonsense about the definition of handicapped. Someone who has to have a specially equipped car is obviously handicapped. There should be no question about it, and if some bureaucrat sitting up in that gallery like a crow on a fence wants to nit pick about something like that, I would fire him tomorrow. There should be no question about it. The whole damn legislation is nonsense
July 29, 1975

in the first place, and then the minister says that he will give an undertaking to consider this matter. What is there to consider? There should be no question about it from any hon. member anywhere in this House or from any person in this country.
The fact that we would even countenance legislation which would require a handicapped person to pay one cent extra per gallon, for any gallon for any purpose whatsoever, does not speak very well for this government, for this parliament, or for the kind of society in which we live. I ask this committee to accept this amendment without any further discussion. If it is not prepared to do that, I am prepared to stay here until August or September.


Mrs. Holt:: That is your intention.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Chairman, I had earlier proposed to support the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria. It was worthy of him and the people he represents, as it is of all of us. I am sure that all hon. members in this House have received letters such as the one which I would like to place on the record. It reads as follows:
We are having problems as my husband has emphysema and cannot get his breath; can't walk but a short distance: and is unable to get out to go to town or around anywhere. We are wanting to know if we can get in on the tax exemption of the ten cents a gallon on gas. My husband has to have oxygen in our home which can be taken along by car or truck. Please let us know as soon as possible on this matter ...
I presume that the minister will agree to include this category of person among those exempted, and I hope my colleagues will go along with me and reserve judgment on this and see just exactly what the application will be as it applies to these people. Personally I do not propose to vote on this amendment at this time in reserving this judgment.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak on this amendment, but I was moved by the eloquence of my colleague, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We won't be moved by yours.


John R. Rodriguez: I hope the hon. member and the hon. member for Victoria will be moved to agree to support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.
Something else has occurred to me. The minister says that he will undertake to consider an order in council which would permit rebates to handicapped persons who must use specially designed vehicles or who must be transported to and from work. Surely one does not have to do too much checking to find out if a person is handicapped when he needs a car with special controls. Surely that would not happen if he were just pretending to be totally handicapped so that he could have the benefit of the rebate.
Surely it would not be difficult for the minister to accept an amendment which would permit those who are handicapped and who must use special vehicles, or be driven for pleasure or for work, to be excluded. They have to use those cars for their transportation. Surely it is not beyond this bureaucracy to devise that kind of system. In a country which designed the tallest freestanding building
Excise Tax Act
in the world are we saying that we are unable to deal with such a simple bureaucratic measure?
In a country which designs buildings in order to put on the magnificent exhibition of the Olympics in 1976, is its government incapable of designing a simple amendment which will permit handicapped people to be exempt from this iniquitous ten cents tax? We have accomplished the impossible. We have put up the highest stack and cleaned up air pollution.


An hon. Member:: And sent it to Parry Sound.


John R. Rodriguez: And we sent it to Parry Sound. That is Inco's way of solving that problem, but I am not asking the government to do anything as simple as that. I am asking it to do something even simpler. Very simply, we ought to design an amendment which will take care of that concern. Mr. Chairman, I have heard many assurances. I have heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare give assurances about the regulations governing certain types of disability under Canada Pension Plan disability provisions. We know what happens when regulations are implemented. The regulations determine if somebody qualifies. We have heard assurances given by cabinet ministers, and we have heard other ministers assure us that they will consider a matter. But, Mr. Chairman, the assurance to consider does not amount to a hill of beans.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Not to a hill of slag.


John R. Rodriguez: As my hon. friend says, it does not amount to a hill of slag. The only assurance we will accept is the minister's assurance, in black and white, that he will accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. Alternatively, the minister can introduce his own amendment, which must be to similar effect. That is the only assurance the opposition will accept.
Sure, we know that the minister is an honourable man, but the bureaucrats determine how legislation shall be interpreted, and often they have the last word. I have seen their interpretation of Section 149(9) of the Unemployment Insurance Act concerning what constitutes an active job search. I have seen the decisions handed down with regard to disability covered by the Canadian Pension Plan. I have seen all this, and I am afraid it stinks. I cannot accept the minister's assurance, as the bureaucrats play a large role in determining the regulations.
I ask members of the Conservative opposition to my right to support the amendment. Surely the hon, member for Victoria will support us. Or, if the minister wishes to introduce his own amendment, perhaps he can consider the matter during the supper hour and then move it. Perhaps we could stand consideration of this part of the bill in order to allow the minister to bring in an amendment which will satisfy him.
I know hon. members are anxious to go on holiday, but the handicapped are equally anxious to hear the government's definitive answer. We are here to uphold their rights, and it is my responsibility, as a member of parliament, to do my best for the handicapped and to obtain a
8034

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act
commitment from the government not just a promise to consider.
I urge hon. members to support my colleague's amendment. Let them consider it as an opposition amendment, as the hon. member for Victoria moved a similar amendment. We would have supported it if it had been allowed to stand. We urge hon. members to vote in support of the amendment as we think that is the kind of assurance the handicapped of this country deserve.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, when I was speaking about the intent of my amendment I meant to say that the handicapped should be totally exempt from the effects of the tax and that rebates ought to be paid if they drive to work, drive for pleasure, or drive for any purpose at all, which could include driving for medical treatment, for physical therapy or anything else. As I say, they ought to be totally exempt. The effect of paragraph C of the amendment will be that it would give all handicapped people entitlement to rebate. The amendment would cover all those driving especially equipped vehicles. Certainly, hardly any except the handicapped drive such vehicles.
On second thoughts, perhaps my own amendment is deficient. Perhaps I ought to have added another subparagraph widening the definition. Possibly there ought to be amendments to other clauses in the bill. In any event, I think all hon. members understand what I, the hon. member for Victoria, and others have been trying to do. I hope the hon. member for Victoria will support this amendment which, I submit, will be of benefit to the handicapped. They ought to be eligible for a rebate of the gasoline tax, no matter for what purpose they drive.


An hon. Member:: Then why not do it properly?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Speak out, doc; I suspect this question is bothering you; if so, why not make a speech?
I should be willing to accept the minister's word, if he will give an undertaking and I do not mean an undertaking to consider, but an undertaking to act. If he will undertake that subsequent orders in council under subparagraph (g) will apply to the handicapped, no matter whether they drive their own car, whether their spouse drives, or whether any other person drives, I shall be satisfied. After all, the vehicle will be registered in the name of the handicapped person, and anybody else with a driver's licence can drive the vehicle.
If the minister will consider giving an undertaking to do this, instead of giving an undertaking to consider, I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment. But we must obtain that total undertaking from the minister, and if he gives it I will accept his word more quickly than anybody else in this committee. But I want him to give that total commitment, namely, that the order in council will provide that all handicapped shall be entitled to rebates of this tax, no matter for what purpose the vehicle is being driven and no matter who is driving the vehicle.
In Regina many of the handicapped who go to the special facilities in the Wascanna Hospital are driven there by their spouses. But anybody else can drive the car whether or not the handicapped person is in it; and, therefore I suppose the government could lose some small sums of money. That could well be, Mr. Chairman, but I

would rather take the risk that someone may try to do this, and I suggest it will happen rarely, than refuse the handicapped the right to rebate. Why should the handicapped who drive three or four times a week to the Wascanna Hospital in Regina pay ten cents per gallon more?
Proof of handicap could be supplied by the medical officer in charge of the case, who could witness or attest any kind of form which the Minister of National Revenue may devise for the purpose. The forms could also be signed by people connected with social agencies, municipal, provincial or federal. Any person connected with the medical field could attest. If that is what the minister wants, I suggest the Minister of National Revenue and his officials can design the appropriate forms to be signed by the handicapped, their families, and by medical and social agency personnel.
Surely the government is not worried because a few people may gyp it out of a few hundred dollars of tax. If the government is so worried, it can ask people to attest on any form it wishes to design. The important thing is that gasoline used by or on behalf of the handicapped should be subject to tax rebate, and there is no reason why this cannot be done.
I am certain this matter could be thoroughly covered in the regulations. I am certain that people connected with social agencies will co-operate fully with the Minister of National Revenue. Surely it is the least we can do. We have not been able to convince the government not to impose a tax on working people. We have not succeeded in that regard. Professional people may obtain a rebate, but not working people. Surely we can succeed on behalf of the handicapped.
If the minister will give a straight undertaking, not an undertaking to consider, but an undertaking to do as I suggest, I should be happy to withdraw my amendment. Unless he is prepared to do so, I think the committee ought to vote on the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Benjamin) negatived: Yeas, 7; nays, 46.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I intend to move another amendment on the same lines as the one I moved yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Peace River indicated yesterday that he has an amendment to page three. The hon. member for Rimouski told us he has an amendment to page two. Perhaps the earlier one should be taken first.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will postpone mine.


B. Keith Penner: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for pointing out that there is an earlier amendment. The hon. member for Rimouski did give the Chair notice of that amendment and we should hear him at this time.
July 29, 1975


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, indeed I said yesterday that I wanted to move a subamendment to clause 5. I want to do so to enable the worker who has to use his car to go to work to be also eligible for the refund of the 10 cents tax on a gallon of a gas as the persons referred to in that clause.
Indeed, why such discrimination against a group of Canadian people who are subjected to the same laws and the same duties as other Canadians. Moreover, that tax penalizes more especially the active class of our society. The government is penalizing the workers who through their labour enable the companies and certain classes of society to increase their profits.
This week's Financial Post, dated July 26, 1975, features a list of more than a hundred of the largest companies in Canada whose sales have increased by 23 per cent in 1973-74, thus rising from $52 billion to $64 billion. However, out of that amount, only about 3 per cent represent a real increase, the remainder being the result of inflation.
Mr. Chairman, our economic policy is meant to promote constantly the increase of capital at the expense of labour and the purchasing power of our fellow citizens. Anyhow, in this context, the rich gather billions in net profits thus reducing the purchasing power of our fellow citizens.
And those who suffer most from it are low income earners and the citizens who do not have a decent or appropriate purchasing power. The pretences advanced by the government are at best doubtful when they say that the tax is imposed to conserve gas and establish uniform prices throughout Canada. First, nothing proves there will be economy in that field. They also claim to establish a unique gas price by taxing one part of the population to the prejudice of the other part. In fact, this other part of our society is the poorer, the worse off. The government seems to be doing backward socialism. At least, they are doing so in the present case. They penalize the poor to give to the wealthy. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That clause 5 be amended by adding, after subclause (g) subclause (h) which would read as follows:
Paragraph (h) would read as follows: a worker who must absolutely travel a minimum of twenty-five (25) miles a week in his own car to reach his place of employment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rimouski. I presume it has been accepted as being in order.


B. Keith Penner: The Chair does have some reservations about the amendment inasmuch as it appears similar to that moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. However, the hon. member for Rimouski did point out that he was seeking to make a subamendment thereto, and for that reason the Chair will allow it to be debated and disposed of by the Committee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your ruling as, I am sure, do my hon. friends. I rise to support this amendment. While it is similar to the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, it allows for an element of choice. A worker who
Excise Tax Act
had no suitable alternative transportation available to him would be eligible for the rebate in certain circumstances.
As all of us know, of course, there are hundreds of thousands of workers for whom no choice is possible. They are bound to use their cars to go to work until such time as society provides an alternative means of transportation. Administration is simplified by the provision that only those who must drive 25 miles a week to work will qualify. In other words, those who drive fewer than 25 miles a week can walk or, possibly, ride a bicycle.
The minister, in making regulations, can require the employer concerned to attest to the number of days a week, or months a year, in which the employee drove his vehicle to work. After all, the employer has a record of the number of days upon which the employee attended. The employer or his representative, say a foreman or an accountant, whether it be a big corporation or a company with only two or three employees, can append his signature and attest to the application for a rebate. There is no problem about that. I am sure that the advisers to the minister could find additional words to put in the regulations to provide that any employer who makes a fraudulent attestation will be in real trouble, along with the employee.
Workers from a rural area who have to drive ten or 15 miles to work and who have no alternative mode of transportation surely present no danger, and can hardly be said to be defrauding the Government of Canada of the ten cents a gallon tax. The amendment moved by my hon. friend providing a minimum of 25 miles per week is much easier for the Minister of Finance to accept than was the one moved by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. If I may be so bold, I say it is probably a wiser amendment in terms of administration and in terms of applying it to people all across the country-I say that while my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre is out of the chamber for a few moments.
While this amendment does not go as far as the previous one, I submit it is much easier to accept in the context of the philosophy of the minister regarding what he is trying to do in this bill, which is first to raise money, and secondly to exempt certain categories of workers. This amendment relates to a category of worker who may inadvertently have been overlooked but who nevertheless has no alternative but to drive at least 25 miles a week to work.
People in the city of Regina who live less than two and a half miles from their place of employment and make ten trips to and from work a week will not be eligible for a rebate under the terms of this amendment, which shows how reasonable it is. If a person living in Lakeview, the part of Regina where I live, is employed on Broad Street or Winnipeg Street in the eastern part of the city, he is only two to two and a quarter miles from his place of work, and if he goes to work five days a week and does not work overtime or extra days he will not be eligible for a rebate. On the other hand, a person who lives in Albert Park in Regina and is employed at the Interprovincial Steel plant or several other related industries a mile or more north of the city limits, will have to drive 14 to 20 miles a day to
29669-25%

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act
and from work. Such a person would be eligible for a rebate because he has no alternative mode of transportation.
In the case of a car pool, surely a person who is using his car and who is hauling three of four fellow employees to work should be entitled to a rebate. He is contributing to one of thd objectives outlined in the bill by the minister, that of conserving energy and making people use an alternative mode of transportation. This amendment is so reasonable that if I were on the government side of the House I would have to vote for it, even though it was moved by a member on the opposition side. Half, or probably more than half of our working people who drive less than 25 miles a week to work are excluded from the provisions of the amendment.
I do not doubt for a moment that in most medium and small sized cities, towns, and villages across Canada the majority of workers would live less than two and half miles from their place of employment, and as such they would not qualify for a rebate. The minister could also provide in the regulations that in the case of a minimum rebate of $10 there would be a two or three month wait before application could be made for a rebate. If I recall the earlier debate on the bill, they could only apply twice a year in any event, so this would present no large additional amount of paper work on the part of the Department of National Revenue. It also occurs to me that this kind of application for a rebate, including applications from the handicapped, should require the applicant to make an attestation and to provide any evidence required for the purpose of obtaining a rebate. I ask the committee to accept what is a good amendment, one that would allow a limited opportunity to working people to apply for a rebate.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak to this amendment. May I first of all point out that I am not in favour of this ten cents gasoline tax.
In applying this amendment I find it difficult to see how any department or bureaucrat could interpret it, either strictly or benevolently. This reference to "a worker who is a worker" reminds me of the Biblical phrase "who is my neighbour?" It is difficult to define. Throughout the debate on this bill there has been an implied or inferential differentiation between a businessman, a professional, and a worker. I think it has already been said that businessmen and professionals are workers who sometimes put in longer hours than the so-called workers. I am concerned that even a professional man or a businessman, or whatever the case is, be entitled to a rebate only when the gas he uses is for commercial purposes. I suggest that whether it be a professional person, a businessman, or a worker going to and from his place of employment, the same situation applies. I wonder whether my interpretation under the Excise Tax Act is correct or not. Perhaps the Minister of Finance would respond before I proceed any further.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support the amendment motion of my good friend, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard). First of all, 25 miles a week is not a high mileage, and second, if the government accept-

ed this minimum of 25 miles a week, for all practical purposes the tax of 10 cents a gallon would no longer exist. The tax would no longer exist because I believe that if the government accepts this amendment, it will also avoid a lot of headaches for the Minister of Finance and the technocrats who have to collect these 10 cents a gallon.
Most of those who are owners or chairmen of companies are exempt from the tax and can claim the 10 cents a gallon rebate at the end of the year. These same owners often own a farm or have other employment apart from owning the companies. I would like the Minister of Finance to tell the House how the technocrat or the one who will have to decide what percentage of the yearly mileage will be eligible for the rebate will determine how many gallons will be subject to a reimbursement of the 10 cents a gallon tax at the end of the year, and it will have to be specified that the technocrat will determine what percentage of use of the vehicle was for company purposes and which percentage was for the worker or any owner of a company to get to work. There is nothing extraordinary about owning a company. It costs about $300. Any worker with a good job who makes $12,000 or $15,000 a year can own a company.
Several members of the House of Commons own companies. Several senators also own companies. These companies have vehicles registered in the name of the company. Are these vehicles used by the member? I would like to give an example to illustrate my point. If the company owns a 1975 Chevrolet registered in the name of the company, for instance, and the member of parliament owns a 1975 Oldsmobile to travel to Ottawa and takes the Chevrolet with the credit card of the company to travel to Ottawa, it means that this hon. member will not pay the 10 cents a gallon to drive to Ottawa, because he uses a company car. He leaves the Oldsmobile to the company for the week, or month. I say this amendment gives a chance to whoever must solve the problem, because I feel that act will be almost inapplicable, perhaps in fact but not legally.
I feel that from the legal point of view, there will be many pitfalls which will give many a headache to the Minister of Finance who is of good faith and who wants, precisely, through his bill, to save oil by forcing one class of society, that of the small worker, to use public transports. That may save money also for parking lots and other things over the long term. In a way, I agree with him. However, how is he going to apply the act? That is the problem. There is another bill which will be put through the mill again next year with several amendments. It would be better to amend it now to clarify the situation and pass the bill as soon as possible so we can then leave for holidays. That is why I feel the situation must be cleared up right away, so that we can leave for our holidays this evening or tomorrow. We must make it clear, Mr. Chairman, otherwise we shall never get through. In all modesty, I am the owner of two companies, one of them possesses a vehicle. Which vehicle shall I drive to go to Ottawa? The one which is registered in the company's name or my own? Which one?
And most senators are in the same situation. Several members have farms or companies in their names, even big oil companies, and have seven, eight or ten vehicles in their backyards. I recently visited one which owns six or
July 29, 1975

seven vehicles. The company is very prosperous. The hon. member can choose between six or seven cars to drive to Ottawa. He will get back his 19 cents a mile, and the 10 cents as well, if he drives the car which is registered under the name of the company, and uses the company's credit cards. What are they going to do to collect all that? How will the Minister of Finance decide and how will be officials of his department decide? This is the problem and this is why I would like the amendment, which practically aims at cutting off the 10 cents tax a gallon for certain people, particularly working people, to be adopted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as you have pointed out, this amendment is similar to the one I moved last evening which was defeated a little while ago. However, there is a difference. My amendment sought to extend the right to rebates to workers generally who use their cars to get to and from their places of employment, whereas this amendment would make the rebates apply only in cases of workers who travel at least 25 miles a week. It seems to me that if members were not willing to accept the other one they might consider this one, which is a little less but at least a move in the right direction.
However, the main reason I rise for a minute or two is that since the defeat of my earlier amendment, we have had a discussion on the question of an exemption for handicapped persons. May I say that it was both welcome and interesting to note that the minister seemed to have relented a bit from the stern position he took earlier. He indicated that in that case he was prepared to consider doing something by order in council.
I wonder if this softening of his thinking has carried over into the case of the workers. Is he prepared to accept any kind of amendment or proposal that would give the exemption to workers in certain cases and, if so, is he prepared to do that by accepting some form of an amendment to the bill, or is he prepared to give the kind of undertaking he gave earlier to the hon. member for Victoria and others in the House, namely, that he will look at the whole question of this tax as it applies to workers?
The minister must realize that, apart from the fact that we are against the bill as a whole, this is the feature of it which has been most offensive, namely, the non-recognition of the money workers have to spend on getting to and from work. I put the question to the minister again: Has he softened his position at all, and is he prepared to look at this thing, perhaps not with the same kind of commitment I think he gave regarding the handicapped, but at least with some sympathy for the problem faced by those workers who have no choice but to use their automobiles to get to and from their places of employment?
Mb'. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): Mr. Chairman, I stated our position fully last night.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


B. Keith Penner: The question is on the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Rimouski.


Some hon. Members:: Out, out.
Excise Tax Act
Amendment (Mr. Allard) negatived: Yeas, 17; nays, 49.


B. Keith Penner: I declare the amendment lost. Before recognizing the hon. member for Peace River I should point out that the Chair has been advised that the hon. member for Red Deer also wishes to introduce an amendment. We will proceed with that first.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I was the thirty-third speaker from our party to speak on this legislation on second reading, and hopefully our message has got through to the minister. The message we receive from the government is that gasoline is worth more than Canadians have been paying for it, and that wine will cost less because it has been too expensive. The government is telling the Canadian taxpayers that they should remain at home, use less gas and drink more wine. In other words, the Liberal message is: do not complain about paying the dime, you will get used to it over a period of time, and if you can't afford to drive your flivver stay at home and become a wine bibber.
I received a letter from a constituent which I should like to place on record. It states in part:
But, now let me explain why I'm really writing this letter. When I heard that the tax on a bottle of wine went down six cents I nearly exploded from anger! To think a government is so ridiculous as to do such a stupid thing makes me rage ... I plead with you to do all you can to stop this foolish business!
In the absence of the hon. member for Vegreville I wish to move an amendment on his behalf and say a few words in support of it. The hon. member for Vegreville merely wants to know whether or not the Minister of Finance will make a commitment in this House to alleviate some of the resultant problems of the tax which have been explained by hon. members.
Even though the minister states that the industrial construction industry uses gas eligible for refund he must by now have commenced to realize the importance of the point we have been trying to make in respect of the unnecessary additional cost of financing to bulk dealers, fishermen, farmers, large trucking operations and others. Housing contractors too will require extra funds, the carrying charges of which will be borne by the payee, the Canadian consumer, who ultimately will be the permanent loser. In many cases federal and provincial governments' revenue will be affected, particularly in the building of roads and highways. If this bill is not altered there will not only be high administrative costs but higher pay-outs to various road construction firms.
There is absolutely no way anyone could make a fair assessment of what the actual cash layout will be under this ludicrous and useless legislation. It is frustrating enough to have "no" automatically voiced by the government daily to every Standing Order 43 motion presented to this House, but now the same tune is being picked up by government members en masse when logical amendments, beneficial to Canada and Canadians, are proposed by members on this side of the House. Backbenchers should consider the effect such a measure will have on their constituents instead of blindly nodding their heads in silence, or speaking without any sound basis to support

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act
every bill the government presents to parliament. I would hope for once they would think about these things.
My colleagues who have opposed this tax measure are in favour of this amendment, which I do not believe the minister can refuse under the guise of discrimination which was given as the reason for not accepting an earlier amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex:
That Bill C-66, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, be amended in clause 5 by striking out line 46 on page 2 thereof and substituting therefore the following:
'that tax, except that the minister may provide that the tax is not
payable by a purchaser where it can be established without delay
and beyond reasonable doubt at the place of sale that the purchaser
belongs to a group of persons described in this subsection.'
On Friday the minister told the hon. member for Vegre-ville that he was optimistic about allowing exceptions for bulk commodity carriers for large urban industries. Can the minister confirm this statement in light of written representations by the Minister of National Revenue to certain industries that Bill C-66 will not apply, with regard to exemptions, regarding bulk commodity carriers.


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, I not only have received representations from the hon. member for Red Deer and his colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville, on whose behalf he presents a motion, but also from my colleagues from Assiniboia and Battleford-Kindersley. Last week in the course of debate on this bill representations were received from these four members in particular, and other members, that the bill be amended to provide an exemption for bulk purchasers of gasoline and also for users of marked gasoline, which is what is referred to in the amendment.
At that time I pointed out that there were some fundamental problems in tying the federal taxing statute to provincial legislation since this could be tantamount to a delegation of the taxing authority of parliament to provincial legislatures. I was worried about having a lack of uniformity in the application of the general tax across the country. I did undertake, however, that I was prepared to look for ways to streamline the operation of the bill.
In this context the government is prepared to amend Bill C-66 in such a way as to provide legislative authority to exempt certain purchasers of gasoline where this is administratively feasible. I must emphasize, however, that it is not certain that it will, indeed, prove to be feasible to provide an exemption in all of those instances suggested by the hon. member. However, I would like to assure the House that the government will do everything in its power to simplify the administration of the gas tax rebate system. To this end, if the hon. gentleman would be willing to withdraw his amendment, I think I have an amendment which would do the trick. It would put me in a position to investigate the possibility of achieving the streamlining of the system in a way that he described, and which has been described by the other members.
If the hon. gentleman would be prepared to withdraw his amendment, I would be prepared to move the following amendment:

That clause 5 of Bill C-66, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, be further amended by striking out lines 45 and 46 on page 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
'pay an amount equal to that tax,
(h)	to the purchaser, or,
(i)	in accordance with such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe, to the manufacturer, producer, wholesaler, jobber or other dealer,
and any payment made to a person referred to in paragraph (i) shall,
for purposes of subsection (2) and section 57, be deemed to have been
made to the purchaser.'
I give the undertaking to the House that we will attempt to achieve by regulation what has been talked about here. The amendment I have read gives the Minister of National Revenue the authority to achieve this. I therefore move the amendment which I just read.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Chairman, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment subject to a caveat being placed on the amendment proposed by the minister.


B. Keith Penner: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Red Deer to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Towers) withdrawn.


B. Keith Penner: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment moved by the Minister of Finance?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Chairman, I should like to move an amendment on Clause 5. As far as we are concerned, hon. members to my left, who are prolific in ideas, may have other amendments to move. I simply want to say that I stated to the committee yesterday that I would be moving another amendment along the same lines as the one I moved yesterday to another part of the bill. I will not repeat the arguments I made then. They are obviously unattractive to the minister. But I think that the kind of discussion we had today in respect of the amendment offered by the hon. member for Victoria indicates the need to have some form of control by the House over regulations passed by the government.
The true purpose of taxation should be to take from each according to his ability to pay. If I added to that "give to each according to his need" it might be a motto well recognized by other sections of the committee. The hon. member for Nickel Belt, who is more familiar with the subject than I am, says I am correct. However, what the government is asking us to do is to give them a license to plunder. That is the kind of system under which taxation is imposed today. Accompanied with that license to plunder is the freedom to change, add to and subtract from the plundering without any opportunity for parliament to pass judgment on what is being done. Some day this parliament will be told by the people of Canada, who I think are getting fed up to the teeth with this sort of fiscal arrangement, that they will put a short rein, not only upon
July 29, 1975

this government but upon any government, whether it is Conservative, Liberal or, what is even more unlikely but nevertheless more necessary in that case, a socialist government. My friend here says we have a Liberal and a socialist government, the front end is Liberal and the rear end is socialist.
What we have now is a situation in which the governor in council, at the instigation of the minister who has been prodded by his officials-it may not be this minister but some one else-may set an arbitrary, artificial, capricious,-and politically motivated frivolous-I have other adjectives but I stop there, the minister knows what I mean-order in council to establish the restrictions on or additions to the kind of people who will be eligible for rebates. For example, under this legislation, particularly Clause 5 which purports to amend section 47 of the Excise Tax Act, we find the phrase "a person for commercial or business purposes". In the name of heaven we all know what that means. The minister knows what it means, the officials should know what it means, and even my friends to the left should know what it means. These words have connotations and understandings which, over many years, have become fixed in our life, and for the government to say they want the right to put an artificially twisted and contorted interpretation on what "commercial or business purposes" means so they can make the rules as they see fit from time to time, is not attractive to me.
Under those circumstances, I have no alternative but to move the following amendment:
That Clause 5 of Bill C-66, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act be amended in Clause 5
(a)	By striking out line 12 on page 3 thereof and substituting
therefor the following:
"Regulation subject to negative resolution of the House of Commons"
(b)	By striking out line 21 on page 3 thereof and substituting
therefor the following:
"In Council may by regulation determine subject to negative resolution of the House of Commons"
If I had time, I might have added a third amendment which would have covered the amendment which the minister just brought in and which gives power to the governor in council to act by regulation, but I will not do that.
I will simply conclude with these words, that I do not think we should sit idly by and allow the government to do all these things, to make these changes, without some means of bringing back to the House an opportunity to pass judgment on what they have done. The dilemma of the hon. member for Victoria makes this quite plain. The hon. member says he takes the word of the minister, and this party agreed with him. We did not vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre. But that should not be required. There should be an understanding that any hon. member should not have to rely on an undertaking by the minister. There should be a proper procedure by which orders in council come back to the House, and an opportunity given to the House to pass judgment on them when the occasion arises. It is in that sense that I move the amendment.
Excise Tax Act


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, the hon. member for Peace River and I had a full dialogue on the same subject last night.


Gerald William Baldwin: It sounded like a monologue to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, not only do I wish to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River, I want to commend him for his persistence. I urge him to keep at it, even if it takes 20 or 25 years to win his point. I realize that there is a general desire to get out of here, but when an important issue like this is raised, I do not think it is good enough for the Minister of Finance simply to rise and say that we have had this dialogue before.
I think the point is well put. It is introduced in a different context than when we had it previously, and I suggest that the hon. member for Peace River is being quite reasonable in proposing that certain orders in council, as indicated on page 3 of the bill, be subject to a negative resolution of the House of Commons.
I will say again as I said yesterday-and like the Minister of Finance I am not unwilling to say it over again, but of course it is because I am saying what is right-that if the hon. member for Peace River were proposing an affirmative resolution, that could be a delaying process. It could make it pretty difficult for the government to govern. That is not what the hon. member for Peace River is asking. He is asking that when orders in council have been proclaimed for the purposes set out on page 3 of the bill, they be permitted to come into effect, but that it be possible for a member in the House of Commons, within the rules, to put down a motion calling for those orders to be nullified. Only if such a motion is carried are those orders nullified, and in the circumstances of this parliament in particular where there is an overwhelming majority, the chances of that happening are very slim.
I will make the point again which I made yesterday, that this sort of thing can have a salutary effect. I think that when a minister is getting an order in council, especially in the tax field, he should have to ask himself whether it is going to get by, or whether it will result in members of the House putting down negative resolutions. That sort of questioning which he should engage in would surely encourage a minister to bring in the kind of orders in council which would be accepted.
As I say, a few years ago this was a relatively new idea. The hon. member for Peace River made headway when he got the Minister of Finance in one of his previous incarnations to bring in a bill which provides for affirmative and negative resolutions, but now the problem is to get them to be used when an actual situation arises, and I think this is a good place to put the practice into effect. I support very strongly the proposal of the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Chairman, I rise on a very brief point of order. I will not intervene again, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre talked about my being here for 20 or 25 years to see these dreams of mine come into effect. I only want to say that if I discovered the

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act
fountain of youth, I would probably find the government imposing an excise tax of $10 per cup.
Amendment (Mr. Baldwin) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 50.


B. Keith Penner: I declare the amendment negatived. Shall clause 5, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 5 as amended agreed to.
On clause 6.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, will the minister tell us what clause 6 means?


An hon. Member:: Just what it says.


Charles Joseph Clark: You must have a prepared speech on that one, John. Surely they have briefed you.


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, this provides merely, as it says, for the recovery of amounts refunded where the person claiming refund does not maintain the necessary records to support his refund claim.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How is an
individual to know whether he has kept records which are satisfactory to the government?


John Napier Turner: With just the same type of receipt which is now required.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the minister would give the same kind of elucidation to clause 7 which he gave to clause 6?


John Napier Turner: This clause requires people who make refund claims to keep books and records in support of such refund claims.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Chairman, I am rising to propose an amendment to Clause 8. We find it to be necessary following the determination of government members to beat back all reasonable amendments which have been proposed by the official opposition, by members of the New Democratic Party, and by members of the Social Credit Party. I am thinking in particular of the amendment supported by everyone on this side of the House which would have given a rebate to ordinary working Canadians driving to and from their places of work, which the Liberals saw in their infinite wisdom to be the kind of amendment they could not, of course, accept, and therefore defeated. I am also thinking of the amendments which were proposed here today by all three opposition parties with particular reference to the handicapped.
I therefore move:
That clause 8 be amended in line 1 on page 5 by deleting the words "ten cents" and by substituting therefor the words "one cent".

The logic of this amendment should be inescapable, even to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who has frequent difficulty in following logic from point A to point B, let alone going from point A to point B. I am sure that even that hon. member can understand the logic of this amendment, and if she really concentrates with all her ability she could probably cope with it.
The point of my amendment is that by reducing the tax from ten cents to one cent we will simultaneously reduce the degree of injustice inflicted upon Canadians by some 90 per cent. If the amendment were passed, we acknowledge that the minister would have to raise the money to pay for the increase in the price of oil imported off the east coast by some other means. He could adopt any one of the suggestions made. He could levy a special income tax on upper income Canadians or a special tax on the petroleum industry. Probably the best way would be to take it out of general revenue. This would mean that the people who pay personal income tax on a progressive basis, as well as the corporations, would contribute the money to pay for these additional costs.
Any of these possibilities would be preferable to the government's decision to levy a flat ten cent per gallon excise tax on all Canadians who drive automobiles, 95 per cent of whom drive to and from work because there is no alternative. If the Minister of Finance had been prepared to include one of the election promises in the budget, and had proposed to do something about urban transit systems, we might have been more favourably disposed to his rhetoric about changing lifestyles. The only change possible will be that which comes from the increased financial burden on average and low income Canadians who have less disposable income to spend on the other aspects of life.
Even at this late stage, I urge that some modicum of sense impinge itself upon the consciousness of the Liberal Party. I have no hope for the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, but I have a little for some of the others. It might get through to them at this late stage in the debate that they have an obligation to do something on behalf of low income Canadians instead of doing something to them.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Chairman, here we are again. This party is trying to be very helpful by making proposals to the government. We have again put forward a constructive amendment which would eliminate much of the breaking up of society into little groups by the government and then taxing them. This amendment proposes to tax everyone one cent per gallon, and this of course would be applied universally. There would be none of this bureaucratic action in separating groups and making it possible for the minister by order in council to decide who is handicapped and who is not. It will not be left to the whim of bureaucrats to decide taxation, since they have not been elected by the people of Canada. It seems to me this is the most honest and equitable way for the government to go about raising the funds that they say are required.
I recall the minister saying last evening about one of our other constructive amendments that the idea was to get
July 29, 1975

people to change their lifestyle. As I pointed out, with the ten cents per gallon excise tax the lifestyle of the poor would certainly change; they could sit home and drink wine. The lifestyle of the rich would not be changed by introducing this amendment to reduce the excise tax to one cent per gallon, but the effect of the tax would not fall so heavily on the workers.
We have pointed out time and again the impact of this ten cents per gallon tax. It places a very difficult burden on those people who live in Nickel Belt where everyone has to drive a considerable distance to work. The minister said last night:
But, to give a deduction of the expense of getting to work would be to give a tax subsidy to those who choose to drive rather than take public transit-to those who choose to live far from their place of work, rather than close, and to those who choose to drive a large automobile rather than to those who drive a small one.
People do not choose to live far from their work. In my riding, people would rather live close to work but as a penalty for building a home where they can afford it this government places an extra burden on them. This tax will take a big chunk out of their budgets and will be an extra hardship on many with families to raise. We are faced with the juggernaut of power on the government benches. We have put up a fight against the ten cent tax and got nowhere. We have tried to talk reason and have proposed constructive amendments, but are obviously not getting anywhere so, since we abhor this kind of tax we propose an amendment to reduce it from ten cents per gallon to one cent per gallon. At least the wealthy would be able to pay that tax and it would not be such a burden on the poor.
Members tend to think of their own ridings and I think of mine. In the last election the Liberal candidate was promising to remove the railway tracks from Sudbury and the Liberal candidate in my riding was saying "I want the railway tracks in Nickel Belt". The public transit system we were promised would have alleviated the problem, but people in areas like mine do not have it. The ten cents tax would be a great burden, so our proposal to amend it to one cent is a reasonable way of raising the money the government says it needs. We have proposed alternate ways of getting the money and have suggested economies the cabinet might adopt by changing their driving habits. We have suggested they pool their limousines and drive smaller cars. We have suggested economies which could be implemented by the government as an example to the working people. It is only when the government shows that they are prepared to economize that they can say to the people "Don't do as we tell you, do as we do-look how we are running the country on your behalf".
The way we are squandering the resources of this country cries out to heaven for some recognition. When we look for leadership, we look to the people who were elected to govern and say "That is an example I can follow". I suggest the ministers pool their cars and possibly use Volkswagens. Surely an across the board tax of one cent a gallon will not affect the economy drastically. You see, we are caught in a terrible game. The workers of my area will pay ten cents a gallon more, and will ask their employers for more wages. They will say, "This tax is eating into the family's budget; you must compensate us for it." They will try to bargain, and a strike may or may not follow. If there
Excise Tax Act
is no strike, it means that the employer has "come across". But the employer will need to charge more for his wares and, to that extent, this tax is inflationary.
We propose an across the board tax of one cent per gallon. It ought to be paid by all, and would not impose a hardship, even on doctors who make emergency calls at night. I assure the minister that doctors are recompensed by OHIP in Ontario. When they receive a call in the middle of the night, they charge OHIP. They do not work for nothing.
It seems to me that the minister would collect just as much money if the tax were one cent a gallon across the board. The money could be raised by other means. Why not impose a tax on those who can afford to pay, on those who can afford to bet on the horses? All he need do is impose a tax on bets made at race tracks in this country, and he will raise a great deal of money. In the province of Ontario alone he could raise as much as $9 million a year from thoroughbred racing. If we extrapolate the figures to cover standard breeds and other forms of racing, I am sure the minister could raise $100 million by using this means. And by taxing people who could afford to play the horses, the minister would be acting fairly. He is not fair when he taxes those who must use their cars to go to work.
I submit that this tax will bear hardest on those workers who are not members of unions and who cannot afford to exert pressure on their employer to compensate them for the increase in cost of driving. Most workers are not represented by unions. Such workers are employed as waitresses, or in similar occupations; they are unorganized and, in most cases, do not earn very much. It may not be worth their while to go to work if they must pay this tax. As a result, they may give up their jobs. The unemployment insurance people will step in and the notation will appear on the appropriate documents "left for unjust cause." Tax those who can afford to go to the race track, not those who must drive to work.


An hon. Member:: But you have a large race track in your riding.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, there is a race track in my riding. It seems to me that we should follow the precepts of our income tax system and charge those who can pay. The contribution of the taxpayer ought to reflect his ability to pay. I remind the hon. member for Peace River and others in his party of the slogan, "From each according to his ability to contribute." I put that in its proper capitalist context.
We therefore say, that the one cent per gallon tax across the board is more equitable, and is more in line with the provisions of our income tax system. The minister attempted to equate this regressive tax with our income tax structure. How can you equate this regressive tax with the income tax structure as, by and large, the income tax structure is more just and progressive? This particular excise tax is not a progressive tax. It is regressive, because it is to take from those who do not have and, invariably, will give to those who have.
I do not wish to delay hon. members as I know they are anxious to go on holiday; but so are the people in my
8042

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act
riding anxious to go on holiday. They will find it more expensive to drive their car, tow their trailer, or drive to their cottage. That is their only enjoyment. They cannot fly from Mirabel to Florida or Europe. They depend on their cars to go to the cottage. That may be their only enjoyment. After many spent years working in the mines, now they look forward to being off work for three weeks and being on holiday in the summer. Our population is mobile, and the ten cents a gallon tax will limit their ability to enjoy their holidays. These people use their cars mostly to go to work, in any event.
I repeat that we are proposing a one cent a gallon tax applied universally, as that seems the fair way of going about it. I know there may be some inequity in my suggestion, as those who have much money will pay the same amount of tax per gallon as those who do not have much. At least our proposal will not bear so heavily on those who must work and are active in society.
The present government proposal lets those who have money off the hook. It will not touch them at all. It even provides that if some of them are called out in the middle of the night, they can claim a rebate. As I said, I do not wish to keep hon. members from their holidays. I know the minister has his station wagon packed. It is loaded and the kids are ready. His bags are packed, and they are all ready to go away on holiday in their car. He is lucky he can afford ten cents a gallon excise tax. Many of my constituents cannot. They will spend the summer at the cottage, drinking wine which is now six cents cheaper. That is the working man's enjoyment. I see the Postmaster General saying, "That is right, that is right." I'll bet he is not drinking Cawtaba these days. I know he does not drink Cawtaba.


An hon. Member:: He used to, many years ago.


John R. Rodriguez: I tell you this situation is so bad that it is driving people to drink.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that debate at this time in committee of the whole ought to be limited to the amendment before the committee. I ask the hon. member to limit his remarks to the amendment.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, Madam Chairman. The amendment we propose would impose a one cent tax per gallon across the board universally and without exception.


Mr. Darling:: A good idea.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka says it is a good idea. It is an excellent idea. I urge members of the committee to accept it.


An hon. Member:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Chairman, members on the government side are shaking their heads and saying "no". It is very easy for members who make $22,500 per year plus travel expenses to impose an excise tax of ten cents per gallon which workers must pay. We can afford it. Every member of this House can afford the excise tax of ten cents per gallon. I submit that a tax of one cent per gallon

would not be a heavy burden for those who make $22,500, plus travelling expenses. Hon. members should not complain. After all, they voted themselves a salary increase.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Come off it. You voted for the increase too and you, too, want to go on holiday.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Chairman, my father used to tell me if you see a pack of coyotes and throw a rock at them, you will always know when you hit one because of the yelping you will hear.
A tax of one cent a gallon would not weigh heavily on those who must work and produce the wealth of this country. Let me tell you, many people do not look on us as productive people. There are many who do not view us as productive.


An hon. Member:: Bunch of fakers!


John R. Rodriguez: These people work, and work hard. Perhaps the hon. lady from Vancouver-Kingsway ought to work in the Elliott Lake mines. Then, she would know what it is like to work. One cent a gallon, universally applied to all who drive, would certainly go a long way toward meeting the amount the minister says he needs to offset the shortfall in the fuel account.
Ten cents may not sound much to a person who earns $24,500 plus expenses, but it means a lot to workers at INCO who bring home $8,000 a year.


An hon. Member:: Only $8,000 at INCO? Come on!


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, that's right. Gasoline in our area now costs 80 cents a gallon. I am talking about regular gas. We have to cover the extra cost of transportation from southern to northern Ontario. This ten cents tax makes the problem worse. The people I have in mind did not choose to live out in the boondocks. It is not their fault there is no serviced land nearer the centre of town at prices they can afford. There is no way in which they can pay the price presently being demanded for a small suburban lot in Sudbury. As living becomes increasingly expensive, they are forced to open negotiations with the company. Sometimes those negotiations are tough and the men find themselves on strike in support of their demands. It is easy to call for order in this House. What I am saying is that when people find themselves in a tight situation financially their choices are extremely limited. Last July, all these people heard were promises-promises of support from the government, promises of improved transportation systems and so on. Then, lo and behold, the Minister of Finance hits them where they least expected it by imposing a federal tax upon a commodity they have no choice but to use.
Yesterday, I mentioned Shebandowin. It is some 60 miles from Thunder Bay. The workers must drive there because the company does not provide housing at the site. They are now in the second year of a three-year contract. In effect, they are locked in. There is no COLA clause in their contract. Now, they are being told they must pay ten cents a gallon more for their gasoline.
July 29, 1975


B. Keith Penner: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Chairman, we find ourselves in the official opposition facing a difficult choice. On the one hand, we think the amendment is a little ridiculous. On the other hand, the tax itself is a malignant one. So the choice is not an easy one. After some consideration we have decided to back the ridiculous amendment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River. We know perfectly well that the amendment will be defeated. Nevertheless, the amendment has a purpose which appears to me to be perfectly legitimate-it is to get the message through to the government and its advisers that this legislation is ridiculous in the first place.
It seems to me that hon. gentlemen opposite had better take another look at just what a sales tax is. The only element of fairness it contains is that those who can afford to buy most of the products, and who choose to do so, bear the heaviest burden of the tax. Those on low incomes who obviously purchase less of the commodity as a general rule, lose less of their disposable income in the form of sales tax. If a government applies a sales tax, it applies it across the board, or, at least, it provides for very limited exceptions-the handicapped might be excepted, for example, or those who have no choice but to buy the commodity concerned.
If the case in question involved the imposition of a tax of one cent a gallon on gasoline, everybody would pay it with, possibly, limited exceptions of those I mentioned. Those who bought the most would pay the most. It is rather like the sales tax on automobiles. The man who can only afford to buy a $4,000 car pays $200. But the person who wants to spend $20,000 on a car pays $1,000 in tax. To that extent, the tax provides for an element of ability to pay. But when the minister imposes a sales tax of ten cents a gallon and makes it possible for a certain group of people to write off some of it as an expense for income tax purposes, and, moreover, allows those in the higher income tax categories to apply for rebates, then he has destroyed whatever element of fairness there is in a sales tax. That is why we on this side have put forward an amendment to reduce the tax from ten cents a gallon to one cent a gallon.


B. Keith Penner: The question is on the amendment. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question!
Amendment (Mr. Broadbent) negatived: Yeas, 25; nays, 49.


B. Keith Penner: I declare the amendment lost.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On Clause 9-Commencement and application.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 9 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Excise Tax Act
Clause 9 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
B. Keith Penner: Shall the bill carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.


B. Keith Penner: Shall I rise and report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Before recognizing the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr.	Alkenbrack)-Agriculture-Levy
Charged on Manufacturing Milk-Government position; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Energy-Natural Gas-Possibility of Government Promoting Polar Pipeline through Manitoba.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the third time and do pass.
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, before moving a third reading amendment I should like to deal more or less precisely, depending on response from the other side, with the substance of this bill.
When the government announced that it was necessary to raise additional revenue in order to compensate for the loss of revenue from the export tax to meet the increasing cost of importing oil to the east coast, the members of our party hoped that this revenue would be raised in some equitable fashion. There is no argument at all that the government was in the position where it needed additional funds. The only issue was how it set about raising those funds. Of the options open to it, the government could not
29669-26Vi

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act
have chosen a more regressive means of raising the required money.
There are times when a user's tax is entirely appropriate and just. There are other times when a user's tax is just the opposite. In our view that is what we have at the present time. If it made any sense at all to argue that the vast majority of the people who drive automobiles have a genuine option in regard to driving them in terms of the necessity to get to and from work, then the argument put forward by the government might have made some sense. It would have made some sense to say that use of the automobile at this point in the twentieth century in Canada was a genuine option, and therefore if people chose to use that mode of transportation they should pay the additional tax that the government is imposing. However, just the opposite situation exists.
Most people in Canada go to and from work in an automobile because at this point in our history they have no alternative. Whether we are talking about tradesmen who have to go to construction sites many miles away from their place of work by an automobile because that is the only means, or whether we are talking about thousands of fishermen, longshoremen, loggers and miners who, by definition, have to travel to work by automobile, this whole range of workers are put in an unjust position by having to pay this tax.
I would also add to the list all people who live in suburban Halifax or suburban Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary or Vancouver, people who are forced to live in the suburbs because housing prices in the centre of those cities are such that it is impossible for people of average or low income to maintain a residence there. The situation has been worsened by the lack of an urban policy, an urban transit policy which the government could have developed over the past two decades. This lack of policy has meant that people must travel by automobile. In order words, virtually every worker in Canada today is in the position of having to rely upon the automobile as the means of transportation for getting to and from work. Therefore we conclude, Madam Speaker, that this tax is a regressive form of raising revenue, one that places an unjust burden on people of average or low income, and we will have nothing to do with it.
As I said earlier this afternoon, the fair way, in fact the only way of raising the additional funds required is to impose a special income tax on Canadians of upper income, or to use money derived from general revenue which comes both from income tax sources, which are at least relatively progressive, and from taxes imposed upon the corporate sector. Either of these methods would have been just, compared with the method used by the government.
We in this party proposed a series of amendments at committee stage. They were amendments that would have provided exemptions for working Canadians who are required to go to and from work by automobile, as well as for handicapped Canadians, to name just two important categories. But the government has seen fit to reject both. Thus it is our intention at this stage to take the same course of action that we took at second reading stage, namely, to oppose the bill. If the government had shown some readiness to move at the committee stage and accept
some plausible and equitable amendments, then our position at this stage might have been something other than what is is. But as is characteristic of the Liberal party of Canada whenever it governs with a clear majority, the government has seen fit to go the way it determined upon originally, which is instead of distributing the economic burden in Canada in favour of the average or low income earner, to persits in aggravating the maldistribution of that economic burden.
This bill is something with which we will have nothing whatsoever to do. I therefore move, seconded by the non. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill C-66 be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, I just want to say that we intend to support the amendment as my friends to my left supported us on the same amendment on second reading.
This bill has been some changes and some improvements. I must say that the improvements which I now see in the bill hardly justify the labour, energy, time and effort which have gone into this debate. Be that as it may, it is a little better bill than it was, but because it is not good enough we are going to vote for the proposed amendment.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, in speaking in support of the motion for six months' hoist I must agree with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that a great deal of effort has been made by members of the opposition in an attempt to improve this bill and to rectify some of its obvious faults, yet little has been accomplished, considering the amount of effort put forward.
This situation is one that develops when we have a majority government. This may be something hon. members in the opposition will have to live with, but it is something that involves a much more important consideration. The suggestions and requests for improvement have been put forward by members of the opposition not for themselves but on behalf of a large segment of the Canadian public.
No tax bill is ever welcomed by the opposition, and it is not likely that a tax bill is welcomed by members of the government. There is a necessity to raise revenue through taxation. I am sure most members will agree that the government has a number of choices as to how it will raise that revenue required for the operations of the country. The government must find that money somewhere, and the choice of where is up to the cabinet.
We have been spoiled during the last eight or ten years in having had a number of minority governments. In such a situation a government is willing on occasion to listen to and consider propositions by the opposition, knowing full well that if it does not there will be an election. The government in the past few years has considered such propositions and, on occasion, accepted changes.
As far as the opposition is concerned, and also I suspect most backbenchers on the Liberal side, the main objection to this measure is in respect of the way the minister has

July 29, 1975

decided to raise $500 million in order to equalize prices in eastern and western Canada. He has chosen to do this through the imposition of a ten cents per gallon tax on gasoline. I think most members will agree with the principle enunciated by the minister.
I am always impressed by the minister's use of the English language and his facility for assuring us that he is concerned about the difficulties he faces in designing budgetary measures to solve the problems of inflation and unemployment. He has often said his primary concern is for the people of Canada, but that he has really not been able to do much about these problems of inflation and unemployment. I suggest the minister has been consistent in respect of Bill C-66. He has said that the measure is necessary to equalize the price of gasoline across Canada. By this bill I suggest he has not moved in any direction toward equalizing that price. I am sure that the price for grade two gasoline will be $1 a gallon in certain parts of Canada, and in the low 70-cents range in other parts. The minister has not in any way through this bill equalized the price.
What the minister is doing through this bill is raising money that will offset to some extent our loss in export revenues. He is accomplishing this not by a measure of equality but by the imposition of a ten cents tax which is unfair in that it will not apply to everyone.
A number of my colleagues have indicated several more equitable methods that could be used to distribute the burden of accomplishing what the minister wants to accomplish. One hon. member suggested a surcharge on income tax at the higher levels. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) was being unfair to the ponies in suggesting that perhaps the minister could collect the necessary revenue from betters at race tracks. A number of suggestions have been made, many of which are more equitable than the one proposed by the minister.
Because of its structure the income tax in this country is one of our most unfair taxes. Under this structure one never pays more than slightly less than 50 per cent. No matter how rich a person is, or how much money he receives per year, he only pays something less than 50 per cent under our income tax structure. This is unfair as well, because the level of income at which the tax reaches 46 per cent or 47 per cent is not very high. In many cases members of parliament with their salaries find themselves in that category. When you reach that relatively middle-class income you find the government has placed a limit on the amount it takes away, so our income tax structure is not fair.
To make the income tax system more equitable we should adopt a graduated scale which would continue beyond the present limit. It would then be possible in this country, as it is in others such as Sweden, to obtain our general revenues from corporate taxes, business taxes, and personal income taxes. Some countries have gone that far, adopting that honest and equitable type of tax, to look after almost all government expenditures, even those at the municipal level.
This country has not been that fair, and this minister certainly maintains the standard set by Liberal governments over the years in relation to our taxation structure. He has done so particularly in respect of this tax measure.
Excise Tax Act
The main part of the bill with which most of us are concerned is that portion relating to the ten cents per gallon tax on gasoline. The bill is not fair in respect of exemptions in that it is selective and applies only to certain individuals.
The minister should have given reasonable consideration to the suggestions put forward by the opposition, and I am sure he would have done so if we had a minority government.


An hon. Member:: A minority government is not good for the country.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the House just made the profound statement that a minority government is not good for the country. That is a typical Liberal remark. In other words, if it is not good for the Liberals it is not good for the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: I am happy to note that most Liberals agree. This means that if we had only one party in Canada and it were the Liberal party, then obviously we would have an ideal situation.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


William Arnold Peters: This reminds me of Franco and a number of other such people. I have always been of the opinion that even when there has been a democratic socialist government in Canada it was not always right. In fact I found that the longer it stayed in power the less likely it was to be right.
In my opinion it has always been a good idea to have a strong opposition which brings forward alternatives. It is also a good idea to have an occasional change of government so that another party, which may feel the same as some of the Liberals that their ideas are the only right ideas, would be given an opportunity to put their ideas into effect for at least a short period.
Liberals in this case say that because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is a Liberal he cannot be wrong. We have watched the telegraphing between the floor and the gallery, a new method of operating the Department of Finance by what is called beaming information. I have news for some of the backbench Liberals. The Minister of Finance did not draft these proposals. He has been busy doing many other things, including running world financial organizations and representing his constituents. When they give this vote of confidence to the Minister of Finance they really are giving it to-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The birds in the roost up there.


William Arnold Peters: -the gallery, the mandarins who wondered how they would raise this $500 million. They probably decided it would be a good idea to do it in the form of a gasoline tax. They probably also decided they should not affect big business and that they should place it in context. It really does not matter to a businessman whether or not the tax is imposed, just as it does not matter to people who are engaged in the professions. These people in any event will write off the tax. The people who will not have

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act
an opportunity to write off this tax will be many members of parliament, the workers in this country, and the people in a few other categories, such as our senior citizens and others on fixed incomes.
A contractor, for instance, probably would include as a business expense not merely the ten cents but the total price of the gasoline.


An hon. Member:: And of course the dredging
companies.


William Arnold Peters: Let us not get sidetracked into that field because I think the one in which we are involved is interesting enough. I do not consider that the backbenchers of the Liberal party are unresponsive to their constituents. I see many northern members here today whose people must drive considerable distances to their places of employment. I am sure they would like the workers in their constituencies to be able to apply for this rebate. It is possible for someone who operates a plumbing business, for example, to write off the expenses of his vehicles, his equipment, and gasoline, but it is not possible for a worker to write off his expenses, with the exception of the little deduction he was granted after 20 years of urging by this party. The amount of his deduction would not represent the price of a chain saw or many other pieces of equipment that are necessary. I do not imagine the amount involved would equip a miner to work underground.
It seems to me that we are not asking for very much. We are asking for equality, something which I believe the backbenchers of the Liberal party would support if they were not so concerned about believing that any decision made by the Minister of Finance is right.
May I call it six o'clock, Madam Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on the amendment which was proposed by the leader of my party which in effect calls for a six months postponement of this iniquitous bill which, as we have said time and time again in the House, is discriminatory with regard to a large group of working class Canadians. We have asked for a postponement of this bill for six months. I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) waving no. Well, he can wave no all he wants. I intend to take the full length of the time allotted to me on this amendment.
We have said in the debate that the bill which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has proposed is in large part a method of collecting revenues so that the shortfall in the petroleum account can be met. We have said that

this measure is an iniquitous measure, that the method by which the government proposes to collect this $500 million is certainly not fair and not just to far too many Canadians. The exceptions which are made in the bill are such that it makes the bill inequitable. The exceptions do not change the lifestyle of the wealthy but they certainly place constrictions on the lifestyle of other Canadians.
It is all right for the Liberal members to mimick and to jeer, but in effect they must answer to their constituents as well. When they were parading before the Canadian public last July they were not so cocky about this whole matter of raising taxes. Now that they have a majority government they feel they can run roughshod over the opposition and over the Canadian people.
We have said that the bill is a piece of regressive legislation. For the Minister of Finance to rise in the House and put forward such a regressive bill and call it a progressive tax system is ludicrous. I find it difficult to understand how we can make such statements.
The Minister of Finance also said that he wants to change the lifestyle of Canadians and he wants people to conserve energy, he wants them to use less ostentatious cars and be more aware of the need to conserve energy. We have said, and I say it again, that if the government were to establish any credibility with the Canadian public it would have to conduct itself in such a manner that the Canadian public would say, "We will follow that example".
It was interesting to observe during the dinner recess tonight the great limousines lined up at the entrance to pick up the ministers-one minister sitting at the back of a big limousine to be driven to Confederation building, a distance of some 300 yards. If the government were itself aware of the need to conserve energy it would have the right to say to the Canadian people, "We will change your lifestyle". It is easy for them to say to the workers that they should organize car pools. I do not see the ministers organizing car pools. After all, it is not necessary to have 20 limousines to drive 20 ministers to the House every morning. Surely the minister could organize a car pool system. They all have telephones in their limousines.
Surely it is the responsibility of the government to practise what it preaches. It was interesting to hear the comments made by the Minister of Finance when he spoke yesterday evening in response to an amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The minister said:
But, to give a deduction of the expense of getting to work would be to give a tax subsidy to those who choose to drive rather than take public transport... to those who choose to live far from their place of work rather than close, and to those who choose to drive a large automobile rather than to those who drive a small one.
It is the height of hypocrisy and cynicism for any minister to say that people choose to live far from their place of work. In my constituency, as I have said many times in the House, people do not choose to live out in Alban, Noelvilie or Naughton. They live in those places because they can afford to buy a home there; they cannot buy a home in Sudbury where housing is too expensive.
A piece of land in Sudbury 55 feet wide and 125 feet deep costs $15,000. People cannot afford that kind of investment. They certainly do not choose to live in the
July 29, 1975

places I have named. They live there because of the price of houses, because instead of sewers there is a septic tank system, and because the taxes are not as high as in Sudbury. So it is not a matter of choosing; they are forced to live in such places as Killarney, Markstay Alban, St. Charles, Warren, and all these places with exotic names in my riding. Now the minister comes along with the regressive tax system and says to them, "You will pay ten cents a gallon more and you will receive no rebates". He says that to people who must commute to their work, to people who have no public transit system.
It is not the same as in the city of Ottawa where you have a bus stop in front of your door and where you can go by bus around the capital region on three transfers. It is not that way in Nickel Belt, nor is it in other ridings like mine. This is what we are trying to hammer into the tough skulls of hon. members opposite. We have been trying to tell the government that it should listen to people from these areas who have a reason to be upset about this excise tax.
It is all right for the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) who represents a nice, cosy area of the country. He has no worries. The same cannot be said about the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), who mentioned in her speech in the House the problems people have in her area with the differential in the price of gasoline between the northern and the southern parts of her riding. We have those problems also. I notice that Mr. Speaker himself wrote a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail in which he pointed out the differential. On top of that is the differential we have to pay in northern Ontario amounting to almost five cents more on a gallon of gasoline as compared with southern Ontario. On top of that we have this excise tax.
We have said that this is an iniquitous bill because it falls very heavily on too many people in the country who must use their cars to go to work. Many workers in my riding have negotiated a contract over the last two years, and this tax comes right smack in the middle of the contract. They have no way of opening up the contract and renegotiating the added expense. It is certainly not fair. They do not have the same power as do members of parliament. We can increase our salaries by a vote in the House, as we did. As I say, it is all right for the hon. member for Welland to keep mimicking from across the way.
The hon. member does not have to worry about the 10 cent per gallon tax because he can afford it with the wages of a member of parliament. He is a doctor. He can write it off if he is called in the middle of the night. He has a sickly government on his hands, and he is likely to be called at any hour tonight. There are travelling expenses involved in being a member of parliament. He does not have to worry at all. The Minister of Finance took care of members of parliament, and just to ensure that the blow did not fall too heavily, he allowed them to buy wine six and a half cents cheaper per bottle.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: They need it.
Excise Tax Act


John R. Rodriguez: People in my riding do not drink imported wines. We have said that this is an iniquitous bill because the government has imposed a restriction on people who live in certain parts of the country where a car is not a luxury but a necessity. On the other hand, the government has not provided those people with a public transit system to use. There is no public transit system in Nickel Belt. There is a public transit system of sorts in the city of Sudbury, but it does not extend beyond the borders of the city, so the people who live in the areas I have mentioned in my riding must use the automobile. It certainly is not fair.
There are also a large number of people in my riding, and in the ridings of other members of this House who are not within a union. When the union members' contracts come up, they can always negotiate to make up for the ten cent excise tax. It will be a tough fight, but that is another question. But there are a large number of people, mostly women, who work in my riding as waitresses or they sweep up hotel rooms, and they work for the minimum wage. They live in the outlying areas, and therefore a car is a necessity for them to maintain that employment. If it becomes unfeasible for them to continue that employment, they leave it, and they are then ineligible for unemployment insurance because they had no good reason for quitting.
My party has indicated that it will fight this iniquitous bill down to the wire, and we have done that right through this debate. As a matter of fact, as part of our responsibility as members of parliament and as a party, we made proposals to the government. We have proposed alternatives. For example, we proposed that the rebates be applied to those who must use their cars to and from work. We have also suggested that the handicapped be eligible for the rebate when such disabled persons use cars or are driven to their place of employment, for enjoyment or whatever. We also proposed, since we lost those amendments, that the excise tax be reduced from ten cents to one cent per gallon and be applied universally. What does the minister say about allowing workers to claim the rebate, those workers who have to use their cars to go back and forth to work? The minister said, and I quote:
I do not deny for a minute that there will be cases of hardship. Unfortunately, there is no equitable way to cope with these situations which is administratively feasible.
Are we to believe that this government, which has been in power for a long, long time, is incapable of devising a system whereby it can discriminate and select those of the taxpayers who are using their cars to go to and from work? Are we to say that this country, which was capable of building the tallest freestanding building in Toronto in the guise of the CN tower and which is planning some fantastic buildings for the Olympics in 1976 is incapable of coming up with a bureaucratic system which can separate those who use their cars to go to and from work from those who use their cars for enjoyment? Statistics show that the percentage of those who own cars which are used for frivolous reasons, for enjoyment or for holidays, is very small compared to those who use their cars to travel to work. In this society we have built our community around the automobile.

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act
The minister talks about conservation. Just the other day I was watching television, and a commercial came on for, I think, Texaco. Texaco is encouraging consumers to purchase its gasoline, and if customers accumulate so many coupons from a particular dealer, they receive glassware, cutlery and tea sets. Does that fit in with some kind of conservation policy? I dare say that 99 per cent of the drivers in this country already have decided on a particular brand of gasoline, so it is not to attract those who use Gulf gasoline to start using Texaco gasoline. It is obviously geared to increasing the usage of that particular brand of gasoline. That is what the advertisements are directed toward. It seems to me that that kind of gimmickery is the gimmickery which ought to be taxed, and not consumers who must use fuel to get to work.
It seems to me that if the government has a conservation policy, it should be reflected in the total spectrum of what is going on in this country. How can we have oil companies pushing consumption and, on the other hand, the government talking about conservation of energy? The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand)-and this is another case of trying to change the lifestyle of the Canadian people-said that transportation is in a mess. He certainly was not kidding. What is the government trying to do? I have said before-and it seems to me that hon. members have not taken it seriously-that we do not have a nationally-owned railway company. The CN does not have one passenger car on order. Are we trying to develop interurban transportation? Are we trying to get people off airplaines and on to railway cars? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. What does this government do? It is prepared to spend $100 million at Terminal 2, at Toronto airport, building more parking lots. How does one reconcile what the government says about conservation of energy and changing the lifestyle of the people? Are we trying to improve the railway service in this country? No, we are not.
The government built the STOL airport here for people flying from Ottawa to Montreal. People can be moved by rail just as economically or more so. The railway is a far more economical method of transporting people than flying. As a matter of fact, statistics show that moving people by airplane over a distance of 500 miles is not at all economical. Air Canada reported a loss of $19 million last year on the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal route, yet we see big ads by Air Canada today which is selling two seats out of three, leaving the one in the middle empty. How can the government talk about changing lifestyles, economy and conservation of energy when it turns around and does such stupid things? How can the government be credible to the Canadian people?
It has been said that television ought to be brought into the House of Commons. I look forward to the day when the Minister of Finance can make hypocritical statements as he did last night when he said that we could not have a bureaucratic structure which could separate those who are using cars to travel to and from work from those who do not. How does the minister propose to do this with regard to doctors who are called out in the middle of the night when he says he cannot do it for carpenters and plumbers because they are on contracts? So are doctors. They are on contract with OHIP. If they go out in the middle of the night, they can put in a bill to OHIP for their services. No

one is quarrelling about that, but we want the same privilege to be extended to people in the working class.
We have proposed a reasonable amendment. Every member in this corner of the House agrees that it is. There is not one here who disagrees.


An hon. Member:: I do.


John R. Rodriguez: That hon. member is a Liberal transplanted to these benches.
We have suggested that this bill be hoisted for six months-and I think that is a wise suggestion-so that the government can rethink its position and reconsider the inequities in this particular tax bill. I recall that in the last election the Liberal candidate in Sudbury was promising "We want the railway tracks out of the city. We are going to push hard for it." The Liberal candidate in Nickel Belt was saying, "We want them in Nickel Belt." That says something about the transportation policy of the government. The government has shown how phony the arguments have been. We have made some excellent suggestions about how it could collect taxes. We suggested it would be more fair to take the money out of general revenues, and those who do not own cars could be compensated by an allowance on their income tax. It is supposed to be a great system. Those who have money should pay, and those with the least income should pay less. It seems to me that that kind of progressive income tax structure is better than this excise tax.
The minister has been given some other very good suggestions by this party. I have suggested that people who go to the race track should pay another three cents on every dollar they bet. At the moment the tax is 15 cents on the dollar. We could pull in another $9 million from the Ontario Jockey Club through the thoroughbred flat racing and I have not even included standard breds. There are many tracks in this country and on any given night the amount wagered is from $215,000 to $400,000.
We have suggested that corporations that have deferred their taxes to the tune of $7 billion should pay an interest rate of 10 per cent. That seems fair in view of the fact that they have enjoyed the benefits of deferring payment of their taxes. I cannot defer my tax nor can you, Mr. Speaker, so it seems fair that they should pay interest on that loan.
We have made constructive suggestions to the government but they have fallen on deaf ears. We have repeated them many times hoping to puncture the wax that has accumulated in those ears, but to no avail.
When we were campaigning last summer the Liberals promised an urban transit system. They were going to bring together all passenger services in one commission, develop inter-urban transportation, and move people on trains. The election is over; it was certainly a short day for them. They have forgotten it now that they have a majority. They have derailed the Canadian people and pushed them all on to airplanes. Not too many people in Nickel Belt can afford to fly; they are not on a travel expense account. They have not got government planes to fly them around, like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has his
July 29, 1975

helicopter. How much did the weekend jaunt to the barbecue in Brantford cost? How can the government say to the people, "You economize on fuel"? That is phony. They say, "Don't do as I do, do as I say."
This bill is an iniquitous bill. We have consistently tried to improve it with amendments. We are now getting down to the third reading stage and we have submitted a reasonable amendment suggesting a six months' hoist so that Liberal members can go on their holidays. They can enjoy driving around to see Canada, and they can afford to pay the excise tax on their big salaries of $22,500, plus $10,000 expenses. It would be great if the workers in Nickel Belt could vote themselves an increase, but unfortunately they cannot. I know hon. members are anxious to get away. Let it never be said that I kept them from going on their holidays.


Some hon. Members:: Never!


John R. Rodriguez: I know the Minister of Finance has a station wagon packed; the kids are scrubbed and ready; the camp has been cleaned out for three weeks. I know that is happening. I know there are members across the way who have their plans. One member bought a trailer, had Father Hogan bless it for him, and parked it outside for a week, hoping to get off on his holidays.


An hon. Member:: Where is Father Hogan?


John R. Rodriguez: I am not a vindictive person and I should like to see them get away on their holidays. My holidays are minuscule-


Mr. Anderson:: Same as your brain.


John R. Rodriguez: Many people in my riding cannot go on holidays because this ten cents excise tax places constrictions on them. It does not place constrictions on me or other members of the House; that is what is so iniquitous about it. Those who earn big wages can afford the ten cents excise tax. It does not change our lifestyle, but it constricts the lifestyle of too many small people in Canada. That is why I object so strongly, and if I have to speak three more times tonight I am going to, Mr. Speaker.
I know what I say falls on deaf ears but the least I, as an individual member, can do is make them postpone their holodays for another day. I can go back to my constituents and say that I have done my best on this issue.


Simma Holt: You have done nothing.


John R. Rodriguez: You be quiet. Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting to note that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is vociferous when she does not have the floor. I wish that some Liberal members would get up and apologize for this bill. I know they are going to be very upset if they do not get the third reading vote tonight, but it will not upset me. They have all been anxious; their cars are filled up with gas; they have their cheques and are ready to go. As a matter of fact some of them said it was a good thing we were back here today so that they could pick up their cheques. There are many small people in this country-


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


An hon. Member:: That is the first honest remark you have made tonight.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the barbs and gibes. I was not elected by anybody in this chamber but by the people of Nickel Belt. That is where my responsibility lies. I only wish a few more members in this House would remember where their responsibility lies.
Any government backbencher who votes for this iniquitous bill is hypocritical about this whole situation and has betrayed his constituents. They will have to go back and face their constituents and tell them why they did not vote against it. I hope they will tell them that the reason for paying the ten cents excise tax is in order to collect the money they need from those who have cars. The bill is not only unfair, it is iniquitous, inequitable, and disastrous.
On the east coast recently the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) called the leadership of one union irresponsible, deceptive, and dishonest. Those epithets can equally be applied to the government. With respect to this bill it is irresponsible, deceptive and, it seems to me, dishonest.
I am sure I have said it before, that last July during the election campaign the government must have known it was in a shortfall position with respect to the petroleum account. But would government supporters have told their constituents during the election campaign, "If you vote for us we shall put an excise tax on gasoline to make good the deficit in the oil account"? I am sure they would not. Not one of them would have said, "Yes, we are going to tax working class people, but we shall give better-off people a rebate". I doubt if any of them would have said that to their constituents. Yet here we were on June 23, less than one year after the election, and the minister introduced a budget which proposed this regressive excise tax. And I suggest that comparing this regressive excise tax with the progressive income tax is dishonest. The excise tax is regressive as it will bear most heavily on certain sections of the community which can least afford it.
I know other members of my party will have strong words to say in support of the amendment. I urge hon. members on all sides to support our amendment. If accepted, it would provide time for hon. members to cogitate and meditate on the effects of this bill. I think six months is long enough. I know Liberals think slowly; perhaps they need one year, but six months will have to do. In the next two months let them talk to their constituents; let them ask their opinions about the tax and see what they think. Perhaps when they come back they will think differently on this matter, but I doubt it. I know how hard headed and stubborn these Liberals are, and how difficult it is to get them to accept progressive ideas.
I urge hon. members to support our amendment, as it is a wise one presented by a wise leader. I submit that our amendment is worthy of support.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. First of all, I congratulate the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) for having introduced that amendment and specially for having spoken only five minutes. In spite of that, I am sure he said all he had to

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act
say. Tonight, I heard, for the sixth time, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I feel the House of Commons is being taken somewhat for a racing track. I believe the hon. member for Nickel Belt was not born in a democratic country. Today, he lives in a democratic land. He acts somewhat like a child who has been deprived of toys all his life. As soon as he gets some of his choice, he goes overboard. I am afraid that is what happened to him. But there is a limit. We are living in a democracy. That must be understood. The hon. member for Nickel Belt must understand that. He is not sitting with a socialist government, and if he were he would not speak the way he did tonight, I assure him, he would not then speak as he has done since the beginning of the sitting.
He must bear in mind that there are 264 other hon. members, and that he is taking up all the time of the House.
Mr. Speaker, we will go on endlessly discussing this bill. This evening, I heard the same speech repeated a sixth time. It is simply ridiculous! We must come to a decision. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) moved an amendment. We are going to vote on that. Democracy, our democratic system requires it. Even the hon. member for Nickel Belt would go on shouting against government members for three more hours. They will vote but they will not change their thinking in any way. They will come and vote. Let us wait for the vote. We will vote, after all. I wonder why we are maintaining this kind of filibuster to try and catch the people's attention. Let us rely on democracy, we are in a free country. Fortunately this is a free country, but let us not fall from freedom into anarchy. I for one favour the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, because I feel the 10 cents per gallon tax is unfair, anti-social, the most anti-social in this session. It is unfair because it affects a group of workers that are the worst off economically, because those that are burdened have no alternative to get to and from work. They have no choice. The main argument submitted by the minister to impose this tax is conservation.
But with the proposed exemptions at both levels of government, there will be outmost extravagances and gasoline expenditures. And the minister says this legislation is to conserve energy or favour public transit! Of course it is known that our public transit systems are now inadequate. They are nonexistent in some areas. And while certain people are fighting for public transit, the government is fighting them.
I gave an example the other day. In my area of Roberval, we have been fighting for all we could for five or six years to keep our public transit system, but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is trying every means to kill it. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) comes along and says: This is an effort to encourage the working people to use public transportation. How can anyone be so ridiculous, Mr. Speaker?
With regard to saving on gas consumption, when one sees the CN entering into a contract with a trucking firm to deliver merchandise in our region, merchandise that was previously delivered by the CN without burning a single gallon of gas, which means using up thousands of gallons of gas, and then one hears the Minister of Finance stating that we must save on gas, something has to be

wrong. Well, Mr. Speaker, the population is not as stupid as that.
What I fail to comprehend is the unanimous attitude of government members. Unanimity! Not one dares speak against the government. Or rather I can explain it by the party's dictature in caucus, a fact that I have always denounced in this House. Such are the results of a majority government. Today, the Liberal government is imposing this unpopular tax because it knows that the next elections are far away. And I am willing to bet that on the eve of the next elections, this same government will remove this tax to please the voters of this country. All Liberal partisans will forget the date of June 24, 1975, not because it is the French Canadians' day, but because it was the day a ten-cent tax on a gallon of gas was forced on those unable to pay it.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this marathon of debates will end and I urge all opposition parties to vote. That is the game of democracy and I hope that tonight we shall keep that democracy alive in giving members of Parliament this freedom. They are entitled to their way of thinking, but I believe that in the end the people will be the ones to judge their representatives.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the amendment on third reading to explain why we feel this bill should sit for another six months to give the government time to bring in another piece of legislation which would raise the amount of money we agree is required, and do so in a much better way.
I am not one of those who think the continuance of this debate is an exercise in game playing or anything else. If I did not feel strongly that this is the wrong way to raise the amount of money the government requires I would not be on my feet tonight. This would be the case whatever party happened to be in power.


An hon. Member:: That is hard to believe.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We have suggested ever since the bill came in that when a given amount of money is required to accomplish a national goal the government has a duty to put forward legislation which is fair to the greatest possible number of people from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We contend that the legislation before us not only fails to do this but actually moves in the opposite direction. I shall not go into all the details, no doubt to the relief of hon. members across the way. They know those arguments. I will simply ask them this: if they were sitting as members of a municipal council, or of a school board, or of a provincial legislature, would they countenance the imposition of a tax for a specific purpose which bore most heavily on those least able to pay it?
I listened with a good deal of incredulity this afternoon to the discussion on who might be excused from the payment of this ten cents per gallon tax. In itself, ten cents on a gallon of gasoline or on whatever amount of gas a person may use in a year is not an extraordinarily large sum. But in terms of the kind of parliament this parliament is likely to be, it is important. We have only been here one year and there are three more to go. So the issue is important in terms of whether or not parliament is in fact the body governing our country.
I am shocked to think that members of parliament sitting in this chamber would turn their backs on a proposal to relieve handicapped people from the obligation of paying this tax. It was bad enough that the Liberals should have stood up against that proposal. The worst tragedy was when the Official Opposition not only withdrew their amendment, which was a darned good one, but abstained from voting on a subsequent amendment to exempt handicapped people totally from paying tax on any gas they might use whether for pleasure, attending clinics, or going to and from work. These great friends of the workers and the common people in the Official Opposition failed to vote. I wish the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) had been here; I do not think he would have liked it.
There are errors of omission on the part of all members of opposition parties. There is only the odd occasion in the course of the life of a majority government when an issue arises on a matter of principle on which we can all fight to the line. I want to say there are even some people here in my own caucus who are not here and who should be here. While I admit to, and confess, the failings in my own ranks, I want to say to the members supporting the government who have this traditional Liberal state of mind and attitude, that they are the only ones selected to govern, they are the only ones who know, they are the only ones "who have all the answers"-if once in a while they sit in opposition it is only a temporary aberration and loss of sense on the part of the voters!
But in a traditional British parliamentary system I would expect that even members on the government side in the British House of Commons would have risen and voted against some of the measures in this bill. But not a sound out of one of them, unless they are nattering while signing letters or standing behind the curtains or sneaking in from behind the curtains like sheep to vote.
Excise Tax Act
We have presented at least 12 other ways to raise $350 million in 1975 and to raise the $500 million to $525 million required in the 12 months of 1976. All of these ways would have ensured a great deal more equity, fairness and justice than the provisions of this bill. Some of them would have been proposed at Liberal party conventions or even by a minority Liberal government. But when in the majority, they know everything. There is not a thing they can do wrong. They are the only ones fit to govern. I hear the hon. lady across the way lightly pounding her desk. I am glad she only pounded her desk lightly; I know her heart was not in it. If she will pound it harder, I will have some other words to say.
To collect the $525 million for the oil consumption fund in a manner which would bring about a genuine equalized price from coast to coast, and to collect it in a way that would be fair and just, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) could have done any one of the following. I have not seen any editorials or news stories carrying these proposals, but personally I do not worry about that. That is a reflection on the members of the press gallery who are not much different from members of the House of Commons. They, too, are worried about getting off to the lake, or going fishing, or getting together with the wife and kids this summer. It would be very nice, however, if the media were not captives of the kind of system under which we operate. It would be very nice if on their own hook, without waiting for or relying upon members of parliament, they had suggested to the government in their editorials, columns or news stories more equitable and just ways in which this money could have been raised.
What I say does not apply just to this bill. Budget bills are nothing more than the result of a budget, and this budget was one with which the minister should not have bothered. Let me illustrate. We could raise the $525 million which is required in the calendar year 1976 and the $350 million that is required in part of 1975 in a manner that is just, one based on ability to pay, if we had said to individual taxpayers that each of them with a taxable income in excess of a certain amount would pay a 3 per cent higher rate of effective tax, or that the corporations would pay a 10 per cent higher effective tax rate. Or we could have had a combination of both and levied an additional 5 per cent corporate tax rate and a l'/2 or 2 per cent higher individual tax rate. Then, the burden of raising this money would have been spread among those with the ability to pay.
Instead of that, the government chose to levy a ten cents a gallon excise tax. In levying this tax, the minister provides in the bill that if those in the higher income brackets are in business or in the professions, they must keep records as a basis for claiming this expenditure as an expense item to be deducted from their income tax. If they are in a 25 per cent or 30 per cent tax bracket, then they will have the benefit of paying less taxes as the result of having deducted their total purchases of gasoline or any other legitimate business expense.
In addition to that, a professional person engaged in commercial enterprise, as the legislation so describes, may apply for a rebate. The minister has told the House that a doctor, lawyer, architect, chartered accountant and so

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act
forth cannot apply for a rebate on gasoline used in driving to and from work. I submit they have already had a rebate given to them through their income tax returns. But added to that, they will still apply for a rebate of the gasoline tax, as the bill provides.
Let me deal now with those I referred to earlier, the people who can least afford to pay the tax. I realize that not very much money is involved during the course of a year-the sort of amount that one would spend, say, in the parliamentary restaurant or in some fancy restaurant in downtown Ottawa on a given evening. But it is the people on fixed incomes and the pensioners who, as usual under free enterprise government tax systems, will pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden. An old age pensioner who might use his car three times a week will contribute anywhere from $1 to $3 a month by way of excise tax. This will amount to as much as, or a little more than, the last cost of living escalation of the old age pension, which I think was $2.33 a month.
Every member of the House has in his constituency old age pensioners who drive automobile for what the Minister of Finance and hon. members opposite call pleasure. Let me examine this so-called pleasure. These old age pensioners make one trip a week to buy groceries. They have no other way of transporting themselves than by the automobile, but the Minister of Finance calls that pleasure. They make two or three trips a month to the doctor's office, and according to the Minister of Finance that, too, is pleasure driving. They make two or three trips a year to visit their children or grandchildren; again according to the Minister of Finance that is pleasure. There are no rebates for such expenditure. We pleaded with the government to exempt those people who are drawing old age pensions and the guaranteed income supplement. More particularly, we asked the government to exempt those who are drawing old age pensions and are liable for some income tax on income they receive over and above the old age pensions.
Can it be classed as driving for pleasure when these people drive their automobiles 8,000 or 10,000 miles a year to pick up their groceries, go to the doctor's office, or to visit their children and grandchildren? This does not involve a large amount of money in each of these individual cases and it is not a large amount in the total financial picture of this country. Surely this legislation is an indication that we are travelling down the same road we have been travelling all along.
There is another way the government could have raised this revenue. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) have mentioned this method. I will not refer again to the race tracks and horses, but will refer only to deferred taxes. There are deferred taxes lying on the books of this country amounting to $7 billion. Would it not be reasonable to charge a small interest rate on these deferred taxes, perhaps 7.5 per cent? This would be a much lower rate than the rest of us are paying on money that we owe. This would raise the $525 million the Minister of Finance must have next year.

If we were to put out $7 billion in mortgages for people who want to buy homes there would be a cry of protest and outrage from the financial institutions, the realtors, and the developers. If we were to put out $7 billion in interest free loans for the construction of homes there would be a great cry of outrage, yet we carry on the books of this nation $7 billion in deferred taxes.
This party has moved that this bill not be read now a third time but that it be read six months hence for a very good reason, and we will move the same motion in respect of any other budget bills the government might want to bring in this fall. If hon. members are worrying now about a summer recess they should start worrying as well about a Christmas and New Year's recess.
This bill imposes a penalty on those people who earn wages and salaries whether or not they belong to unions. If they live five miles or more from their places of work and drive that distance, in the course of 12 months they will have paid back every dollar of tax credit they may have gained from the $150 allowed for the cost of tools and other expenses. If those people saved $30 in income tax, this measure will take more than that amount back.
In addition, this ten cents a gallon tax will take back from the working people who drive several miles to and from their places of employment all the benefit of the tax credit each taxpayer is receiving as a result of the first $50 credit, then the $100 credit, and then the $150 credit. Incidentally, this is now back to $100. This measure will take back from those workers every dollar gained from that tax credit.
One of my friends opposite sent me a chart which is being circulated among the Liberal caucus. The way it reads, if you drive 7,000 miles a year averaging 15 miles per gallon, this amounts to only 469 gallons which, at 10 cents a gallon, amounts to $46.90. This is the chart those Liberal members are passing around, I presume to salve their own consciences. This is a nice little chart and very convenient, but they have forgotten a few things in this chart they are passing around while patting each other on the back.
If you drive 7,000 miles a year to and from work, the ten cents a gallon tax on the gasoline amounts to $46.90. This proves one of the points I have just made. It takes away every nickel these people gain on their income tax as a result of the $150 deduction for expenses. In fact it takes away more than they gain.
The Liberal members have forgotten a couple of other things when circulating these cooked-up figures. They have forgotten also that on August 15, or very shortly thereafter, there will be another five cents a gallon increase in the cost of gasoline because of the increase in oil prices. Those members have also forgotten that when the companies pass on the ten cents and five cents increases, the distributors, bulk dealers, and retailers will all take their percentage of mark-up so that the total final increase in gasoline prices will be somewhere between 18 cents and 22 cents a gallon. This will mean in turn that people will lose everything they gained as a result of the $100 tax credit. It will have been taken away from them by this one silly and dumb bill.
July 29, 1975

The Minister of Finance could have raised this revenue, which we all agree the government must have in order to treat people relatively equal across the country, in a manner which would have been more equitable and just. The minister has failed to do so.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) paid a mild compliment to the government today for accepting a couple of minor changes to the bill. The government has failed to accept the suggestion that it withdraw the bill entirely. It has failed to agree to some of our suggestions on a better way to raise this required revenue. It was my hope that some of these suggestions would have come from the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni), or from Liberal members of parliament who represent ridings in highly industrialized areas with a large working force, which is that segment of the population that will pay the largest proportion of this tax. These suggestions did not come from those hon. members. In any event, the government refused to accept the proposed amendments.
Let me say to hon. members opposite that they are not always 100 per cent right. Their party is not the only party fit to govern, and those hon. members are not always infallible in the legislation they bring forward. The government weakens the democratic process of our parliamentary system when it flies in the face of the general public with something like this that is so obviously unfair and unjust.
I suggest the motion before us is one that warrants a vote. It puts forward what we have been trying to say about this particular bill, and what I suspect we will be saying about subsequent bills arising from the last budget in the months ahead. If this debate has done nothing else I hope it has taught hon. members opposite a lesson. I hope they will remember the lesson when they are in caucus and in committee, and when they are giggling together in the backbenches and behind the curtains. I hope they have learned something from this exercise. I hope this lesson will be reflected in the next piece of legislation that comes before this House arising from the latest budget. More important, I hope the minister has received the message.
The message we have tried to put forward is that you do not place the largest part of the tax burden on those who are least able to pay, while at the same time letting those who can pay off the hook. How any self-respecting member of parliament can hold still for that kind of nonsense is just beyond me.
This is a bad bill and this is the wrong way of raising this revenue. I only wish this bill had come before us some 18 months ago. We would then have gone through the usual process of having Liberals come over here behind the curtains clutching Conservatives, New Democrats, and Creditistes by the elbow and asking them what they would like to have in this bill or what it would take to get it through quickly. On such occasions butter would not melt in their mouths. Then they are the greatest democrats one could find.
Now the arrogance rises to the surface again. It would
seem that they are the only ones fit to govern. The arro-
Excise Tax Act
gance is apparent in their expressions, in their smiles, and in their jeers. They meet us in the elevator at the fifth floor by the cafeteria and ask us to shut off the debate because they have an engagement or want to go to the lake. Their arrogance shows up in the way they talk, smile, and jeer. They do not move amendments or speak the way they want to speak. They are the government. If they really want to do something about parliamentary practice, here is the opportunity. They might not have another opportunity for a year or two. This is an opportunity for ordinary members of parliament-they are all nice, bright fellows-to say that the method being followed through this bill is the wrong method. No one is perfect. That might be news to my hon. friends opposite.
Members opposite should say that this bill is wrong, and give it a six months' hoist. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the government House leader, and the Minister of Finance would hoist this bill and then come back in two or three weeks with a new piece of legislation to raise the revenue required in a fair and equitable manner, they would be surprised at how fast that legislation would go through. They would realize there is more involved in parliament than just having a majority. They should think more about the people who sent them here. They should think about the people who must drive to the hospitals and to physiotherapy treatment centres. These are the people who must drive cars and yet they are being excluded from the rebate. Do any of you have the courage to speak for the people who elected you? That applies to all of us in every part of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that he should address the Chair rather than the members on the right hand side.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I was speaking of everyone in this House, and when I was asking the members of this House to speak up for those who sent them here, I was including you, Madam Speaker, in those remarks. I want to conclude by saying to my hon. friends-and I mean friends-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You should use another term.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My hon. friends might feel I have overstated the case or have become carried away. If they do, I apologize, but I do not apologize for the sincerity of my argument. In fact I am proud of the fact that we are still sitting here tonight in a whatever one might call it-a futile or last ditch effort. I meant every single word I said. Hon. members on all sides of the House have an opportunity to ask the government to take back this bill and present another one designed to raise the same amount of money in a more equitable and just manner, and not to fly in the face of principles which I know my hon. friends across the way hold dear.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I wish to take only a few minutes of the House's time this evening to refer again to the amendment I presented this afternoon in an opportunity to obtain a rebate for the handicapped people. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) expressed puzzlement that we did

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act
not vote for his belated amendment. On behalf of my party I chose instead to trade off an amendment that the government could easily have defeated for a commitment from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to achieve the same aim by regulation. It would seem to me that this was much better than an effort to score debating points.
It seemed to me I should accept the firm commitment of one of the most honourable of the Queen's Privy Councillors, the Minister of Finance, to bring forth similar regulations. Our party could have won the debate, but the handicapped would not have been given the right to a rebate from this inequitable tax. An elderly constituent once told me that a member of parliament could accomplish a lot if he did not worry too much about who received the credit. I recommend my constituent's advice to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard C. Jones: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that Bill C-66 has been like a bingo game with the famous No. 66. There has been a great deal of discussion and debate in an attempt to have the government realize the wisdom of withdrawing the bill, to have the government approve amendments, or even to have the government itself bring in amendments. It is regretted that the government has adopted such an arbitrary and harsh method to extract funds from the people of our country.
I must agree with most of the remarks made by members of the opposition parties in the House. However, they have fallen on deaf ears. It would be appropriate now to direct pressure to another part of the anatomy. There are other alternative methods to raise revenue, but the Liberal government evidently is not prepared to show leadership in relieving the country of the burden caused by the crisis which faces us. The day Bill C-66 is proclaimed will be a sad day for this country and for many of its citizens. Nevertheless the bill and the amendments have been debated relentlessly.
The bill should never have been presented. It should have been withdrawn. It is imperfect. I am not too sure that it is not contrary to the provisions of Magna Carta in that it gives authority to the governor in council to tax without representation. That is what taxation by decree or order in council is. At this time, however, it appears to me that it is time to give everyone in the House an opportunity see where they stand on the amendment, on the bill and on the motions before the House. I have the impression that this session has lasted about ten months and most members of parliament in the House are on edge. Therefore, I propose the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House sit beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment this evening for the following purpose: To complete the debate and to complete all action on amendments and all proceedings and stages of Bill C-66, and act to amend the Excise Tax Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. At present we are debating the motion moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and it is not

possible to accept the motion in the form introduced by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones).


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Leonard C. Jones: Madam Speaker, this motion is moved under Standing Order 6(5)(a). As I read the rule, such a motion can be moved any time and it is not subject to debate or amendment. I think it must be put to the House now.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Madam Speaker, I merely wish to give a few particulars on-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. Does the hon. member wish to speak on the motion? The motion of the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) cannot be dealt with in its present form, because the House is discussing an amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). If the hon. member wishes to carry on the debate on the amendment of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, he may do so.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, I merely wish to make a few comments on Bill C-66 as well as on the amendment under discussion.
I realize that all my colleagues are somewhat nervous. On one hand, we would like the House to proceed in a regular fashion to the passage of a legislation but on the other hand, we feel that all parliamentarians are somewhat tired. It is normal that after ten months of session, each of us would like to return in his constituency to spend a few days with the family, which is good for every Canadian. Parliamentarians are also Canadian citizens, and of course, they want to be able to live for a few days, a few weeks.
Madam Speaker, I hear members on the government side say that I am saying nice things. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is giving me the signal to cut it short. There is good sense in that. But the fact remains that we are not here to have fun. We are here to govern.
If we recognize that the Liberal party is responsible for introducing laws to Parliament, I recognize that Parliament is responsible for passing the bills that are put to it. We are not here to oppose the government systematically. Come on! We are here to represent part of the population, and it has been proved that the opposition represents 57 per cent of the population; that part of the population feels saturated with taxes; the time has come to find new formulas, and I believe hon. members, as a group, feel somewhat responsible for finding them.
I see the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier) go through the same motion as our grandmothers when they unwinded a skein of wool. I do not understand what he means by that, but it does not matter: I am not here for that. Over the past few days, I have had the opportunity to meet and talk with my constituents, school boards and other organizations. I have conducted this study in a serious and responsible manner and I have come to the conclusion that most people are against Bill C-66, especially in connection with the famous 10-cent tax on gas.
July 29, 1975

I want to fulfil my duties as the elected representative of a group of people who are willing to assume their responsibilities, accept their tax burden for the administration of our country, but not blindfolded. They want explanations. Why does the government insist on imposing a 10-cent tax on every gallon of gas which will be used in Canada? They want to know from the government what regulations will be edicted following the adoption of this bill? They want to know whether it is the members of Parliament or bureaucrats and technocrats who are in charge of this country and who will later on edict regulations and determine what classes of people will be considered as businessmen, and if such and such person will be deemed to be in business.
And I think it is important for the population to know that the members of parliament, their representatives, knew what they were doing when they voted that bill, and that is why I insist again tonight, Madam Speaker that the procedure be modified, that we get out of that system whereby members of Parliament adopt a legislation and bureaucrats and technocrats decide to interpret members' will.
I am tired of that, I am disgusted of that, and I want to say it tonight, at the third reading stage of that important Bill C-66, so that it will be known once and for all. I must commend the President of the Privy Council (M. Sharp), whom I see at his seat tonight, despite the length of the session, for still being here tonight to listen to members' representations. Let's adopt once and for all in the committee on procedure and organization a different method so that regulations that will be voted be enacted after that bill has been adopted. Because the government has a majority, they are sure the bill will be adopted. Come on! But we will not be mistaken for a bunch of dummies. We know that government members are a majority. Maybe several of them will tell their constituents tomorrow: "We did not agree with the tax on gasoline, but as things stood, there was a case of absolute necessity and we had to say yes. We were asked to stick together". Well, we already know that this legislation will be passed by the government majority, but I strongly doubt that the people in my constituency will congratulate the Liberal party. I guess on the contrary they will ask the Liberals to help them, to give them directions as to how they can get a refund on the tax.
It is extraordinary to hear the remarks of ordinary people. They wonder: Will I manage to get a refund? If they accept to pay that tax, they keep hoping they will get a refund, but what about the small taxpayer, the factory worker, the one who drives from Berthier or Montmagny to the shipyard in Lauzon, who has to drive some 35 or 40 miles, what about the worker from Montmagny who goes to work on American sites, in the state of Maine, as a hewer of wood, who has to pay for the gasoline he needs to get there? Will he be glad that this legislation was passed, whereas in fact the government could find different means if they sincerely wanted to alleviate the burden of taxes on the shoulders of Canadians taxpayers? Let us concentrate on large corporations and let us investigate all their fraudulent schemes to cheat our income tax legisla-
Excise Tax Act
tion. They just have to find all sorts of ways not to pay the taxes they owe the federal government.
Madam Speaker, I hear colleagues in this House who seem to disagree but who deep inside know that I am telling the truth. They know I have the courage to say in this House what is actually happening and there is an injustice done to individuals, small businesses, workers, all those who labour day after day to earn a living and serve the people. Madam Speaker, that has lasted long enough. We should demand from large corporations the same discipline, the same claims, the same procedures so they will file honest reports with the Department of Revenue and if they owe $1 million they will pay $1 million, if they owe $2 million they will pay $2 million, just like we demand of the taxpayer who owes $600 that he pay $600.
Well, Madam Speaker, I see my colleagues opposite find that funny. We are not here to administer like a gang of jokers, you know that. We are here to administer in a conscientious, objective, and honest way. Madam Speaker, we often suggested alternatives, means different from those used now. They were not to be accepted. I respect that will. I respect that decision. But at least, Madam Speaker, let the Minister of Finance and all his colleagues as well as all Liberal members of the Parliament of this country come up with other formulas. That is what the people want.
And if we do not introduce other formulas our economic system that we know, that we like, that we have always stood for, that I will continue to stand for as the member for Bellechasse, we will be making a mistake. Indeed, I feel strongly about private enterprise but I would like private enterprise to be able to survive, to give its full capacity, not to be crushed by burdens, taxes of all kinds, reports, bureaucracy and so on. I like private enterprises which represents a tremendous force in this country, and it was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) who said in this House about six months ago in an official statement, that private enterprise provides 60 per cent of jobs in the country. I hear, Madam Speaker, but I shall not get angry, I am a peaceful man-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Bellechasse has the floor. He might be allowed to conclude his remarks.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: That is parliamentary life at its best. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your intervention because when all is said and done, it will appear to the Canadian people as a responsible intervention in a responsible Parliament. What does it matter, Madam Speaker, whether or not the majority likes what the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) says. This member is entitled to express his views and to defend his constituents' interests on any given legislation. I think that I have never abused the privileges of the House. I have always tried to use the time allocated to me in the most constructive way in order to express views, defend opinions I consider to be meaningful. Then, in such a serious situation, I believe that tonight we must think it over and consider the validity of the proposed amendment, so that we might postpone this legislation to a later date, in order to think it out, make a further search for the means to give the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) the required funds

July 29, 1975
Excise Tax Act
for him to assure every department of the amount required for good management. But I believe that the means proposed to us in Bill C-66 is not a very popular one, nor a fair way to individuals; that is why, between the recess and the next session, we should meet and examine together what opportunities we have to try and assure the Minister of Finance of the required funds he needs within fiscal year 1975-76, without resorting to such a drastic measure which deeply affects the income of individuals and, particularly, workers, the income which is necessary for them to meet the needs of their family.


Mitchell William Sharp: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I have consulted with the House leaders and I think there is a disposition on the part of all members to continue this evening until we dispose of Bill C-66. I know the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) made a motion earlier under Standing Order 6(5)(a) but I understand he is willing to withdraw that, if that is in order. In any event, I believe there is agreement in the House that we continue sitting until Bill C-66 is disposed of, but not the adjournment motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, this is quite acceptable to us under the circumstances. While I judge there are many empty vessels in this House right now, some of them might be persuaded to keep making sounds until third reading has been completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, the statement by the government House Leader represents the agreement we have reached.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, I believe that we have come to an agreement and that we all are ready to dispose of this bill tonight, even if we are not fully satisfied with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Call in the members.
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).)


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost. The question is on the motion that Bill C-66 be now read a


July 29, 1975

third time and do pass. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak at the third reading stage to express the opinion of my party as concerns this bill. I want to say that we are not more in favour of the bill at this time than we were at the second reading stage. In spite of the efforts made by the opposition to change the opinion of the government or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and in spite of some amendments, I wonder how this bill can be applied.
We can read the following on page 2 of the bill:
Where gasoline has been purchased by
(b)	a person for commercial or business purposes,
Who will determine if the gasoline was purchased for commercial or business purposes?
Paragraph (c) says:
(c)	a farmer for farming purposes,
Who will determine if the gasoline was purchased by a farmer or by someone who works in a city and farms part-time? Once again, as I said this afternoon, a public servant will determine what will happen. What will be the percentage of gasoline purchased by a farmer, by a labourer, by a manual worker or by another type of worker?
Paragraph (d) on the same page reads as follows:
(d)	a fisherman, hunter or trapper for commercial fishing, hunting
or trapping,
Once again, Madam Speaker, it is impossible to determine how much gasoline such a person will have purchased during a fiscal year in his capacity as fisherman, trapper and so on.
I would like to say that our party, the Social Credit Party of Canada, is still against this bill because it is the gift of the Liberal party to the poor workers who do not have one cent left to travel and to go to work. They do not have these 10 cents a gallon that they will have to pay on gasoline to travel every morning and every night. Therefore, the bill penalizes heavily the heads of families who cannot afford to pay for rent increases, increases of this and increases of that. Cost of living increases have emptied their pockets. They must leave home in the morning to go to work. The gift of the Liberal party to the Canadian voters is a great deception, Madam Speaker, and I believe that it is an indictment against the Liberal party.
Madam Speaker, in constituencies like mine, people earn their living underground, working in mines, breathing dust 24 hours a day and on any of the three 8-hour shifts, and they never go to bed at the same hour from one week to the next. It is thus appalling to see the government charging 10 cents a gallon of gasoline to miners who drive to work and who have the guts to work in these circumstances.
I think this is a nonsense, an impropriety, and I believe this legislation is not even workable from a legal standpoint or even from an honest standpoint, because it allows too much latitude to the official who has to determine how
Excise Tax Act
much gas goes for pleasure driving and how much for driving to work.
The foreman, for instance, who might be my boss tomorrow on the site where I would have to work since I might become a worker-and I speak for the workers in my constituency-will be entitled to a 10 cents a gallon tax rebate because he is a foreman and is thus driving for business purposes.
Me, the poor guy who earns $6,000, $7,000 a year, I shall pay, like him who makes around $25,000 or $30,000, 10 cents a gallon for gasoline. I think it is dishonest and unfair. This is all I wish to say. I do not wish to extend the debate, but I wish to say this: We do not agree anymore today than we did yesterday. What the minister did shyly under the pressure of the opposition does not satisfy us at all and I think that this bill on which we are going to vote on third reading is disastrous for the financial situation of the poor worker, the wallet of the small earner, of the head of a family, the man who does not have one more penny to spend to drive to work but who has the guts to do it.
The day will come, Madam Speaker, when those people who are too big-hearted will stop thinking as they do now and say: "Rather than working for nothing we are going to live on welfare". I hope that this day is still far away but the more bills of this kind we pass the sooner this day will come. Madam Speaker, in all fairness, I must say that this bill is impossible to apply and will be very unfair to some people. We shall have to establish the quantity of gas they bought to travel to work or for commercial purposes.
I said this afternoon that an hon. member or senator who is the owner or president of a business owning four vehicles or who bought one vehicle from his company with credit cards registered with that same vehicle will come to Ottawa and will buy gas with his company's credit cards and he will get 19 cents a mile to travel and this measure will give him a rebate on the 10 cents a gallon tax on gasoline. Who will establish what we should take off and what percentage of that gasoline he bought for his business or to travel to Parliament? It will not be easy! Can you imagine a senior civil servant having to decide what to do? I say that there is a very important thing.
In my opinion, a bill should at least be applicable. In all fairness, this bill cannot be applicable, because, as I said a moment ago, it gives too much latitude to the officials who will decide who is to pay the tax and who is not.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on the motion by Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton), seconded by Mr. Sharp, that Bill C-66, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, be now read the third time and do pass. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.

Excise Tax Act


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


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
Motion (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)) agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Madam Speaker, I rise again tonight in the adjournment debate to speak on behalf of the dairy farmers of Canada, some of whom are my constituents trying to earn a living in the dairy industry. I join a long line of colleagues in this House-the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis), and the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin)-in protest against the increasing levies being imposed on dairy farmers to pay for the inefficiency and uneconomic powdered milk export programs of the government.
Many of the statistics have been read into the record concerning this problem. I will not go into the statistics tonight because I wish to make my point regarding export markets, as I believe our efforts should be aimed in that direction if we are to avoid further cost to the Canadian consumer for dairy products.
Correspondence we have received from the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the dairy farmers of Canada and from all the county milk committees of Ontario has expressed great concern. Their sound arguments are generally that our dairy producers do not think it fair that they should be called upon to bear all the burden of the deficits on powdered milk exports. Of course this situation is caused by the fact that the milk producing member nations of the European Economic Community each subsidize their dairy farmers to a degree which protects them from all costs and deficits connected with the export sale of powdered milk, it being the least and last residue of the industry.
Then the EEC headquarters in turn, I believe, protects and reimburses the governments of each one of those nations. Unfortunately that is not the case here, and the Canadian dairy farmer now faces the full onslaught of the competition of the European Economic Community and is now actually subsidizing it to the tune of another 45 cents as of July 1, and I am informed that will amount to another $250 million per year when the 45 cents per hundred is applied to our total national production.
It was only last spring when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), amid much publicity, conferred with the mem-
July 29, 1975	COMMONS DEBATES	__________________8059
bers of the EEC and was reported to have made overtures for contractual agreements with the big nine, but he did not put one word in on behalf of the Canadian dairy farmer. No, we get the back of the hand of the EEC.
Continuing the point I wish to make, what about these loudly touted contractual agreements by the Prime Minister on his visit to the EEC? Was there any economic strategy whatsoever to the representations of the Prime Minister? Apparently not. Can the government not direct its marketing efforts on powdered milk to other markets in countries now receiving bounteous and almost free Canadian aid, for example, the $10 million soft loan to Cuba which I opposed in February and May when the government was giving Cuba $10 million cash at 3 per cent interest for 30 years, with no repayment for the first seven years? Why does the government not make that contribution in powdered milk instead of cash wrested from the taxpayers of this country, some of whom are the dairy farmers of Canada?
What is happening at the present time? I know there is a large surplus of powdered milk accumulating in the world. The European Common Market has 700,000 tons of it. Today's Montreal Star carries an article which demonstrates that the European Economic Community is in command of this situation and that the Trudeau government is not even trying to compete with it in getting rid of skim milk surpluses. The article is headlined "Market may sell Egypt $385 million food surplus", and I quote from it:
Brussels-The Common Market commission is negotiating a controversial deal with Egypt involving the sale of about $385 million worth of EEC food surpluses.
According to Abdel Rohman El Chazli, the Egyptian supply minister, the package would include 1 million tons of wheat, 75,000 tons of sugar and 23,000 tons of dairy products.
In addition, 20,000 tons of the EEC's mountain of skimmed milk powder-now standing at 700,000 tons-will be given to Egypt as food aid.
Egypt is desperately short of both food and cash and it is likely that the deal will be financed by credits recently granted to Cairo by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. However, if it goes through, EEC farmers also will reap considerable benefits.
The EEC sees to it that its dairy farmers receive the benefits of its world trade strategy. Hon. members will note the article mentions EEC finances by credits extended to needy countries.
To finish making my point there is another item in today's Montreal Gazette headlined "Half million Angolans face starvation." Why could Angola not use some of our powdered milk to feed its half million refugees?
Let us survey the problems of CIDA. Wherever this agency extends large amounts of cash in aid to needy countries, wherever possible let skim milk powder be part of that cash. That would reduce the current load on the dairy farmer who now takes the penalty of 90 cents per hundred. In my county there are many producers who say that the latest 45 cent levy will cost them at least $5 per day. One industrial milk producer near Napanee told me it currently costs him $160 per month.
There is one more point to be made on behalf of the dairy producers. They abide by the first 45 cents levy, which went on the first of the year, but they strongly protest the application of the second 45 cents levy in the middle of the year. With dairy farms the calendar year is
Adjournment Debate
their fiscal year, generally speaking. They have commitments made on that basis that they must keep, commitments to many accounts, mainly financial, and to make another unexpected levy on them out of thin air the first of July in mid-year is very unfair to the industry. In many, many cases it is going to be a matter of the knife edge of profit or loss, but mostly loss on the year's operations.
I respectfully ask the minister to examine that 20 per cent portion of the formula laid down. As reported at page 7960 in Hansard of July 25, his parliamentary secretary said in reference to the 20 per cent margin:
This is an advantage that allows us to consider a number of factors, for instance significant changes in domestic and international stocks, changes in the revenue of dairy producers in other countries or major changes in competitive costs inherent in processing.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister, to the government, and to the Minister of Agriculture, climb out of the swimming pool and into the think tank- withdraw the recent 45 cent levy-smarten up and look further into this problem. We can compete with Europe, but to do so we must improve our strategy as world traders. We can compete with them, and can do so without forcing the dairy farmers of Canada to foot the whole bill.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am forced to repeat almost the same thing I have been saying a number of times recently, because we are asked the same question all the time. Anyway, I might have an explanation for the hon. member. Producers already undertook with the Canadian government to pay export costs, under supply management programs.
One important matter remains to be clarified concerning exports. In order to do that, I will have to explain the current situation of world trade. Powdered skim milk stocks have been on the increase and prices are declining. At the beginning of 1975, skimmed milk powder was selling at 45 cents. In April, when the European Economic Community increased its exports subsidies, the price went down to 36 cents a pound. It has been declining ever since, and is now at 26 cents a pound. You must therefore understand how serious the problem is.
Faced with such a decline, Canada must choose one of two alternatives. Either we meet competition and sell at low prices, or we accumulate stocks. Clearly, the second alternative must be rejected because it would be much too costly. But we have to face the facts. If we sell at low prices, we must assume the loss because on each pound of skimmed milk powder originally priced at 64 cents, there is a loss of 37 cents. Assuming the total export volume is 200 million pounds, we get an astronomical figure of $74 million.
The government must act therefore. It must increase the export levy on industrial milk. The amount of the levy has been 90 cents a hundred weight since July 1. Although strongly criticized, such an increase is needed to maintain skimmed milk powder sales at current world prices. Let me explain. We were fully justified to announce a target price when world price was abnormal. In April, such a price still allowed to face competition, thanks to the level of levy we had then. Unfortunately, there has been since a

July 29, 1975
Adjournment Debate
radical change, and the Canadian government had no responsibility there. It is known that our department is strongly interested in exports. We have always tried to find new markets for Canadian products. The present situation leaves us with little alternative. We already examined the effects of government financing, but it would produce more problems than it would solve. Madam Speaker, I think it is relevant to say that the same question has been put to us several times. We are forced to give nearly always the same answer.


ENERGY-NATURAL GAS-POSSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT PROMOTING POLAR PIPELINE THROUGH MANITOBA
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, the subject I wish to debate in this evening's adjournment debate is the critical situation facing Canada and the United States, the serious shortage of natural gas, and why the polar gas pipeline ought to be routed through Manitoba.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I and my colleagues raised this matter previously in this House. Two circumstances prompted me to raise the matter again on this occasion. The first of these is the government's inaction in attempting to find a solution to our country's impending shortage of natural gas, a shortage which will be made more serious by the expected shortages and higher prices of other forms of energy.
As an authority, may I quote the words of Mr. Bruce Wilson, former president of Union Gas of Chatham, Ontario. Speaking in Ottawa last May, Mr. Wilson said:
Reserves of natural gas are declining in Canada. There has not been a major discovery in the southern half of the western Canada sedimentary basin in the last seven years. At the same time, production rates have increased.
He summed it up by saying, "My main point is that there is a tremendous supply problem facing Canada." I hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) realizes this. His actions to date do not support this hope to any great extent.
The obvious course of action for the government is clear. It should take definitive action to encourage the building of a natural gas pipeline from the Arctic islands, where the reserves of the future lie. Apparently, the government has been playing around with the decision on whether to support the plans to build the Mackenzie Valley pipeline or the plans of the polar gas consortium. I believe the right decision is obvious if benefit to Canada as a whole is the main criterion.
Let me read part of an article carried in today's Ottawa Journal. The caption over the headline reads "18 Design Faults Charged." The headline is, "Pipeline Inadequate", and the body of the article, which was written in Washington reads in part as follows:
... Design on the proposed Canada-U.S. arctic natural gas pipeline is inadequate, the U.S. interior's department stated Monday.
The project which includes the Mackenzie Valley pipeline in Canada was analyzed in a 19 volume draft environment impact statement weighing 51-pounds and released by the U.S. government here.
This study listed 18 faults in the pipeline design.

... the problems involve sections of the pipeline system which would be buried in the Arctic and sub-Arctic reaches of Alaska and northern Canada.
Let me point out that Manitoba faces a serious shortage of natural gas. New homes and businesses must find alternative fuels to supply heat and power.
Two alternative routes have been suggested for this pipeline. One route would put it through eastern Keewatin and Manitoba; the other, across Hudson Strait and down through northern Quebec. May I list my reasons for thinking the Manitoba route is the cheapest and most logical alternative. Consider the matter of construction. The Manitoba route would be an all-land route, while the Quebec route would involve the spanning of a large body of water, Hudson Strait. The building of pipelines on land involves, of course, a well understood and much practised technology; building under water does not involve any well understood technology. Surely problems would arise in connection with the under water route.
Let us also consider construction aids. In this regard the Manitoba route is far ahead of the Quebec route. The main aid to construction would be the Hudson Bay railway, which would run parallel to the pipeline from Churchill to The Pas for 510 miles. That route would provide the builders of the pipeline with cheap transportation help. The very presence of a railway and highway means that supplies could be transported quickly and cheaply to construction areas.
In the first phase of construction, materials would be taken to Churchill and loaded on supply boats, which would deliver materials to points along the Hudson Bay coast where construction would be taking place. In the later phases of construction, materials would simply be unloaded along the railway and highway, at the point where construction had proceeded. As a sideline, this would provide a much needed shot in the arm for the port of Churchill and the railway.
It must also be remembered that Quebec has no such rail or road system, and one would have to be built before construction could begin. This would greatly add to the cost of building the pipeline through Quebec.
A second construction aid available in Manitoba and not in Quebec is labour. In northern Manitoba skilled construction workers may be found along the route of the pipeline, with experience in building mines, smelters, hydro developments, forestry complexes, etc., while in Quebec no such labour supply exists, simply because of lack of population.
Thus, costs of transporting labour to the construction site would be cheaper in Manitoba than Quebec. Also it must be remembered that a pipeline through Manitoba would do much to alleviate chronic unemployment problems in the area, especially among the large native population. Again it must be emphasized that while Quebec may have the same problem, it is on a lesser scale because of the smaller total population in its northern areas.
As to the area served, here again Manitoba has the edge. A pipeline through Quebec would begin to serve its use when it reached an area only about 100 miles north of Montreal; before this it would travel through 1,000 miles of sparsely populated area.
July 29, 1975

In Manitoba its benefits would be felt, with the construction of several branch lines, as far north as Baker Lake, Chesterfield, Rankin Inlet and Whalecove, and thence to the great seaport of Churchill.


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


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, even though the hon. member did not finish his speech I believe I got the main drift of his remarks. He has suggested that the polar gas route is an immediate alternative means of supplying frontier gas. At the present time the supply from the Arctic Islands is insufficient to justify the construction of a polar route-only about 14 trillion cubic feet have been established, whereas the minimum threshold volume is estimated to be at least 20 trillion cubic feet before such a pipeline is feasible. Estimates of the volume needed could rise if unexpected costs arise in the course of
Adjournment Debate
pipeline construction or if there are physical obstructions discovered which would make the route more expensive than presently evisaged.
There is also a great deal of research development and planning work to be carried out before a polar gas pipeline can go ahead. The federal government is interested in seeing this research work carried out so that the pipeline may go forward. Possibly Petro-Can could be the vehicle for federal government participation since one of the objectives of the corporation is energy research and development.
As the minister said in the House, the government does have an interest in this pipeline because it is a 45 per cent shareholder in Panarctic. Thus, as reserves of gas are proven in the Arctic islands and the necessary technology is developed, it would become possible to go ahead with this route to deliver the gas from the Arctic regions to southern Canada.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.13 p.m.

Wednesday, July 30, 1975