1975-07-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. As workers are still being urged to exercise restraint in their wage demands and in view of the difficulties we experience in trying to win increases for pensioners and veterans, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That this House calls on the government not to implement any of the salary increases recommended in the fourth report of the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation in the Public Service, tabled by the Prime Minister on July 25, 1975, without referring any such proposed increases to the House of Commons before they are put into effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of this motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since no really serious motive can justify the decision of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to impose, effective July 1, an additional contribution of 45 cents on every hundredweight of industrial milk, which additional contribution would result in an immediate and important reduction of producers' revenues, and considering that all powdered milk surplusses could easily be sold or even given away to needy countries, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the Minister of Agriculture immediately rescind this legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: I have a number of questions I should like to direct to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, but I want first of all, by way of an introduction, to wish him a pleasant and fruitful journey to Helsinki.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in light of the Prime Minister's upcoming trip to Helsinki, I ask him to advise the House if he believes in self-determination and if he will put forth at the conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe Canada's views on the matter of self-determination of nation states?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his good wishes and can assure him that I will do my best to represent not only the views of Canada but those of the Atlantic alliance. As the hon. member knows, we have discussed in caucus all those problems of the NATO countries. We have reached a certain agreement which I think represents a significant development towards detente. As for the hon. member's question, I can assure him that I will be pleased to table in the House on my return the particulars of the agreement to be signed.


Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's remarks, will the Prime Minister advise the House if he intends to make representations to Mr. Brezhnev, to allow self-determination in the Baltic states and in eastern Europe?

July 28, 1975
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, hopefully, I shall be meeting Mr. Brezhnev but I doubt whether at this late date we shall be able to make significant changes in the agreement, as reached so far. I point out to the hon. member that the agreement provides for change, for peaceful change. It does accept, more or less, the boundaries which were agreed to by the United Nations, but does not freeze them for all time. It accepts the possibility of change through peaceful means.


Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since self-determination is an integral part of security, because there cannot be security so long as the people are not free, has the Prime Minister considered refusing to sign the conference treaty if no acceptable provisions for self-determination are included in it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not plan to refuse to sign the treaty which has been arrived at through many, many months and years of negotiation between ourselves and our NATO partners. I repeat: the point the hon. member is attempting to make I think is covered in the draft document, as it provides for peaceful change and not for the freezing of borders for all time.


POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSING WITH RUSSIAN LEADERS ACTIONS OF RUSSIAN FISHING VESSELS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In his discussions with the Russian leader will the Prime Minister be discussing matters that are related to the closing of Canadian ports to Russian fishing vessels, and under what conditions and circumstances will these ports be reopened? Will the Prime Minister also be discussing questions covering the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries and the importance to Canada, as well as to all signatory powers, of Russia's remaining within the agreed quotas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In a sense, Mr. Speaker, the questions are hypothetical, even though I recognize they are very important. I must point out to the House that there are a certain number of bilateral meetings which we are attempting to arrange. I do not know whether at this time I will have any great time with any particular leader. Well, I should not say that; there are some meetings that I know are confirmed, but in the case of Secretary Brezhnev I do not believe any meeting has been confirmed, and therefore it would be premature to talk about an agenda.
However, I would inform the hon. member that I did write to Premier Kosygin last week about this whole matter, and the thrust of my message to him was that we are taking these actions, as I believe we are entitled to do under ICNAF, with a view to ensuring that the fisheries will be there and will not disappear. I believe this is the point of view that the Russian fishermen themselves would be inclined to share with us. The way things are going now, the Minister of State (Fisheries) has made it clear that the species themselves are endangered. They are endangered for us, for our fishermen, and for the fishermen of other nations. That is the point of view that I will
[Mr. Wagner.)
be conveying to him, that it is in the interests of humanity that we exercise discretion in the exploitation of these resources.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTER TO PREMIER KOSYGIN AND ASSURANCE EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION TO 200 MILES WILL BE DISCUSSED AT HELSINKI
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister make available to the House the letters that he mentioned which will be exchanged between himself and the Russian leaders; and will he give an assurance that the 200 mile limit or economic zone will be discussed with someone during his visit to Helsinki?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the
first point, Mr. Speaker, I will not give that assurance. This is correspondence that I had with Premier Kosygin and it would be improper for me to table it, at least without his permission. I have told the House the essence of my message in it. I have indicated a preparedness to have discussions with Secretary General Brezhnev in Helsinki if such an arrangement can be made.
I did raise the question of the 200 mile limit and indicated that in fact our actions now were predicated on the assumption that we were hoping that the 200 mile economic zone would eventually be recognized in international law, that we were acting as trustees, guardians and stewards of this resource so that there would be some for everybody-preferably first for Canadians, but that the resource itself would be there. It was in the context of international law evolving toward a 200 mile economic zone that we were taking our action.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of the report of the advisory group on executive compensation in the public service which the minister tabled in the House last Friday. May I ask him why it took four months for the government to table this report, having had it in its possession, I understand, some four months ago; and did it have anything to do with the discussions that the Minister of Finance was deeply embedded in at the time in terms of guidelines for salary and wage increases? Related to that, would the Prime Minister inform the House whether or not any action has been taken yet on the report, having in mind the recommendation that certain salary increases become effective on April 1 of this year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member got the figure of four months. I have not been acquainted with the report, and I do not believe the government has, for anything like that length of time. I must say that I took cognizance of the report within a matter of a few days before the budget was brought down by the Minister of
July 28, 1975

Finance. As a matter of fact, the chairman and the vicechairman of the group, Mr. Lambert and Mr. De Grandpre, met with me on the very day the budget was being brought down and they were in the gallery on the night of the budget. I am not saying the report was not ready. It might have been in some other reaches of the civil service, but I did not see it until a few days before.
On the second part of the question, the government has not yet announced any decision on the recommendation. I must say that we have already considered it in cabinet and I hope we will be able to reach a decision very soon.


SUGGESTED LIMITATION OF PAY INCREASES FOR EXECUTIVES TO $2,400
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, with regard to my information about the four months, it came from the date of the report which is March 31 of this year, which would make it four months ago three days from now. In light of the guideline recommendations of the Minister of Finance in his concern about dealing with the problem of inflation, to the effect that no increases should exceed $2,400, will the Prime Minister assure the House that any increases the government might eventually make in the executive category will not exceed this amount?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as to the date itself, I gave an explanation. I might add, for the benefit of the hon. member, that the increases we have traditionally made date from April 1 and, therefore, regardless of the date the report is brought down, if there are any increases they presumably would be retroactive to April 1.
As to the size of the increases, while I take note of the recommendation of the hon. member, I would point out that it might be slightly unfair to impose a range of levels in civil service guidelines which have not been generally accepted by the public. Of course, we, as members of parliament, have limited our own increase to 7 per cent, but I must point out to the hon. member that this is not an example which has generally been followed and, therefore, I would not want to give any undertaking of this nature until we have studied the report in more detail and made a decision.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL OF REPORT ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TO COMMITTEE-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CURTAIL GROWTH AT EXECUTIVE LEVEL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister will not stick to those guidelines I would ask whether he will follow the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that before action is taken he will bring the recommendations back to parliament? In relation to that, given the fact that the advisory committee said that "the rate of growth (in the public service executive category) has been excessive", being some 82 per cent since 1970 compared with a general growth rate in the public civil service of only 27 per cent, will the Prime Minister inform the House what steps the government is likely to take to curtail this significant growth at the executive level of the public service?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the critique of the Lambert commission is justified. I would point out with some pride that the President of the Treasury Board anticipated by many, many months the conclusions drawn by the Lambert commission, and sometime last fall the President of the Treasury Board announced guidelines as to the rate of growth in the civil service. The figure for the first quarter of 1975 would indicate, indeed, that the rate of growth, which we thought was excessive, has been brought down to a very low figure. I do not have the figure at my fingertips, but the President of the Treasury Board could make it known to the hon. member. This is a justifiable criticism and we have already dealt with it.


COMMUNICATIONS
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Could the minister tell us whether since the last meeting of the provincial ministers of communications, he had some dealings with the Quebec premier concerning the federal-provincial dispute on telecommunications generally and more especially on cablevision?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: No, Mr. Speaker.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Would the minister tell the House whether he has indeed received representations from the Quebec Junior Chamber of Commerce in particular, and even from the Quebec Young Liberals' Association, that are against the minister's position?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have received copies of messages sent to the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Quebec, but to the best of my recollection, no communication was addressed to me personally.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the series of questions asked the Prime Minister about his visit. Since he has indicated he plans to raise with the Soviet leader the question of the 200-mile limit, could he tell us whether he will be touching on such matters as the need to reach agreement on positive fishing conservation measures beyond the 200-mile limit or the continental shelf in the area known as the high seas particularly in respect of endangered species such as our salmon and also whales.
July 28, 1975

Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the example of salmon was given by me in my letter to Premier Kosygin. If it is possible for me to meet with him, I would certainly want to put the subject on the agenda. I should like to remind the House, however, that largely I believe thanks to Canadian initiatives and the very good work of our Department of External Affairs on this matter we did manage to put environmental questions into the treaty, particularly under basket three I think. This was one of the Canadian concerns, the need to preserve the environment and endangered species.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of press reports indicating that the minister was about to raise a question of privilege last week arising from statements made by the Chairman of Air Canada, may I ask the minister whether he is now in a position to confirm or deny the reported statement made by Mr. Pratte that it was the minister who precipitated the resignation of Mr. Menard rather than the Chairman of Air Canada, and that in effect it is the minister who is calling the shots concerning who should stay and who should go in the corporation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker. I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Pratte on this transaction in which I indicated he should inquire and take necessary steps to protect the reputation of Air Canada, but I never said to him that he should fire Mr. X, Y, or Z.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, would the minister perhaps take this opportunity to clarify what he feels should be his position in regard to Section 5 of the Air Canada Act which states that the affairs of Air Canada should be under the management of a nine-member board of directions, and is the minister considering legislative amendments to grant more responsibility and control over Crown corporations as part of his new transportation policy?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know there is a new study going on about the relationship of Crown corporations to the government, generally speaking, and probably it includes Air Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On July 23, in response to a question from the Leader of the

Opposition, the Prime Minister undertook to ascertain the date on which AECL was ordered by the government to suspend continuation of work on the CANDU installation in Argentina and to table the directives to AECL. In view of reports in the press that work on the project has been continuing since August of 1974 would the Prime Minister be in a position today to supply that information to the House?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if I might reply, the directives are from the Atomic Energy Control Board to AECL refusing the permission to export from Canada integral components for the Canadian part of the Cordoba project in Argentina. AECL has taken the position, I believe quite rightly, that it has a contract to perform and as one of the spokesmen has said it should be the government that should interfere with the contract if it is to be done for policy reasons. The government has done so by asking the Atomic Energy Control Board to withhold permission from AECL to export any component parts from Canada for the Cordoba project.
I would remind hon. members that this, of course, is a partnership with an Italian company, that the basic construction has been done by an Argentine company and the Italian company is continuing with the non-nuclear part, so the government of Canada cannot give instructions to the Italian company operating in that country. It can, however, and has, refused permission to AECL to export parts from Canada until the additional safeguard arrangements are made.


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-POSSIBILITY OF FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS BY CANADA
Flora Isabel MacDonald: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could he tell the House if there has been any financial undertaking by the government of Canada with regard to this project during the period since August, 1974?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Export Development Corporation entered into a contract for the financing of the nuclear portion of the Cordoba project. The terms of that contract have not yet been met, and for that reason there have been no advances under the EDC contract. There will be no advances under that contract until the safeguard requirements posed by Canada have been met.


HELSINKI CONFERENCE-SUGGESTION PRIME MINISTER ASK FOR IMPROVED SYSTEM FOR REPORTING VIOLATIONS OF FISHING QUOTAS-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED SURVEILLANCE
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the significance of his presence at the conference and the topic of the Atlantic fisheries and the 200 mile limit being considered, and since the foreign fishing fleets in the Atlantic waters have far exceeded the size necessary to catch the existing quotas-and since these fleets
July 28, 1975

are fishing efficiently, effectively and continuously it is estimated that the quotas are exceeded by as little as 40 per cent and as much as 200 per cent-would the Prime Minister consider, as part of his topic for discussion, the possibility of asking that there be a reporting system which would be irrefutable in respect of the amount of fish caught by foreign fleets off our coast? At present there is no confidence in the reporting system.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the hon. member make that statement. If there were no confidence, we would not have taken the action we did with regard to the Russians. We obviously have some confidence. We sealed the ports.


An hon. Member:: You acted too late.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, one hon. member says the reporting system is not good and, on the other hand, another hon. member says we acted too late on the basis of a reporting system which is no good. We are attempting to make representations and we have been making them in a very forceful way by foreclosures. We will continue to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: I am somewhat confused by the Prime Minister's answer to my last question. I will have to read it to see what he really said.
Since it has been felt that the foreign fleets are coming within Canadian waters recently, will the Prime Minister assure us that there will be a surveillance strength put in place to conduct inspection both of the location of the fishing and the amount of fish caught if the proper catch allocations cannot be negotiated in the usual amicable way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question begs an answer which I am not sure is correct. When the hon. member speaks about fishing in Canadian waters I do not know whether he is referring to the 12 mile limit, which defines Canadian waters now, or to the 200 mile limit, which is something we are trying to bring into international law.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As negotiations have completely broken down between the federal government and the Manitoba government and the Northern Flood Committee with regard to the Churchill river diversion, and as the seven year delay in reaching an environmental and compensation decision will cost the Manitoba taxpayers untold millions of dollars in additional costs, what action will the minister now take? Will he resume negotiations or will the federal government continue with its plans to take Manitoba to court?
Oral Questions


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the contention that the negotiations have completely broken down. I am looking forward to a response from the premier of Manitoba to the letter I gave him covering the two areas: the question of compensation, which was raised by the hon. member, and the extent of the flooding which is anticipated.


A. Daniel McKenzie: As the Manitoba government has provided no firm commitments in regard to compensation for the citizens of northern Manitoba, will the minister insist that the Manitoba government prepare such legislation immediately? Bill 10, which was introduced in 1969 by the previous Conservative government, could be used as an excellent set of guidelines with which to draft the legislation.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, this is a proposal I will be happy to pursue with the government of Manitoba.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but since he is not here I will ask the acting minister, who happens to be the Postmaster General. In view of the evasions of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with respect to questions I asked in this House on July 23 regarding the existence of extended warranties placed on certain models of automobiles by automobile companies and his obstinate refusal to make consumers aware of their rights, I wish to ask if the minister is now prepared to publicize through Box 99 all extended warranties which have existed, now exist or may be found to exist in the future.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs asked me to apologize for his absence today due to illness in his family, and to inform the House that he will be back tomorrow, and at that time he will answer the question.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
The minister must have received innumerable letters of protest against the decision to increase the 45-cent export tax on milk powder. Could he say whether he took them seriously and intends to give a favourable answer to farm-
7970

July 28, 1975
Oral Questions
ers, mainly dairy producers who expressed their opinion on that matter?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said last week.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member for Nipissing in his capacity as co-chairman of the Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service of Canada. Would the chairman undertake to discuss with the committee the proposition that perhaps the committee might profit by studying the Lambert Report, which has just been circulated among members of parliament, with respect to executive compensation in the public service, particularly having regard to its recommendations on other terms of employment?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for drawing the report to my attention. I would be pleased to consider his proposal.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, partially because of his trip abroad, and also because of the fact that the Minister of National Defence is not in the House today. Since August 1 is the deadline of which everyone is aware in terms of the time for a decision the government has to make on the long range patrol aircraft, which is, incidentally, related to many of these questions about patrols off our coast. Has the cabinet made a decision on the LRPA, or is it in a position to make one, before August 1 and while the Prime Minister is away?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of National Defence issued a press release on this matter. If it has not been released, I believe it will be released any moment now. The cabinet did consider the matter, and we did narrow down the options considerably. We explained that we were asking for a further delay because the industrial fall-outs and consequences of the decision have not yet been clearly established. As a matter of fact, until the night before cabinet was meeting on this last week, we were still receiving representations from some of the parties. Therefore, the matter of the LRPA is still in abeyance and will be studied in the weeks and months to come.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Perhaps we had better read the press release of the Minister of National Defence, but since it
[Mr. Laprise.)
has taken seven years and involved four ministers of national defence to come to a decision, do I understand that there is a further time extension beyond August 1 by which time the government will make a choice between one of the two main contractors, either Lockheed or Boeing? Is it narrowed down to the two?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat that until the eve of the cabinet meeting last week we were receiving new variations of propositions regarding the industrial fall-out aspect in Canada, and it will take us a little while to consider these.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, and it follows a question I asked on July 4 and a number of subsequent questions regarding the price of powdered skim milk. The minister at that time said that the producers themselves accept the levy system for the products they are exporting. In light of the many letters I know the minister has received since that answer, has the minister changed his mind with regard to the imposition of the additional levy on the producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, that is the same question which was asked previously by another hon. member, and I give the same answer to this hon. member, which is that I answered the question last week.


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. Can the minister inform the House as to the status and progress of the federal-provincial committee on the review of Fundy tidal power? Can he indicate if that committee is progressing with its work and if they anticipate they will be able to complete that work within the deadline anticipated when the earlier report was brought down? Is it the intention of the committee to establish a central office somewhere in the Maritime province to move forward with the work they anticipate they will have to do?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the last point first, the last report I received from my officials in this regard was that it was not anticipated that at this point a central office would be needed, although that will be very much borne in mind, along with the number of undoubtedly salubrious sites suggested by the hon. member. Regarding the greater detail in the question I will undertake to
July 28, 1975

inquire today and report on the progress to the hon. member tomorrow.


CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Because of the fact that the first meetings by the Canada Labour Relations Council are now over, and in view of the concern of the minister about the existing fragmentation of union power within the public sectors of the economy and his objective to reduce the number of bargaining points within these sectors, can the minister indicate whether the concept of single sector bargaining was discussed at these meetings? What was the general consensus of such a concept, and when can Canadians expect a reduction of bargaining points within the public sector to take place in order to reduce the number of strikes threatening in the entire economy?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in his question the hon. member has covered many areas. I will say yes, the question of reducing the number of bargaining points was discussed; and yes, the question of industry wide bargaining was discussed. The council decided that both were perhaps desirable objectives, and it agreed to form panels of management-or the business side-labour and representatives from government. They would meet over the course of the next two or three months and again in October, hopefully with some definite recommendations along these lines. In view of the summer and their readiness to meet right away and come up with these recommendations, I think that is moving quite quickly.


PENITENTIARIES
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, while on the subject of walkouts I would like to put my supplementary question to the Solicitor General. In view of the work stoppages by striking prisoners at the British Columbia penitentiary, who are demanding the acceptance of unions for convicts, can the minister advise this House what steps he is taking or has taken to bring this absurd situation to an end in order to prevent other similar institutions from following this unfortunate and incredible precedent?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the inmates at B.C. Penitentiary sent a message to the Commissioner of Penitentiaries asking that he go out to B.C. to discuss with them the possibility of forming a union for inmates. The Commissioner of Penitentiaries sent back a message that this was completely unacceptable
Oral Questions
and that he would not be willing to discuss it with them in B.C. or anywhere else in Canada.


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the sitdown strike is continuing and in view of the government's inaction, can it be surmised that the government intends to follow the course that these criminals are suggesting and make it government policy to allow convicts the right to strike that many honest Canadians do not share?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think it was fairly clear from my answer that this is completely unacceptable. I might say the inmates are all in their cells.


An hon. Member:: Thank God!


William Warren Allmand: They have not left their cells since this started. With respect to working, I might point out that not all these inmates are working-at any time-and the work is not the type of work that is done on the outside.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last week I put some questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and he suggested they should be directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
When did the minister first know that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a Canadian government agency, had undertaken and was proceeding with the task of supervising the building of a nuclear reactor in Argentina? Did the minister or the Canadian government authorize AECL to undertake this task and in view of the fact that the government was negotiating, as I understand it-negotiations have not been completed-was negotiating for more satisfactory safeguards, why did the minister or the government not require AECL to stop making this particular contribution to the building of a reactor in Argentina?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, no doubt the hon. gentleman's questions last week were motivated by a misleading report in the Toronto Star. The report suggested that AECL had carried out the negotiation of its contract in Argentina without cabinet consent and, it also suggested, without the participation of the Department of External Affairs. Both assertions are mistaken. AECL at each stage in the proceedings, from the cabinet authorization of May 23, 1972, to submitting a proposal to tender which had been invited by the Argentine utility, up to and including the confirmation of the contract on December 20, 1973, acted with authority from cabinet, and the Department of External Affairs both here in Ottawa and through the Canadian Embassy in Buenos Aires had been involved in the negotiation of the contract.
29669-2 lVi

July 28, 1975
Oral Questions
The hon. gentleman suggested that the contract was entered into at a time when the government was negotiating additional safeguards. I would remind him that the contract was executed on December 19, 1973, that the government embarked upon a further re-examination of safeguards after the Indian decision or Indian action of May, 1974 to set off a bomb. The government thereafter stipulated there should be tighter safeguards, on December 20, 1974. So the contract was already executed and under way at the time additional safeguards were put in.
I would also point out, as I did to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, that AECL has an obligation to perform under its contract. In my view, and in the view of the government, AECL should meet its obligation but the government of Canada, acting through its agency, the Atomic Energy Control Board will withhold continuation of the contract, in so far as Canadian component parts are concerned, until they complete the safeguard agreement.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is what happened to the gas supply- no wonder we are short on gas!


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-ALLEGED STATEMENT BY ENERGY MINISTER SAFEGUARDS CONDITIONS MET-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF SAFEGUARDS
Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, I am again quoting from a Toronto paper but not the one the minister mentioned. The Globe and Mail of last Wednesday quoted the minister as saying that apparently South Korea had met all Canada's conditions on safeguards on the sale of a Canadian reactor. Is this so, and if it is, will the minister table any documents setting out such conditions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the actual negotiations of the safeguards arrangement has been done by officials of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He might be in a position to respond.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not know whether he heard my question.


An hon. Member:: He was not listening.


Mr. MacEachen:: Yes, I was listening very attentively.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is reported to have said that all conditions have apparently been met-is this correct? If it is correct, when will we be able to see these conditions? When will they be tabled?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the final stages of negotiation are still under way. We expect it will be possible to conclude the safeguards arrangements with the Republic of Korea.


Francis Andrew Brewin: And table them?


DIVORCE ACT
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Justice is prompted by the recent report from the Law Reform Commission. Is the minister prepared to bring in legislation affecting the Divorce Act to provide for marriage breakdown as the basic cause for dissolution with consequential relief as to maintenance? This course was advocated by the opposition some time ago and rejected by the Prime Minister who as minister of justice, rigidly opposed this suggestion. Has the Prime Minister become sufficiently liberal now to go along with tis proposal?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to find my way through some of those rather obviously unfounded allegations to what may have been the question. I should like to assure the hon. gentleman that this government continues its very alert stance in attempting to move the law forward to put people in this country in the best possible position. We will be looking at the two reports on this subject from the Law Reform Commission, as well as the other very important reports coming from that commission. We look forward to the appropriate development of legislation therefrom.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, could I pin the minister down, in view of that nebulous reply, and ask if he is prepared to recommend a joint committee of this House and the other place to consider this issue, in light of the fact that the only solid progress in the last half century in divorce reform came out of a report of a similar committee eight years ago and since then the law has stood still?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's earlier question really gainsaid that remark, since the creation of the Law Reform Commission and the encouragement to have a look at divorce and family law is an example of a substantial advance. I have no doubt the appropriate course will be for this government to have a thorough examination of the proposals put before it and then to put legislation before the House.


ALLEGED HIGH RADIOACTIVE LEVELS OF WASTE DUMPS OF ELDORADO NUCLEAR AT PORT HOPE-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF REPORT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that well over a month ago a series of apparently substantiated allegations were made about the waste dumps of the Crown corporation Eldorado Nuclear at Port Hope, and in view of the fact that the minister has had a report respecting the veracity of those allegation for over three weeks, does the minister think he is decreasing the concern and worry of residents in the Port Hope area by keeping this report
July 28, 1975

secret? When is he going to publish the report and what is he going to do about it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make it public as soon as possible. I will have to see if the translation is completed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question. What is the minister going to do about the allegations of high radioactive levels and high toxicity levels in those dumps in the area around Port Hope?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could remind the hon. member of the briefing I gave him privately and the response made publicly in this House that the sites had been examined. In some cases, they will have increasing security and in other cases, in conjunction with the Department of the Environment and the province of Ontario, there will be further monitoring. Although there may not be an immediate risk, this will make certain the situation is kept under close control.


INFORMATION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services as a result of a query from a constituent and I am sure it can be related to all constituencies in Canada. In order to cut back on government expenditure, as suggested by the Minister of Finance in his last budget, and considering the tremendous increase in the cost of paper and labour, has the government undertaken a cost-benefit analysis of sending speeches and communiques from the offices of ministers to civic officials, radio stations, etc. across Canada, when such mail cannot reach points in Alberta earlier than three to four days and as late as 15 days from date of release? I have an example of that in my hand.


FINANCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The budget speech announced that legislation would be introduced to increase the rate of return on existing government of Canada annuities. Can the minister inform the House when the legislation will be introduced and will it be similar to the ten cent tax on gas, that is effective June 23, and can he tell the House how much the increase will be?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the House leader replied to a similar question to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre last week.
Oral Questions
Legislation is required and will be introduced early after the resumption of the present session of parliament in the fall. At the moment, the Department of Finance and other departments, including Manpower and Immigration, Revenue and Labour, are working out the details of what the escalation for interest and capital funding should be.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It relates and may be supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Hastings, which the minister chose not to answer. I will try to word the question in a way that will merit an answer. With regard to the 100 per cent increase in the levy on industrial milk, does the minister have any plans to help relieve the pressure on the industrial milk producer who is in debt to the bank for considerable sums of money, thus threatening his livelihood on the farm? I ask that with regard to the short-term view. In a longterm view, when will the minister be developing a policy to help stabilize the return on industrial milk over the long run?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Twice the minister has been asked that and twice he has said he has nothing to add.


PETRO-CANADA INQUIRY WHETHER MR. JACK AUSTIN HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO A SENIOR POSITION IN CORPORATION
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister confirm or deny press speculation that Mr. Jack Austin, currently of the Prime Minister's Office, has received a senior appointment with Petro-Canada? If the answer is in the affirmative, will the minister advise how this can be reconciled with the act that requires senior appointments to be made by the board of directors?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, no decisions have yet been made on senior personnel for Petro-Canada.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications of which I have given him notice. I understand the minister has conducted an investigation into the disclosure in last Wednesday's Toronto Star that

July 28, 1975
Oral Questions
Canadian long distance telephone conversations are being monitored by the Russians. Can the minister indicate the result of that investigation? Also, can the minister advise specifically whether he has been able to determine whether the Russians have ground monitoring stations, such as those allegedly contained in the United States in Russian consulates and the Russian embassy in Washington?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer the second part of the hon. member's question on which I have no information. As for the first part, the government has been aware for a long time, much before the publication of the articles he alluded to, that telephone communications can be monitored because hertzian beams or microwave networks are used on some transmission lines. Because of that danger, of which the government is aware, recommendations are made to all those who have to transmit or receive so-called "classified" information against the use of the telephone to that end. When it is absolutely necessary to use the telephone, as it is in some cases, especially to convey information pertaining to our defence agreements with our allies, very costly equipment is used to code the information at one end and decode it at the other. The Department of Communications is also very much aware of the danger and always requires that the microwave networks are located in such geographical areas as can best be protected against that type of danger. However, I must say to the hon. member that, in view of the present state of science, we will have to wait for the development of communications by optical fiber, or by laser beam, to do away completely with the danger to which he alludes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Rockefeller commission in the United States which looked into the problem of Russian monitoring of long distance telephone calls by private citizens concluded, and I quote:
This raises the real spectre that selected American users of telephones are potentially subject to blackmail that can seriously affect their actions, or even lead in some cases to recruitment as espionage agents.
What action is being taken by the government to ensure that telephone conversations are not being monitored by the Russians and what protection is there to individual citizens which will ensure they are not blackmailed by the Russians as a result of their long distance telephone calls?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the comments that the hon. members refers to are based on speculative reports and speculative news stories. I do not propose to respond on this subject on the basis of speculation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Since negotiations commenced in Washington more than a week ago, and since we will soon be facing the anniversary of the global quotas affecting exports of Canadian beef, what will the federal policy be with regard to support prices or border quotas for Canadian beef after August 11 when the present quotas expire?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I said I would announce before August 12 what the decision or position will be by August 12, and I will do that.


CANADIAN PACIFIC
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister order Canadian Pacific Railways to stop the current practice of reducing main line and yard railway crews by one brakeman, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Justice Hall has not yet reported to the government on the size of train crews?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire about those facts and give the hon. member an answer.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the case of Canadian missionaries Norman and Joan Johnson. Can the minister report any progress in securing the release of these Canadian missionaries from Viet Nam?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I advised the hon. member just a few days ago that I had taken additional action in the way of once again drawing this case to the attention of the PRG authorities. I have no information to depart today.
July 28, 1975


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. It arises out of the possibility of prosecutions arising out of the sale of tainted meat in Quebec. Has the minister had an opportunity to investigate those violations of federal statutes, particularly the Food and Drugs Act, arising from the activity of the Quebec policy inquiry? If not, when will the minister give his full consideration to a matter which involves the health and well-being of an entire province? If so, is the minister now prepared to lay charges under the Food and Drugs Act?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the various facts to which the hon. member refers are the responsibility of provincial as well as federal authorities. It is customary in these circumstances to complete investigations before any charges are laid and not discuss the cases at large in advance of that.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If my questions a little earlier were as oblique as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would seem to indicate, I would like to say for clarification that under the cover of fog and darkness, it is believed that foreign fishing fleets have fished this summer with impunity within an area from which they are precluded by existing international agreement. It was my hope that the Prime Minister would seek from foreign fishing fleets an assurance of a behaviour that would in all respects assure an adherence to the letter of existing agreements. At the same time my question implied that it is to be hoped he would assume a firm posture with respect to Canada's position and the rights of coastal states to the long-term management of the resources of the continental shelf.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is expressing dissatisfaction with an answer he received in the question period. That is scarcely a point of order. Perhaps the hon. member intended to ask for clarification when expressing dissatisfaction.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I made it perfectly clear that we took this action because we have evidence of overfishing by some foreign fleets. That was made perfectly clear to the House, and I do not see why the hon. member should cast doubt on that. As a result of that action the ports have been closed, and we took that action as a result of surveillance. I am glad to have the support of the hon. member for the government's action, but do not think he is justified in trying to reflect on things we have already done.
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,785, 2,191, 2,317, 2,343, 2,437, 2,439, 2,521 (Corrected), 2,567, 2,569, 2,620, 2,689, 2,718, 2,791, 2,793 and 2,967.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,753 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,892?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	During the period March 31, 1973 to February 28, 1975, on how many occasions did a representative of the government employ or otherwise arrange for the services of a freelance or contract speech writer to write speeches for a Deputy Minister or an Assistant Deputy Minister?
2.	In each case (a) who was the Deputy Minister or Assistant Deputy Minister (b) what was the fee (c) what was the occasion of the speech (d) who was the freelance or contract writer?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs as follows: 1. Once.
2. (a) J. W. MacNeill, Secretary; (b) $225; (c) Speech to United Nations Preparatory Committee meeting re Habitat 76; (d) James Robb. Nil returns have been submitted by other departments and agencies.


Mr. Neil: What were the names of all advertising agencies in Saskatchewan used by the government or any Crown corporation in each year 1970 to 1974 inclusive and, what were the amounts paid to each?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: The only advertising agency in Saskatchewan used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion during the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive was Foster Advertising Co., Ltd., of Regina. The agency was used to meet the advertising requirements of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, a DREE Agency, for the three prairie provinces. Dates and amounts are as follows: 1970-71, $6,742; 1971-72, $8,360; 1972-73, $5,809; 1973-74, $47,862.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: 1970, Harvey Johnson, Regina Branch; 1971, Harvey Johnson, Regina Branch; 1972, Dunsky Advertising Ltd., Regina Branch; 1973, Dunsky Advertising Ltd., Regina Branch; 1974, Dunsky Advertising Ltd., Regina Branch. With regard to the amounts paid to advertising agencies, it has not been customary to require the CBC to divulge such details of its

July 28, 1975
Order Paper Questions
internal management and administration. Nil returns have been submitted by other departments, agencies and Crown Corporations.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,798 to the effect that it is government policy that the Prime Minister may travel with an official or officials such as Mr. Michael Pitfield to give him administrative support and in order to provide for possible emergencies (a) what administrative support did Mr. Pitfield give the Prime Minister on the eight specifically named trips to foreign places in the capacity of liaison officer as listed in the answer to Question No. 447 (b) did any emergencies occur on any of these trips where Mr. Pitfield's services were required and, if so, what is the nature of such emergencies and the dates on which they occurred?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: (a) Analysis of correspondence, drafting of replies, review and discussion of problems, planning meetings and other duties such as trip arrangements, arrangements with national and local officials in relation to security and protocol, which it is customary for public servants to render to their minister, (b) On numerous occasions, experience has demonstrated the importance of the Prime Minister being accompanied while abroad by a senior official who can maintain liaison with Canadian and foreign officials and make arrangements to keep the Prime Minister fully briefed on situations requiring his attention. One example of a circumstance requiring the continuing attention of the Prime Minister and the availability to him of senior staff support was the potentially perilous chain of events that took place in Czechoslovakia in August, 1968. Another example was the unexepected declaration by the President of the United States in August, 1971 of new economic measures of profound consequence to Canada. On both these occasions it was necessary to make emergency arrangements to brief the Prime Minister, and for his return to Canada.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	For each building housing government offices in the National Capital Region, as of April 18, 1975, was the conservation policy recommended by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of turning off lights in offices where occupants had left for the night followed and, in each case, if not, for what reason?
2.	What is the cost to the taxpayer of the large newspaper advertisements by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which shows one of the Department's buildings at right with the lights extinguished in empty offices and exhorts the private sector to follow the same policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the departments of Public Works and Energy, Mines and Resources as follows: 1. Lights are turned off in all National Capital area buildings housing government offices, where occupants have left for the night, with the following exceptions: (a) buildings in which cleaning services and/or security sweeps are required to be carried out after occupants vacate, in which case lights are turned off by security staff when all operations have concluded, or after operations have concluded in separate areas of the building, when switching arrange-

ments permit. The following buildings are included in this category: Canadian Government Printing Bureau; External Affairs Building; Justice Annex; National Library and Archives; Supreme Court; Temporary Buildings No. 2 and 4; Centre Block; Confederation Building; East Block; West Block; East Memorial Building; West Memorial Building; Lampman Building; DND Headquarters; A, B and C Buildings Cartier Square; Cartier Square Militia Building, Kildare House; Laurier House; Government Conference Centre; National Arts Centre; Postal Station E; Victoria Museum; Hunter Building; Jackson Building; National Police Information Centre; National Police Services Building; RCMP Headquarters; Sir Charles Tupper Building; National Revenue Taxation Hdqtrs and Data Centre; Sir Alexander Campbell Building; Sir Leonard Tilley Building; GOCB No. 1, Tunneys Pasture; R.H. Coates Tower, (b) buildings having greenhouse operations, when lights are kept on in most of the buildings at night during the fall, winter, and spring, when heat and light is required for experimental purposes. The following buildings are included in this category: Building Nos.: 22, 140, 142, 12, 73, 75, 110, 50 and 21; Central Experimental Farm, (c) buildings in which occupants require at least partial lighting during unoccupied hours, for security reasons. The following buildings are included in this category: Lome Building, Hangars 66, 67 and 68, Rockliffe. (d) buildings in which the Crown occupies leased space, and building owners have elected to leave lights on after the occupants have left, and cleaning operations have been concluded: Nil.
2. $96,767.07.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What diseases are considered contagious under immigration regulations?
2.	(a) What body or individual is given the authority, duty and responsibility to interpret immigration rules and regulations (b) who decides, in the final analysis, which diseases are contagious?
3.	(a) What are the immunization requirements for aliens (b) who enforces such requirements?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. There is no list of diseases considered contagious in Immigration legislation. There is however, sufficient protection to the public health of Canada in section 5 of the Immigration Act which prohibits the admission of persons afflicted with any contagious or infectious disease or with any disease that may become dangerous to the public health.
2.	(a) The Minister of Manpower and Immigration or Officials empowered by the Immigration Act and regulations or by ministerially delegated authority interpret the Immigration Act and regulations guided when necessary by advisors in the employ of the Minister of Health and Welfare, the Solicitor General, etc. (b) A medical officer of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
3.	(a) The immunization requirement for any person arriving in Canada from a place outside Canada, that is currently infected with the disease, is vaccination against
July 28, 1975

smallpox within the three years immediately preceding arrival in Canada or vaccination within the 14 days immediately following his arrival in Canada, (b) Enforcement of this requirement is by the Department of National Health and Welfare under the Quarantine Act R.S., cc. 33 (1st Supp.) and the Quarantine Regulations established under P.C. 1971-2818.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Dominion Fire Commissioner's office conduct an investigation into a boat fire occurring on July 14, 1974 at the approaches to Chaffey's Locks on the Rideau Canal (a) was the subsequent report classified "restricted and privileged" and, if so, for what reason (b) was the report submitted by the Dominion Fire Commissioner, R. A. Switzer, to D. H. A. Farmer of Parks Canada by letter dated October 2, 1974 (c) was the report made public and, if not, for what reason (d) will it be made public and, if so, on what date?
2.	Did the report among other things conclude: Had this explosion and fire occurred during locking operations especially at low level, it is my firm opinion that the occupants of this vessel would have lost their lives?
3.	Did the report make four specific recommendations in regard to all canal locks under Parks Canada jurisdiction and (a) if so, what were they (b) in each case, has the recommendation been carried out and, if not, for what reason (c) when will each such recommendation be implemented?
4.	Did the report include with reference to all canals under Parks Canada this statement: "a general review of a fire during a locking procedure indicates that a major loss of life can be expected" (a) what steps has the government taken to limit the chances of such an incident (b) if no steps have been taken (i) for what reasons (ii) on what date will something be done?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. Yes. (a) Yes, this is the standard procedure for all investigations carried out by the office of the Dominion Fire Commissioner, (b) Yes. (c) No. As the report is classified "Restricted and Privileged" the decision to release all or any of the contents rests with the agency responsible for the administration of the facilities under investigation, (d) See answer to 1 "C".
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes. (a) (i) Provide a fixed water spray system at each lock; (ii) Provide means to escape from locks such as nylon rope ladders with oversize rungs; (iii) It was reported that at one lock the lockmaster uses a loud-hailer to give fire safety precautions in addition to the posted warning signs. Consideration should be given for this practice to be implemented at all locks, (iv) If a lock is located within an area where fire department services are immediately available, a municipal fire alarm box or at least a telephone should be provided so that the fire department can be summoned, (b) Safety precautions in the locks had already been implemented by Parks Canada prior to receipt of the report from the Dominion Fire Commissioner. A fixed water spray system has been under development by Parks Canada and will be installed on the new lock at Smiths Falls this summer for evaluation. If the system works satisfactorily we propose to install such a system at locks over 10 feet deep. However, first priority is to equip those locks over 20 feet deep. Many of the
Order Paper Questions
deeper locks have been equipped with scramble ladders or portable ladders for several years. This year all locks not equipped with permanent ladders will have portable ones. Loud-hailer equipment has also been available at all lock-stations for several years. Staff have been instructed to use such equipment for marshalling craft and for obtaining compliance with fire precautions before commencing lockage operations. Telephones are located at each locksta-tion and emergency numbers including that of the nearest fire department have been displayed for a number of years. In addition to the above, regular and systematic inspections of all lock facilities are carried out at the beginning of each season to ensure that required safety signs are in place and in good condition: all lockstations are equipped with fire extinguishers that can be lowered to a boat in a lock and operating staff are drilled in the proper use of the fire fighting equipment at their stations, (c) See reply to (b) above.
4.	Yes. (a) Fire hazard signs have been or will be placed in locks. All locks have two fire extinguishers on the lock walls. Canal staff are instructed in use of fire equipment. Permanent or temporary ladders will be provided at locks. Staff have been instructed in the event of a fire or explosion in a lock to fill the lock in order that persons on boats may escape. All lockstations are equipped with telephone to summon emergency aid. Lock operators are to ensure compliance with fire and smoking restrictions before commencing a lockage operation. The 1975 notice of hours of operation of the canals contains a notice requesting boaters not to smoke, use open flame appliances or idle engine during lock operation. The same notice was contained in the booklet Navigation Canals published in 1973. (b) Not applicable.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,521-Mr. Rodriguez: (Corrected)
1.	What were the criminal charges against Mr. Roosevelt Douglas, a landed immigrant from Dominica?
2.	Was he convicted and, if so (a) on what date (b) what were the charges (c) what was the sentence?
3.	What is his present status in Canada?
Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Solicitor General and the Department of Manpower and Immigration: 1 and 2. Mr. Roosevelt Douglas was convicted under section 372 (renumbered section 387) of the Criminal Code, for which he was sentenced on April 30, 1971, to an aggregate sentence of 913 days. He was released on bail on May 14, 1971, and resumed his servitude on June 21, 1973. Mr. Douglas is a landed immigrant, on parole until the date of expiration of his committal warrant, i.e., December 13, 1975. A deportation order was issued against Mr. Douglas and the Immigration Appeal Board has upheld that order.
3. The status of Mr. Roosevelt Douglas in Canada is that he is a person under an order of deportation who is to be removed from Canada as soon as practicable in accordance with the direction of the Immigration Appeal Board. Because he is on parole from prison he remains within the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General and cannot be removed from Canada until his parole expires in December 1975.
7978

July 28, 1975
Order Paper Questions


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


John Carr Munro: 1.	$20,800.
2. (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) $20,800. (d) Nil.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Ministry of State (Fisheries) 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?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fisheries)):: As fisheries and marine activities fall under the estimates of the Department of the Environment, please refer to the reply given to question No. 2,561.


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,524, how much would the government estimate of the $42,860,000 spent on medical research in 1974-75 was spent on the cure for cancer?


Mitchell William Sharp: National Research Council, $400,000; Medical Research Council, $4,445,000.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the actual hourly flying time rate charged by DND and DOT in respect of aircraft operated by them for use by and in the pursuit of the objectives of other departments for each type of aircraft made available?
2.	Does any portion of such rate involve consideration of capital costs of the acquisition by DND and DOT of such aircraft in the first place, and (a) if so (i) what is it (ii) how is it arrived at (b) if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of National Defence and the Ministry of Transport as follows: 1. Flying time rates for the various DND aircraft are listed below: Falcon, $545 per hour; Cosmopolitan, $376 per hour; Boeing 707, $1,211 per hour; Hercules, $743 per hour; Buffalo, $666 per hour; Voyageur, $601 per hour; Twin Huey, $209 per hour. MOT hourly flying rates, Aircraft Type and Rate: Jetstar, $555; Viscount, $500; King Air, $185.
2. (a) No. (b) As these aircraft were purchased for departmental objectives, only incremental costs are charged when used for other departments.


Mr. Francis: 1.	Is the amount of thermal pollution released into the surrounding environment by nuclear generating stations 50% more than the thermal pollution from fossil fuel generating stations?
2.	Has the government commissioned studies to study the environmental effect of such excessive thermal pollution?
3.	Does such thermal pollution cause organisms to grow which deplete the supply of oxygen in the surrounding environment?
4.	What long range effects will such thermal pollution have on public health?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of the Environment and the National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. No, the thermal input to the environment is the sum of heat contained in air emissions and water effluents. Nuclear generating stations usually emit heat only to the water environment unlike traditional fossil fuel generating stations which emit both to the air and water environments. Per unit of electricity generated the heat input to the water environment, through the use of cooling water, is greater for nuclear generating stations.
2.	Yes, several studies have been commissioned with special reference to the Great Lakes' environment.
3.	An increase in water temperature decreases the ability of the water to contain oxygen. Also, it will cause organisms to grow which have both positive and negative effects on the concentration of oxygen depending on the position of an organism in its life cycle and the time of day (sunlight available).
4.	There is no evidence that such thermal pollution has any adverse effect on public health.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,666 which stated in part that the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices spent $12,739 for "supplies" at the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive during 1973-74, what is the complete list of all items making up this total along with the cost in each case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The expenditure of $12,739 includes food, cleaning materials, non-alcoholic beverages, totalling $12,299, plus iniforms for government employees (residence staff) totalling $440.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,667 which stated in part that the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices spent $15,000 for "supplies" at the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive during 1974-75, what is a complete list of all items making up this total along with the cost in each case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The figure of $15,000 as noted in reply to question 1,667 was a forecast expenditure. The actual expenditure of $14,953 is made up of purchases of food, cleaning materials, non-alcoholic
July 28, 1975

Excise Tax Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
beverages in the amount of $14,635, plus uniforms for government employees (residence staff) totalling $318.

Mr. Stanbury: Has the Prime Minister carried out the intention he expressed on April 9, 1974, in the House of Commons, to discuss with the leaders of opposition parties the desirability of legislation to deal with national emergencies without the necessity of invoking the War Measures Act and (a) if so, what was the result of such discussions (b) if not, does he still intend to do so, or has the subject been abandoned by the government?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's statement of April 9, 1974 expressed a willingness to arrange a meeting with the leaders of other parties if they felt it would be a good idea to take this kind of action on a contingency basis for some future situation. The Prime Minister remains ready to arrange such a meeting on the basis indicated in his earlier reply.


LOBBYISTS
Mr. Beatty: 1.	Has the government considered the registration of lobbyists and (a) if so (i) what studies were done (ii) by and for whom were they done (iii) when were they completed (iv) what were their recommendations (v) where can copies be obtained (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	What laws or regulations, if any, govern the relationship between lobbyists and government officials at the present time?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURNS
Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	By year, province and programme since the inception of the scheme, what federal funds have been allocated to student exchange programmes for student exchanges within Canada?
2.	Have requests from some provinces been rejected outright?
3.	(a) By year and province, how many students have visited other provinces (b) what was the average length of stay in the province or provinces visited (c) what reception arrangements are normally made (i) hostels (ii) private homes (iii) university dormitories and, in each case, how many and what are their names?
4.	By year since its inception, what federal funds have been allocated to the Programme Canada Jeunesse-Monde?
5.	By year and province, how many youths were drawn to participate in this Programme?
6.	By year since the Programme was launched (a) what countries were visited (b) how many youths participated (c) from what provinces was each such country visited?
7.	By year and province, what (a) provincial (b) private funds were allocated for the student exchange and Canada Jeunesse-Monde programmes?
8.	What were the names of the corporate donors for both programmes?
Return tabled.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Mitchell William Sharp: That the order numbered "Government Business, Number 9" be discharged; and
That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be authorized to consider the government's program of guideline dates for metric conversion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, July 25, consideration in committee of Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act- Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Penner in the chair.
On clause 1-"gasoline".
Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, on Friday, just before we adjourned, I had been referring to submissions made by the Canadian Automobile Association. Specifically the association says that if the government needs revenue it should raise it from all those who use petroleum. Mr. Charles J. Clark, President of the Canadian Automobile Association put it this way:
If additional revenue is required by the government to finance a national oil policy, it should be derived from at least all consumers of petroleum products and not by the private motorist who consumes only 25 per cent of petroleum production.
Mr. Clark also had this to say when meeting with government representatives:
Instead of economic sanctions by government, the association strongly urges the support of other agencies including governments at all levels in voluntary conservation programs.
Frankly, although I do not have much faith in the voluntary method, it is a better method than the one the minister proposes in the bill. Mr. Clark contends that the government should raise its revenues from all those who consume petroleum products, not just from private motorists who consume a mere 25 per cent of our petroleum production.
What will be the effect of the minister's exemptions? Clearly, because of the proposed system of rebates, the cost or burden will be borne by the private motorist. Three quarters of our gasoline production is not consumed by the private motorist, but he must shoulder the greatest part of the burden for financing the oil compensation fund. Surely all consumers of energy should bear the cost of this program equally.
What am I saying is that the minister is to raise between $500 million and $525 million in a calendar year from motorists, who consumes only 25 per cent of our petroleum production. This situation is possible only because of the exemptions to be provided in the legislation. Its worst feature is that the minister is granting exemptions to
29669-22Vi

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act
those best able to afford ten cents a gallon, plus the additional five cents a gallon which will be imposed by the oil companies, plus the additional amounts, which may range from three cents to five cents more per gallon once the refiners, producers, bulk dealers and retailers pass their mark-up on to the consumer. The final price increase may be between 18 and 22 cents per gallon.
The so-called ten cents increase will cost the motorist either 11 or 12 cents once the markup is passed on. Those least able to afford the new prices must pay them. I ask hon. members is it fair to make those least able to bear the burden bear it? Is it fair or just to exempt those best able to pay? In particular the distinction the Minister of Finance makes between those who must drive to work and those who need not is so outrageous that I ask hon. members how they can possibly support this legislation.
To suggest that a doctor who drives to an appointment- which is driving to work-is any different from the worker driving to the office or plant in which he is employed is, in my opinion , a specious argument. There is no difference. Unless you are driving your automobile on holiday, or driving downtown to pick up your dry-cleaning or something like that, every other use of the automobile is a necessity, not something about which you have any choice, at least so far as a large number of people are concerned.
I presume the minister says that a lawyer driving to his office is going to pay the tax, but when he drives to the courthouse or goes to see a client he is not driving to work and will be entitled to a rebate. I submit that that is so intrinsically unfair that the minister's legislation is not deserving of the support of any member of this House.
Let me remind the minister of what the Canadian Automobile Association again had to say regarding what a number of members on all sides of the House have said in support of an alternative mode of transportation. As I mentioned the other day, the CAA does not disagree with efforts to conserve energy; in fact, it is in support of alternative modes of transportation. According to the CAA:
In all too many instances, there is no alternative to the private car. While conservation is an admirable goal, and one supported by the Canadian Automobile Association, transferring people from automobiles to other modes such as urban transit systems through impositions on the motorist is not acceptable. What is required is to provide a more efficient, flexible, comfortable, convenient, attractive, public transportation system-
Note they say a "public" transportation system.
-which will encourage motorists to voluntarily give up their automobile. And given a chance and an attractive alternative, the motorist will respond.
We also believe that given an attractive alternative the motorist will respond. The trouble with the contention of the Minister of Finance is that he calls for a ten cents a gallon tax on gasoline, as specified in clause 1, yet in an earlier breath he said that one of his objectives is to encourage people to use alternative modes of transportation. If massive numbers of people were to quit driving their cars to work and instead took a bus, or rode a bicycle or a moped, took the subway, or even flew to work, then the minister would not raise the money that he says he

needs for the oil compensation fund. He cannot have it both ways, and I suggest this is another ridiculous feature of the legislation.
If the minister had been straightforward about this at the beginning and had said that the objective of the legislation is to raise revenue, that there was no other purpose, then one could understand what he is trying to accomplish much better. He should not have tried to muddy the waters by saying that there were two other objectives, namely, conserving energy and using other modes of transportation. If the people were to use other modes of transportation to conserve energy then he would fall far short of his $350 million which he needs for this portion of the year, and the $500 million that he is going to need for each 12-month period thereafter. It is something like the Minister of National Health and Welfare coming forward with legislation to slap another ten cents tax on cigarettes and saying that one of the objectives is to raise money and also to get people to quit smoking. You cannot accomplish both, because if people quit smoking there will be no additional revenue. That shows how ridiculous this bill is, Mr. Chairman.
The minister will get the agreement, I am sure, of many members in the back rows who have been complaining about this bill and, I suspect, catching heck about it back home, if he were to bring in something other than an amendment to the Excise Tax Act which provided for a very modest increase in, say, corporate income tax, individual income tax, or a combination of both. That would give him the money he requires for the oil compensation fund in a much fairer way and he would not have to go through the charade of saying he is trying to get people to conserve energy and to switch to other modes of transportation. I would promise him maximum co-operation from our group and he would be able to put such a bill, as far as I am concerned, through all stages in one day. I do not know how my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre would feel about that, but I suspect that many members of the House would approve.
The minister should also look into what is happening about this gasoline tax generally across the country. I suggest his advisers read the submission of the Canadian Automobile Association. If they did so they would realize how unfair is this legislation. It is compounding the unfairness of gasoline taxes across the country in view of the different levels of taxes in the provinces, taxes varying any where from ten cents in Alberta to, I believe, 25 cents a gallon in Newfoundland.
Another matter we object to has to do with the complaint of the counterpart in Ontario of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the federal government should never intrude into an area which is the preserve of the provinces. When the provincial minister complained that this tax would be an excessive burden upon people who had no choice but to use an automobile, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources advised the government of Ontario to reduce its gasoline tax. I can see why he advised them to do that, Mr. Chairman; he wanted to open the door for the Minister of Finance to move in and pick up the slack, which is exactly what occurred in the case of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has reduced its gasoline tax by nine cents a gallon to the consumer and it has also
July 28, 1975

forgone an additional three cents a gallon which now no longer goes to provincial revenue but to the government insurance fund. The nine cents a gallon reduction was a direct benefit to every gasoline user in Saskatchewan, but now this bill more than removes that benefit from the consumer.
I submit that is about the tenth or twelfth matter that is unfair and unjust about this legislation. 1 for one cannot support this clause, or any other clause in this bill, unless the minister brings in substantial amendments to it.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a few questions regarding the ten cents a gallon gasoline tax. Has his department calculated what the loss of revenue to the federal treasury will be under the existing exemption given certain motorists, such as doctors and salesmen? I am talking about before the federal ten cents tax was imposed. What is the total amount of revenue lost to the federal government as the result of the existing exemptions?


John Napier Turner: We have no way of calculating that.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Am I to assume also in respect of this ten cents tax that the Department of Finance has not calculated what revenue will be forgone because of the application of the exemptions?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the exemptions for all commercial use, including the examples cited by the hon. member, will run in the nature of between $180 million and $200 million.


Reginald Cyril Symes: In light of the arguments advanced about the discriminatory nature of this tax in that certain businessmen will have exemptions and others who drive their vehicles to work will not, why did the government not look at the option of reducing the amount of the exemption for people in the category of businessmen and doctors, if the amount will run to some $200 million in order to lower the federal tax from ten cents a gallon to perhaps eight cents of five cents? Surely this was an option, and I should like to know the reason it was discarded.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman surely recognizes that the exemption applies to farmers, fishermen, and a wide variety of people in the general category of those who use gasoline for the purpose of earning income in their business. We decided it was more fair to allow the exemption to apply where the existing deductibility of gasoline as an expense was applicable.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I still do not see the logic of that kind of calculation because of the discriminatory nature of the tax. It seems to me, as hon. members of the opposition have pointed out, that there are many others who could reasonably claim the expense for gasoline but who will not be granted the exemption under existing tax laws. I would just reiterate again how discriminatory we find this tax of ten cents a gallon on gasoline, and the exemption which only applies to the consumers of gaoline for the use of vehicles in certain categories but does not apply to those
Excise Tax Act
who use gasoline for other business purposes. Nor does this exemption apply to the consumers of other energy such as home heating fuel, and so on.
It seems that I cannot get anywhere with the minister on that aspect so I should like to move to his argument about conservation. When the minister presented this bill to the House he said he hoped the ten cents federal tax on gasoline would reduce consumption. What calculations has the minister made to back up his claim that there will be conservation, in terms of a reduction in the number of gallons in demand resulting from this ten cents tax?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I stated earlier to the House, in answer to a question by someone during the question period, that we did not have any precise calculation because one cannot estimate just what the extent of the conservation will be.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Chairman, that is an interesting way of presenting tax legislation; proceeding in the dark and having no calculations to back up the argument. How can the minister possibly believe that this tax of ten cents a gallon will have any significant conservation effect, particularly when we look at the fact that following the escalation in the price of oil, from some $3.80 a barrel in 1973 to $6.50 a barrel today, there was no significant reduction in demand? The fact is that there has been a continuing increase in demand in spite of that tremendous increase in the price. By what reason of logic does the minister argue that this ten cents a gallon tax will reduce use?


John Napier Turner: I do not know about the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, but I think most of us will be more careful in our driving.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister recognizes the concern of the opposition, and particularly the concern of the people in his own party. None of us are arguing against the principle of equalization or the need of the government to raise revenue in order to ensure to people in every part of Canada the same price for heating oil and gasoline. The grievance we have lies in the fact that the ten cents a gallon tax is very unfair. The minister really has not established that he could not have accomplished the same objectives in a more equitable way. That really is the argument we are putting forward. It seems to me that the minister might have applied the same sort of principle in respect of the gasoline tax as is applied in respect of the deduction of the cost of tools and equipment used in the course of employment.
The ten cents a gallon tax could probably be justified if the minister could demonstrate that all gasoline usage was discretionary. If this were similar to cigarettes or booze, the minister could make a case for a very high excise tax. He could always argue that you do not have to smoke or drink, and that you can leave these alone. I think it is clear that, while the use of the car is discretionary, a great portion of usage is necessary in employment, just as tools, safety boots and other things associated with employment are necessary. Such use of the automobile should be treated in the same manner.
In the minister's considerations in respect of raising this revenue did he give some thought to providing an exemp-

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act
tion or a tax credit which would take into account some kind of average which most working men could relate to, so that there would be an exemption or compensation in respect of a certain portion of usage? This could be accomplished through a credit to income tax in the same way as a tax credit or exemption is now provided in respect of articles used in the course of employment.
The minister said in reply to an earlier question that not everyone drives a car. While that is true, there are very few families in this country who do not require a car for purposes of employment, even in the built-up city areas. It may be that not everyone does drive a car, but I am sure the figures would indicate that the overwhelming majority of Canadians do use cars in some way in respect of their employment. I am sure that people on unemployment insurance will argue the same point of view, that they have to drive 30 or 40 miles to the unemployment insurance office. They are expected to provide their own transportation or they will be cut off from benefits.
I would like to ask the minister this direct question. He has brought in a tax that even he will agree is regressive, just as every sales tax by its very nature is regressive. Why did he not provide some compensation based on income, and on the understanding that the car or the use thereof is not totally discretionary, but is required at least in part in most people's employment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, when looking at the means of financing what the hon. gentleman has conceded to be a deficit in the oil account, as between the export tax on the one hand and the import subsidy on the other, which is running now somewhere between $400 million and $600 million, and looking at the alternatives, we felt the fair way was to tax the user of that gasoline, particularly personal use of automobiles. This was felt to be the fair way of financing the national oil price and maintaining the price for home heating oil, as well as the price for commercial and industrial uses, at $8. Obviously this hurts some users more than others, but I was concerned about progressivity, which is the reason we restored part of the reduction in the tax on incomes above $25,000, adding back $250 at that level in order to add some progressivity to the total line.
I just say to the hon. gentleman that until we return to some style of self-sufficiency in respect of energy, particularly oil and gas, in this country in an energy-short world there will have to be some adjustment in the way we transport ourselves, and some adjustment in the way we live.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with the minister on the need to make that adjustment, but the minister really is suggesting that people have this kind of choice and can in effect make this adjustment. We make the argument that many people, even if they should agree with the need for conservation, very often are the low income people who do not have a choice. All we ask the minister is that he make an adjustment in the tax, or make an adjustment in the whole income tax picture, to find some kind of compensation to offset the regressiveness

and lack of discretion which exist for many people regarding the use of gasoline.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, the minister in his budget said that one of the reasons for the imposition of this ten cents excise tax is so that people would be more careful in the way they consumed energy, particularly gasoline. He also mentioned that the purpose of the ten cents excise tax is to compensate the east coast for the shortfall. Now, suppose-and I am sure the minister must have considered this-people were indeed very careful in the use of petroleum and he was not able to raise the $350 million this year, or the projected $500 million, would the minister tell us in what other ways he would make up the difference if there should be a shortfall in respect of the amount needed?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, as estimated by the hon. member's colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge, the shortfall in the oil account, that is, the difference between the export tax revenue and the import tax subsidies, will be roughly, in this fiscal year, between $400 million and $600 million. We can add to that an additional charge to the federal treasury of about $200 million as a result of equalization resulting from one third of the additional proposed gas revenues that are attached to the equalization account.
Over a full year the revenue from the excise tax at the ten cents a gallon on gasoline is estimated to be roughly $525 million. Now, if consumption is less, and therefore revenue from the excise tax is less what will happen at the same time is that the import of gasoline obviously will be less so that there will be less of a deficit in the oil account.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I want to come to the issue raised by myself and colleagues in this party, as well as by others, of the inconvenience this places on those workers who are not doctors, lawyers, or sales persons. I should like to ask a question about the steel workers at the Shebandowin mine, a mine owned by the International Nickel Company, which is located 60 miles from the Lake-head. These workers have no place to live at the mine. The company will not build a company town so the workers cannot live at the minesite and therefore must commute daily. Since they are in the second year of a three year contract this has created some difficulty for them because they are faced with an unexpected charge against their family budgets. Is the minister prepared to assist the workers at Shebandowin or any other workers in a similar situation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, for reasons set out earlier there is no way we can fairly judge as between locations of people and jobs.


John R. Rodriguez: I may say for the information of the minister that the company has a check-off list of workers at the Shebandowin mine. Surely it should not be beyond the capacity of the bureaucracy to determine who must drive and has the right to use a car. Surely it is not beyond the ability or the intelligence of the government to work out a system to take care of these workers. Is the minister telling me it is impossible for the bureaucracy to work out a system?
July 28, 1975
COMMONS DEBATES_____________________
Excise Tax Act


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, you just cannot run a national tax system on a series of individual situations.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, it seemed that the minister was saying that he was working in the dark and did not know what the budget figures were. It seems to me that since the government brought in the budget, and is imposing a tax, it should have the facts and figures. I should also like to ask the minister about another matter. It concerns rural mail deliveries. Those people who deliver mail on the basis of a contract with the post office will be faced with the burden of this ten cents tax. Will they be eligible for the rebate?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Chairman, but obviously they are paid by the post office by the mile.


John R. Rodriguez: Perhaps the minister is not aware that they work on a fixed contract with the post office. If contingencies such as this arise in the middle of their contract, arrangements have to be made. Is the minister prepared to allow these workers any consideration in respect of the delivery of mail? When they bid on a contract they do so assuming that gasoline will be at a certain price, and now they are faced with this excise tax. Will the minister provide them with an opportunity to get a rebate?


John Napier Turner: If the rural postal deliveries are done by independent contractors, as most are, then their expenditure for the purchase of gasoline is a deductible item for the purpose of earning income, and the rebate would be applied. Of course that covers a great majority of the cases.


John R. Rodriguez: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was wondering about this excise tax and whether the minister had thought about levying another three cents on every dollar bet at the race tracks. Has the minister considered that as a way to raise money? The government now is taking 15 cents out of every dollar bet at the race tracks and I wonder whether the bureaucrats had considered taking another three cents out of every dollar from the bets at the racetracks. There is racing every day of the week in Canada.


John Napier Turner: I find that a strange position to be taken by a party which for many years has been opposed to lotteries. In any event I think that tax primarily is provincial.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I can say to the minister that such a position is very inconsistent with the philosophy of the New Democratic Party but certainly is not inconsistent with Liberal policy, and that is the reason I asked the question. It is a Liberal government which is imposing this tax and therefore I should like to know whether the minister has looked into this. I just wanted him to say yes or no, and not "go around the rosy".


John Napier Turner: We examined a panorama of options, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Darling:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a couple of questions following those asked by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, who is very worried about the miners of Shebandowin. I assume that since they are miners they have a reasonable income, as compared with the many people who are working for minimum wages and have to drive their cars to work 30, 40 and even 50 miles. We know the minister has received representations about this. Along with all my colleagues on this side I have come to the conclusion that the minister has dug in his heels on the issue.
Perhaps the minister will recall the time when I spoke on July 14 and said I hoped he might reconsider his decision. I even went so far as to say I hoped he might repent. I wonder if he is nearer to repentance and would at least consider something different so far as this ten cents tax is concerned. I believe the figures which I have available state that if a tax of 2.5 cents were imposed on every gallon of every type of fuel, that is, gasoline oil, we would come up with the same amount.


John Napier Turner: I could not give the hon. member an answer to that. What we wanted to do was to limit the tax to personal use to cover the deficit so that we could maintain the price on commercial use, home heating oil, industrial uses, use by farmers and fishermen and other pursuits where we need to continue production in the country, at $8 as against the world price of $12. For that reason we limited the tax to personal use.


Stan Darling: The figures I have show that 2.5 cents imposed on all fuel oil would be sufficient. I do not think heating fuel should be considered because the home owner should not be saddled with that tax. I am wondering what percentage of increase would be required on all gasoline used for business purposes as well as for pleasure to make up the amount we need.


John Napier Turner: I suppose the assumption is that the hon. gentlemen would be willing to see home heating oil bear part of the price?


Stan Darling: No, I am referring to gasoline and diesel fuel. At present the government is letting many very wealthy people off the hook on diesel fuel because they are driving Mercedes Benz, Peugeot, or some other fancy cars and they do not pay the ten cents tax. I admit that the minister did say it would be a horrendous problem to catch those guys. I suggest that since they are all so well to do they will probably voluntarily send in the ten cents a gallon to the Minister of National Revenue. I wonder if the minister could give us a ballpark figure for how much would be required a gallon on all gasoline to come up with the amount which the government will get from the ten cents tax, which is imposed on people who can afford it the least in most cases.


John Napier Turner: I will try to get the hon. gentleman the figure.


Stan Darling: I am quite sure the minister has been reading the papers and has already heard how this tax has hurt the second most important industry in Canada, that
Excise Tax Act

July 28, 1975
is, the tourist business. I am hoping the minister will do something about this. In one particular town the businessmen stated that they had not seen an American car on the streets for some time, so certainly this new tax has had a very serious impact on the tourist industry.
I have made it a point to talk to a great many people in the Parry Sound-Muskoka area and I understand they are all feeling the pinch. Certainly there is a recession, but they are blaming the ten cents a gallon gasoline tax for their situation. I would like to give an illustration. Not long ago an American car with a trailer pulled up in front of a gasoline dealer in the town of Trout Creek and asked for directions to a certain camp. The dealer gave them to him and then asked whether he would like his car filled up with gas, to which the American replied "Oh no, I have been reading about your gas situation. I have the trailer full of gas". That guy was a jackass, in my opinion, to take a chance on carrying a trailer full of gasoline, but perhaps many more people will take that chance to save money. It is pretty tough when tourist operators are hit in this way.
I cannot say that there are no American cars in my own village of Burks Falls because it happens to be the only town between the American border and Timagami, 300 miles north, and No. 11 highway goes right through the main street. So we do see a good many American cars going through there. Nevertheless, tourist operators are feeling the pinch, and I am wondering whether the minister has had second thoughts and will try to do something to cut this tax down somewhat.
I have another question, Mr. Chairman. This afternoon before I came to the House I spoke to the mayor of the township of Muskoka Lakes, which is one of the well-to-do townships. He said the township is feeling the pinch and asked me what could be done. I told him that we in the opposition were doing everything possible. I also thought back to November 18 when the minister dealt us a low blow on that boat deal, of which we have heard something lately. I know the minister recanted by taking the tax off the hulls, but then the ten cents tax was imposed. The mayor said to me, "my God, what will Turner do next?" I said to him, "Look out, I will tell you".
I am predicting this and I shake in my boots when I say this, Mr. Chairman. I said to him, "Come the next budget, if he is hard up, he will start taxing that beautiful fresh air in Parry Sound-Muskoka."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't put ideas in his head.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting for the discussion to come to an end on both sides of the House. Members just seem to be yelling at one another. I wish to put a question to the minister. He stated that the 10-eent excise tax, which is particularly hard on individual Canadian taxpayers, has been imposed so as to reduce the amount of gas consumption. The idea is excellent, although I refuse to admit that it should be imposed only on the individual taxpayer. I should like to ask the minister if he intends to require the same tax from Crown corporations, such as the CN. Immediately after the announcement of Bill C-66, the CN handed out contracts

to the owner of an Ontario trucking firm for all parcel post services in the province of Quebec. Previously, the merchandise was being delivered by Canadian National on its regular line, which situation did not cost a cent in either gas or oil. And now a private trucking firm is going to be delivering merchandise that used to be shipped regularly by the CN. I don't know whether the minister is aware of the amount of gas that is thus going to be spent uselessly, because previously there was no gas involved in such deliveries. Now this gas will be spent wastefully, simply because the whim of some CN officials who are comfortably seated in their offices, probably with the idea of trying to reduce the CN workload and give it to a private Ontario firm which will be delivering merchandise in the province of Quebec. I wonder whether the minister is going to do something if he really wants to save on gas consumption. As for us, we are all in favour of saving gas. But if the minister wants to do so also, he should start by preventing Crown corporations from acting so foolishly. I think this would be a first step in the right direction, and I should like the minister's opinion on the subject.


John Napier Turner: In view of the hon. member's remarks, Mr. Chairman, I will simply say that I will draw the attention of my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to that matter.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have spoken with respect to Bill C-66, and I believe it is important that hon. members, and certainly the people of Canada, remind themselves of the true import of what the minister is proposing in Bill C-66. The fact is that Canadians are moving back to a two-price oil policy in Canada. It is not a geographical two-price system where those east of the Ottawa Valley pay more for imported oil while those west of the line pay less for our domestic product. It is a two tiered system based on one's class in society. One class of Canadians, mainly the commuter going to work, must pay world prices for oil, while the exempt class, those who can claim gasoline as an operating expense, get their gasoline for ten cents per gallon less. It is rationing through price.
As this debate on Bill C-66 goes on, the unfairness of this two-price system for petroleum products becomes more obvious. Few disagree with the concept of having a uniform price for oil products across Canada, but it is difficult to understand why the government feels that the subsidization for such a program, some $525 million, should fall on a relatively small sector of our petroleum users.
It is estimated that the ten cents per gallon tax will be levied on approximately one third of the total gallonage of all refined petroleum products used in Canada. If the government were to trim some of the fat from its current spending programs, there is no doubt that it could save the $525 million it needs in a full year for this subsidization program. Even if the government feels it cannot cut back on its spending, it is our belief that the subsidization program should be treated as a national expense and paid for out of the general treasury. In either event, if the subsidy were covered by a cutback in spending, or through a general levy, it would ensure that the subsidization would not fall so harshly on one sector of our people. All
July 28, 1975

would pay their pro rata share, including the businessman and the corporation as well as the working man.
The Minister of Finance has hinted that the ten cents per gallon excise tax will contribute to energy conservation, but I noted earlier today in this debate that he could not back up his contention that this will in fact help conserve energy in Canada. I would suggest that very few people take this conservation argument seriously.
Oil company officials have told me that they anticipate that consumers, who are already absorbing the ten cents a gallon tax will absorb it as another price increase without cutting back their demand for this type of fuel. People using cars to commute to work have no alternative but to pay the higher tax, which for most commuters in my riding means an extra $15 to $30 per month in their travelling expenses to and from work. This is an unnecessary and grossly unfair tax which falls discriminately on those who are least able to pay.
With that background I would like to read into the record a letter which I received from a constituent, in which he states:
I am one of Canada's contradictory taxpayers.
House prices in Toronto put homes beyond most people's budget. The government advocates we move to smaller centres where homes are less expensive. There we find jobs are fewer and lower paying and therefore we must commute to jobs in Toronto. Now the government puts the squeeze on us by adding 15 cents to the price of gasoline.
Why is the government putting the screws to we middle class people who wish to work and own homes?
Perhaps the minister could answer this question: what reply should I give to that constituent?


An hon. Member:: He is speechless.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The minister doesn't care.


An hon. Member:: He has no reply.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I think the record should note that the minister simply laughed.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The record should note that I just smiled at the rhetorical question of the hon. gentleman, knowing that he has enough ingenuity to answer any letter from a constituent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me try another letter on the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Another constituent wrote as follows:
How is Mr. J. Turner's budget going to help the working man with his fight against inflation?
The company I work for is offering us a 3% increase in our pay and J. Turner's budget is putting the cost of living up 2% along with the other raises in all the rest of the items. It is getting worse for the working people instead of better.
That constituent is presumably referring to the estimate now made by economists that the energy moves proposed by the Minister of Finance will be putting up the cost of living between 114 per cent to 13A per cent. I would like the minister to help me in replying to that constituent. Has his department done a study with respect to the
Excise Tax Act
impact of the proposal in Bill C-66 to put on a ten cents tax, on the cost of living, or the impact of raising the price of oil $1.50 per barrel which he also announced in his budget? In short, what will this mean in terms of inflation in Canada when it is actually felt?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the impact of this bill is less than one half of 1 per cent of the CPI. That is the price I believe Canadians have to pay in the short term in order to maintain one national price for Canadians and to maintain the price of fuel oil for commercial use and for farmers and fishermen at $8 per barrel, or two thirds of the world price.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In speaking about the price which must be paid to maintain one oil price in Canada, which I reiterate no one is disagreeing with in principle, we are saying that the minister has chosen a means which is costly and extremely discriminatory.
Earlier in this debate the Minister of National Revenue stated that the administrative cost with respect to this tax would be 1 per cent. As 1 per cent is roughly something over $5 million of the total amount to be raised, can the minister indicate whether $5 million will actually be spent in administering this tax? Is it needed in the collection of the tax? Is it needed for the rebates, bearing in mind that for $5 million 500 civil servants could be hired at $10,000 per year, or if the government wants to pay $20,000 per year it could hire 250 civil servants with this $5 million, which the Minister of National Revenue indicated would be the total cost of administration of Bill C-66 with regard to the ten cents Turner tax?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the expenditure, of course, is the collecting of the tax and paying the rebates under the tax. That figure of 1 per cent is less than the figure of 1.2 per cent for the collection of the personal income tax in this country, and I think it demonstrates a relatively efficient administrative system.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, obviously the minister's definition of relativity is different from that of members on this side of the House. I should like the minister to be more specific. Can he give a breakdown of how that $5 million odd will be spent? Where is that kind of money needed?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I will get the details from the minister in charge of administering the tax, the Minister of National Revenue, and ask him to give those figures to the hon. gentleman.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has referred to the likely impact of this tax upon the tourist industry. Has the minister any calculation of the amount of the total tax that will come from tourists?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, that would be very difficult to calculate and we do not have it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Could the minister indicate if he tried to obtain that figure before deciding to bring in this discriminatory tax?

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we weighed the effect of the tax on the economy and Canadians generally in the short term, as against the medium and long term necessity for it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Touching on another question, namely the airport transport tax, could the minister elaborate on what he said in the budget, namely, that the tax was required to cover deficits in the operational and construction side of airports in Canada? What is the relative shortfall he is referring to? How much is operational and how much is actually construction of airports in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman made his point on second reading. I mentioned in the budget speech that the increase represented by the air transport tax was essential to help lessen the heavy deficit in airport construction and operation. For example, the total air transportation program had an operating deficit-that is to say operating costs less revenue-of just over $200 million in 1974-75. This deficit is for airports, air traffic services and en route navigation aids. It does not reflect any portion of capital cost. For airports only, the loss on operations for 1973-74 was $105 million. This loss reflects full costs including depreciation. The loss for 1974-75 is likely to be significantly higher.
Furthermore, the public account for 1973-74, at page 26-16, showed net income for the airport revolving fund in that year of $6.4 million. With the opening of Mirabel airport this year, this net income will disappear. In the current fiscal year, the revenue from the air transportation tax prior to the increase announced for August 1, 1975 was estimated at $37 million. The increased revenue resulting from the tax increases effective August 1, 1975 is expected to generate additional revenue up to $16 million. This revenue is necessary to offset costs for both revolving fund airports and all other airports.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Now that the minister has familiarized us with these deficit figures and how they are arrived at, could he indicate if, faced with these deficit figures which presumably come from the Department of Transport, he inquired why our airports are operating so much in the red, especially when we realize that most if not all United States' airports operate profitably? Ours, operated by the federal government, appear to be getting more and more into a deficit position.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, without accepting that, I have been looking at the situation of the self-financing of airports. A direct reply to the question could more properly be proffered by my colleague. The hon. gentleman tried to take up that subject, or an allied subject, with me when we were discussing the Financial Guarantee Act, but the Minister of Transport could more properly answer it. With the over-all figures with which I am faced I felt, as did the Minister of Transport for whom I introduced this particular tax, that we ought to raise the air transportation tax.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, may I assume that the minister accepted the deficit figures given him by the Minister of Transport without comment or question?


John Napier Turner: No.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: To what extent did the minister question the Minister of Transport about the deficit? Did he ask him if he had reviewed the operation of United States airports to determine how they could run at a profit?


John Napier Turner: I think the hon. gentleman understands that under the parliamentary system each minister replies for his own expenditures, and the over-all responsibility for expenditures lies with the President of the Treasury Board, while the over-all policy for this matter lies with the Minister of Transport. Under our parliamentary system of the collective responsibility of cabinet, my conversations with the Minister of Transport are privileged.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated that the total revenue generated by this tax, if the bill is passed, would be about $53 million. In view of the fact that the total amount in our current year's estimates for the construction of the Pickering airport is $51.2 million, has the minister considered recommending that it be discontinued? In that way the $53 million revenue that he contemplates raising by this tax would be saved this year and in future years.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, that is not a subject I would be free to discuss at this stage in this committee.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the minister might not feel free to discuss it, but in answer to my question if consideration had been given to that type of offset I suggest, it is quite in order to answer. Was any consideration given, in the spirit of restraint, to keeping this tax down by simply saying "Let's forget Pickering".


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I cannot elucidate on what I have already tried to indicate to the hon. gentleman.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Coming back to the Turner ten cent gasoline tax, could the minister indicate-I have had dozens of letters from my constituents protesting this tax-in rough terms how many letters he received and how many said "Good boy, John, we like that ten cent tax" and how many stated in no uncertain terms that they feel it is inequitable and unfair?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we get a good deal of mail after every budget. After the last budget it was not in excess of previous budgets. Some letters liked the budget and some letters did not like the budget.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Knowing the administrative talent the minister has around him, I thought they would have calculated the number of letters about the ten cent tax and reported the number in favour and the number opposed?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, let us be realistic-who the hell likes a tax? One does not expect to win a popularity contest by putting on any type of tax, particularly a visible one like a gasoline tax. Most of the people who wrote to me were satisfied with the explanation that it was in the interests of self-sufficiency, and of one national oil price for the country and was in the immediate and long term interests of the country.
July 28, 1975


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How does the minister know they were satisfied? Did people write back saying "Your tax is quite satisfactory, go ahead and impose it?"


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I can state to the hon. member that to anyone who holds this portfolio, no correspondence or no news is good news.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I wish to direct one final question to the minister dealing with the Turner ten cent tax. In view of the fact the $1.50 increase per barrel of oil will be effective as far as the retail price is concerned on August 15, has any consideration been given to cutting back the ten cent tax effective that date in order to ensure there will be no further price increase at the retail level on August 15?


John Napier Turner: No, sir.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Chairman, one of the points the opposition has been making in debate on this ten cent a gallon tax is that, people who have no other option will still have to drive their cars to work and hence they will be hit by this discriminatory tax, so the consumption of gasoline will not go down. In the last election campaign, the Liberal party made some rather grandiose promises to the people of Canada about improving public transit. They said they would forge ahead with improving municipal bus lines and an urban train system from the suburbs to the centres of the cities, as well as subways. I would like to know what has happened to those great promises.
I always assumed that Liberals were men and women of their word; once they said something they would live up to it. Judging by the results of July 8, many Canadians thought they were honest people who would live up to their promises. I would like the Minister of Finance to tell us what happened to those promises. On June 17, 1974 in Toronto, the Prime Minister announced a $270 million program to aid public transit. He said a Liberal government would pay 100 per cent of the cost of Canadian-made commuter vehicles and 50 per cent of the cost of platforms and stations. The government would also pay 25 per cent of the cost of Canadian manufactured vehicles for public transit within cities.


Mr. Fox:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is not at all dealing with the matter under consideration by the House. I am prepared to hear and consider the points of view he is raising, but for the well-being of the House, I think he should limit his remarks to the matter now under consideration by the House.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I know Liberals do not like to hear old promises exposed or brought up again. My point is that the Minister of Finance is saying this tax will encourage Canadians to use alternate means of transport. I ask the minister, where are they? We know that public transit is the only logical alternative to driving a car. I am asking the minister to explain what has happened to those promises to improve public transit. That is entirely relevant.
Excise Tax Act
As I was saying, the Prime Minister in that election campaign said that encouragement and assistance would be given to smaller municipalities for the creation of new transit systems, Canadian industry would be encouraged to develop passenger vehicles, and experimentation with new transit systems would be assisted by federal financing of demonstration projects.
The following day, June 18, 1974, the Prime Minister announced in Cornwall, Ontario, that a Liberal government would take responsibility for rail passenger service out of the hands of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways and entrust the task to a new Crown corporation. The corporation would run high-speed rail services in heavily populated areas such as the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, introduce luxurious transcontinental excursion trains and establish a "super-bus" service between medium sized cities.
The Liberals also promised to set up a national urban transportation development corporation to promote improvements and develop policy on urban transportation. The corporation is mentioned in the 1973-74 annual report of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, but as the minister was forced to admit in committee on May 1, 1975, the corporation has not even been set up as yet. There were three major promises in the last election to promote public transit, providing an alternative for people instead of using their automobiles. I ask the Minister of Finance, who I believe is an honourable man who lives up to promises, when can we expect to see these three major promises, made by the Prime Minister in the last election campaign, come into effect and provide automobile drivers with a logical alternative?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, only the Prime Minister is entitled to respond to that type of question on behalf of the government.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Chairman, the minister knows full well that it is a cabinet decision. The decision is based on what the Minister of Finance sees as budget priorities. All we can conclude is that the minister does not see any need to uphold election promises. He does not see any need-


The Chairman:: Order, please. I believe the Chair has been most lenient with the hon. member. At some points, there has been a connection with the clause under debate. The hon. member is aware of Standing Order 55(2) which instructs members to direct their remarks to the relevant clauses before the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I have a few more questions to ask the minister. To begin with, I find it very strange that in answering my colleague, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, he would disavow promises made by the Prime Minister by saying that only he can answer them. I thought that any member of the Liberal party could do that.
I would like to ask the minister whether he, his colleagues or his officials, would give some rough or ballpark figures, if not exact ones, on the situation east of the Ottawa river. I take it that most of the expenditures out of the consumption fund will be to subsidize the export price

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act
east of the Ottawa river. Can the minister advise how much that amounts to per gallon. I find it somewhat incongruous and very illogical that the purpose of the consumption fund is to subsidize the export price, mostly east of the Ottawa river. The minister then proceeds to take back ten cents a gallon from those same gasoline users. Was that aspect of the matter looked into? How much per gallon does the subsidy amount to in order to reach some price equalization compared to the ten cents a gallon the minister is levying in this bill?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether we can break that down the way the hon. member suggests. By financing the deficit on the national single oil price against personal consumption, we are able to preserve the $8 a barrel price for industrial, farming, fishing and home heating consumption. How that breaks down per gallon is difficult to estimate. Obviously, the person who drives for personal use is paying more than $8 per barrel. The price he is paying is closer to the world price in order that we can maintain the price for those who use gasoline industrially, commercially, for farming or for fishing at two thirds of the world level.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I suppose I should be satisfied with that answer, although I am not. I note that although the price is supposed to be equalized, a day or so ago there were wide price differentials in this country, even if one takes into account the differences in provincial gasoline taxes. I note that No. 1 grade gasoline in Halifax was selling for 89 cents per gallon, whereas in Regina it was selling for 71 cents. Surely, there should not be such a wide spread if we are trying to equalize prices.
May I ask a second question? When the minister was asked earlier this afternoon how much gasoline is consumed in this country, he said he does not have those figures before him. Since the bill is to allow the heaviest users of gasoline a rebate, or a deduction under the income tax act, has the minister considered imposing a smaller tax, say of three or four cents a gallon across the board, instead of ten cents a gallon as proposed in the bill. Can he say how great the government's revenues would be if a tax of three or four cents per gallon were imposed across the board and few exemptions and rebates were allowed? An across the board tax would force those who use most to pay most, which is only right. Why not charge three or four cents a gallon across the board? Would that not raise as much money as the government now seeks under the present bill? I ask again, does the minister know how much gasoline is consumed in Canada, and would not a lower across the board tax bring in as much money as will the provisions of the present bill?


Stan Darling: That is the question I asked about ten minutes ago.


John Napier Turner: Yes, the hon. member asked that question, but in a different way perhaps one hour ago. The hon. member asks why we did not charge, say, three of four cents a gallon right across the board, which would include gasoline used commercially, in farming and in fishing, instead of ten cents per gallon on personal use. We did not contemplate that, as that course

would have affected the price structure of everything produced in this country. It would have affected the price of food; it would have affected the price structure of our entire manufacturing and industrial fields in Canada. It would have affected the price of mail delivery and of milk delivery. Therefore, in order to maintain the price of gasoline used industrially, commercially, in farming and in fishing, et cetera, at two thirds of the world level, we concentrated the tax on gasoline to be used for personal use.


René Matte: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a very specific question.
Since one of the goals sought by this bill was to reduce gas consumption there seems to be at first blush some sort of contradiction since if a decrease in gas consumption is encouraged and millions of dollars in revenue are sought at the same time there seems at first blush to be a contradiction. I would like to get explanation on that.
But more precisely, if a decrease in gas consumption is being considered to conserve oil energy could the minister say according to the calculations of his experts by how much gas consumption could be reduced if this bill is implemented?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, that matter has already been discussed in the House. First of all, it was not possible at that time to estimate conservation against an increase in the price of oil per cent per gallon. On the other hand, even if there is some conservation, some decrease in our consumption brought about by the increase in price, brought about up to a certain extent by that tax of 10 cents a gallon, it is true that the amount of money coming from the tax would be less but, on the other hand, oil imports into Canada would be less also. So, the reason for covering the deficit would be less valid and consumption might be down. The need for the tax would also be less because imports would go down.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, now that the Minister of National Revenue is in the chamber, can he answer a question? Previously, the Minister of Finance told the committee that the cost of collecting the tax and paying rebates would equal about one per cent of collections, or about $5 million. How is that $5 million to be spent? Will the minister consider hiring about 500 civil servants at $10,000 per year each? Is that in the minister's mind? Or, is the minister considering a smaller staff and other types of expenses which were not contemplated?


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Chairman, I do not have that material in front of me. The one per cent figure is correct. The expense will be borne by the Customs and Excise branch of the Department of National Revenue, which will be collecting the tax and doing much of the administration, the taxation branch of the department, which will be doing the data processing, and by the Department of Supply and Services, which will be paying refunds. I do not have figures as to the number of employees intended to be employed. They will be distributed among the three bodies mentioned. Those three bodies will also bear the cost of administration.
July 28, 1975


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, could the minister go further, and explain if the $5 million, that being roughly one per cent of anticipated collections, entails a new expenditure, or is the money earmarked for personnel already employed by the three departments which the minister anticipates will be involved in collecting the new tax?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke the other day, I mentioned the cost of collection. I do not have my speech in front of me. I believe I spoke about less than one per cent. I am not going to allow the hon. member to pin me to some precise figure. We are currently working out how much of that will be in money and involve existing staff; we shall see what arrangements we can make with staff in order to accommodate this additional work load.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Has any agreement been reached about forms and documentation? Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if an agreement on documents has been reached between his department and those in the Department of Finance who will be actively interested in the matter of income tax?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, a liaison committee has been set up which includes personnel from the Customs and Excise and taxation branches, and the Department of Supply and Services. It is to design forms that will be used in connection with this legislation. There has been a high degree of co-ordination and consultation between committee members. I have not yet approved the forms, because the legislation has not yet been passed.


The Deputy Chairman:: With respect to the hon. member, I must point out we are dealing with a bill that imposes tax. It is not strictly acceptable to pursue this line of questioning, though the Chair does not want to be overly strict in the interest of the hon. member.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I was trying to short-circuit matters, Mr. Chairman. I will put all my questions to the Minister of Finance and presumably he can gain the information from his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister indicate whether any consideration has been given to streamlining the collection system? Instead of requiring a person to pay the tax, save receipts, and file a declaration, has consideration been given to some type of exempt card, which would avoid a person having to pay the ten cents a gallon tax and then apply for a refund?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I think that is clearly a policy matter that depends on the kind of tax imposed. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, should really answer that question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I note the Minister of Finance suggested that from his place. Perhaps I could put the question to him.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I dealt with that on Friday fairly thoroughly. If the hon. gentleman is not happy with what I said-or not satisfied with my response, he may not be happy with it-I would be glad to go over it again.
Excise Tax Act


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A favourite trick of the Minister of Finance is to say that something has been covered in a previous exchange. I should like him to go over it again.


John Napier Turner: Would the hon. member give me his specific question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Has consideration been given to streamlining the administrative problem that appears to exist here whereby people will have to pay the ten cents a gallon tax, will then have to file declarations periodically depending on the amount of usage, and hopefully will get a refund, in the meantime having to maintain receipts? To be very specific this kind of tax exemption exists, for example, jn the province of Ontario with respect to farmers. I suggest the way it is handled is a much more streamlined process than that we are now contemplating. A farmer simply signs a declaration that he has purchased certain goods, that is he is carrying on the business of farming, and he does not have to pay the tax. There is no red tape regarding applying for a refund, and it is a much more equitable way of handling the tax.
Has the minister considered this type of simplified approach whereby people can simply stamp something on a card which exempts them from paying a tax, and in that way eliminate a lot of red tape that is going to cost over $5 million in terms of administration, according to the Minister of National Revenue?


John Napier Turner: This is, of course, a manufacturer's tax, and refunds are available at the retail level, which is why the streamlining would have to take both those factors into account. The answer is yes, we are considering ways of streamlining it, but it might be more appropriate to discuss this on clause 5, which deals with refunds. As for the amount of $5 million referred to by the hon. member, this is about one per cent of the expected revenue from the tax and compares very favourably with the current 1.2 per cent administrative charge for personal income tax.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have one short question, Mr. Chairman. Can the minister say whether there is anything in the bill or whether he envisages any regulations that would prevent any escalation of the ten cents a gallon tax that is applied at the refiner and importer level? I am talking of, say, a percentage mark-up all the way down the line, from the refiner to the distributor, to the bulk dealer, to the retailer. By the time it gets to the gasoline pump this tax may be more like 12 or 13 cents a gallon to the automobile user.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the legislation to prevent it, but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that he would be monitoring that at the same time as the $1.50 increase per barrel is passed through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one short question, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps ten minutes or even half an hour ago in response to a question the minister said that this tax would reflect itself in the consumer price index by raising the index by one-half of one percent. May I ask the minister whether he means one-half of one per cent, or a half of a percentage point? A

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act
half of one per cent on the present CPI would be almost one per cent.


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman is quite correct-a half of a percentage point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister sure of that?


John Napier Turner: Now that the hon. gentleman forces me to precision, yes, I am sure of that.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I was wondering whether the minister could explain why it will cost .2 per cent less to collect this tax than to collect income tax? It comes under the same department.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, that is more properly a question for my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, who is in charge of the administration of the tax. I might tell the minister that I was asked why, in percentage terms, it costs less to administer the ten cents tax on gasoline than the 1.2 per cent it costs to administer personal income tax.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Because the administration is a great deal simpler, Mr. Chairman. Administration of personal income tax requires a great deal of checking, auditing, and computer work in order to determine the assessment and either certify the payment of the correct amount of tax, or that the amount be reduced or increased. The administration of the gasoline tax refund program is administratively much simpler, certainly far more simple than administering the income tax collection.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has used the figure of 1.2 per cent with regard to collection of personal income tax as some type of bench mark and has said that, relatively speaking, the one per cent is a lower cost figure. My question to the minister is this: is he not aware that the 1.2 per cent figure he is now referring to is substantially higher than the average collection expense for personal income tax over the last ten or 15 years? Is it appropriate to take the relatively high administrative cost figure that he is now referring to and use it to justify what I regard as a high collection fee, one per cent, for the new ten cents a gallon Turner gasoline tax?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I just do not agree with what the hon. member says.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I will bring the figures down and present them to the minister later in the debate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


B. Keith Penner: Before putting the question, may I say that in order to avoid difficulty I would remind hon. members that when a question is being put members are not permitted to enter or leave the chamber.
Clause 1 agreed to: Yeas, 40; Nays, 22.

On Clause 2.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I think I understood what the original clause was for, but I should like to ask the minister what the 8 per cent of the amount paid will represent. Under the old measure it was understood that $5 was the tax, but under the new one we have gone to $10. Is the original 5 per cent related to the 8 per cent in the new legislation, and does this affect only charter flights, or does it also affect the tariff structure on flights inside Canada? Does it affect the tax collected on external travel as well? Does this establish a tax that we previously did not have on flights leaving the country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the proposals found in this clause increase the air transportation tax now in existence from 5 per cent to 8 per cent. The figure eight is underlined, which indicates a change from 5 per cent to 8 per cent effective August 1, 1975, on air transportation in Canada on flights within the taxation area, that is to say, Canada and the United States except Hawaii and the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport may prescribe maximum amounts for the tax levy. At the present time the maximum payable is set at $5.


William Arnold Peters: Does the 8 per cent change the $5, or is it Clause 3 where it is changed to $10? I am confused as to whether Clause 2 has any relationship to Clause 3, because Clause 2 refers mainly to charters.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, let us look at Clause 3, if you do not mind, as it is interlinked with Clause 2. This clause increases the tax, effective August 1, on air fares for flights from Canada to locations outside Canada other than the United States and the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon from $5 to the lesser of $10 or the amount which may be prescribed by order of the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport. There is also a provision for a reduced rate when the passenger is a child under 12 years of age and is being transported at a reduced fare. Just to make that clear to the hon. gentleman, Clause 2 applies to flights in North America excluding Mexico, and Clause 3 applies to flights from Canada to elsewhere outside Canada.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, this is a sizeable tax on travel, particularly when you think in terms of members of parliament and others for whom the government must pay the transportation bill. This 8 per cent will amount to a sizeable figure if it applies to all those travelling in the North American area. Has the minister given any consideration to the establishment of a departure tax of a set amount rather than this tax being applied to all travel in North America? I presume this would apply more specifically to Clause 3 than to Clause 2, but it does seem to me that 8 per cent is an amount which will only add to the difficulties faced by the airlines in this country at the present time.
Air Canada, for instance, is operating now on its scheduled air flights very close to the break even point, with approximately 50 per cent capacity. When we add the 8 per cent Air Canada will still be flying across the country, but it may end up with a deficit. There is a level at which a tax
July 28, 1975

of this kind is economical and at which point there is some return. However, there is a point at which it is not economical.
It seems to me that Air Canada is running very close to the break even point on its flights to the United States, but the aircraft destined to Los Angeles are not operating at anywhere near full capacity. If we add on this extra burden this may result in a reduction in air travel and we may end up not getting any extra money. I am not sure about other air carriers, but from the reports I have seen it seems to me that Air Canada is operating pretty close to that break even point. Prices have gone up radically in the past five to six years, and with this increase in price I do not think the number of people being carried will necessarily increase. This will result in a diminishing return.


John Napier Turner: In respect of the taxes in Clauses 2 and 3, that is to say the tax within the North American area and the tax on flights from Canada outside North America, there is a maximum which the governor in council can set. At the moment the maximum is $5 on both.
The reason the departure tax was not used, which as I understand it is a flat departure rate, was that the Minister of Transport and the government felt there ought to be some increase in the tax for increased distances. On the other hand, to meet the point the hon. member has just brought out, obviously there should be a maximum to ensure that air travel remains competitive, and that is where the balance has been struck.


William Arnold Peters: I would like to ask the minister how the governor in council gets the recommendations as to what the maximum should be? There is not any allowance for that in the bill, but there is a definite statement in respect of 8 per cent.


John Napier Turner: The maximum dollar amount is recommended by the Minister of Transport after consultation with the Minister of Finance having regard to problems of airport financing and operations.


Gérard Laprise: Madam Chairman, at this stage of clause 2, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In Bill C-66, with respect to the tax increase, the 10 cents per gallon tax on gasoline, the minister provided that certain categories of people might get a refund of that tax, in other words would not have to pay the tax. Would it not be possible to do the same thing with respect to the air transportation tax in the case of certain categories of people like for instance diseased people who have to be flown to hospital. It is a well known fact that three out of four air passengers travel on behalf of companies or groups which give them a refund on their ticket. So it is not the individuals, but the company or the government which pay for rates or air transportation tax increases. But in the case of ordinary citizens, or of emergency flights, I think the possibility of a refund should be considered. I would like to know what the position of the minister is in that respect.
Excise Tax Act


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, since air transportation companies provide low rates for certain categories of passengers, of citizens, for instance senior citizens and children, it is obvious that, since the tax is a percentage of the rates, it would be lower in the case of those people. But no exemption or abatement is provided in the bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Chairman, if I understand the minister correctly, clause 2 will cover Canada-U.S.-Carib-bean flights, while Clause 3 will cover international flights.


John Napier Turner: Clause 2 refers to Canada and the United States with the exception of Hawaii and St. Pierre de Miquelon, and Clause 3 covers everything else.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Then domestic flights for this purpose mean Canada-U.S. in Clause 2. May I ask the minister why there is the omission in Clause 2 of a provision that is contained in Clause 3, namely, the provision in which a child would pay 50 per cent of the amount prescribed in Clause 3.


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, I have a feeling it is because there is already a reduced fare applicable on the domestic rate. Yes; that is the answer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I take it that 8 per cent in respect of these domestic fares would represent $16 on a $200 fare. What is the rationale for that type of a tax on domestic flights, and what appears to be a flat $10 on international flights?


John Napier Turner: Let me try to explain this. On the domestic flight it is now 8 per cent but not more than the governor in council sets within the limit, which is now $5. In respect of places outside North America it is $10 or such lesser amount as the governor in council sets. A maximum of $10 is set by legislation on foreign flights, and there is a maximum set by the governor in council on domestic flights.


William Arnold Peters: What is the reason for the change from 5 per cent to 8 per cent if there is already a $5 ceiling? I do not see that much is being accomplished.


John Napier Turner: I think you can anticipate that the Minister of Transport will arrange the upward limit.
Clause 2 agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: Perhaps at this time I might announce the adjournment motion proceedings.

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to Standing Order 40, I wish to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-The Canadian Economy-Reason for Delay in Setting Wage Guidelines; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes)-Energy-Oil-Basis for Calculating Length of Delay Before Increasing price; the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday)-Agriculture-Industrial Milk-Request for Reconsideration of Levy.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mrs. Morin in the chair.
On Clause 3.
William Arnold Peters: Madam Chairman, it has always been the case that if I buy a ticket in Canada to go to a foreign country which has an airport departure tax I, in effect, on purchasing my ticket pay the departure tax here and at the other end I again pay the departure tax. However, people coming here who have bought a round ticket in their country of departure do not have to pay the departure tax twice.
I am well aware that there are some advantages to this system, but it seems to me that anyone coming here from another country would not be making a contribution to the departure procedure here. I am wondering whether an Ottawa departure tax should be applied to a ticket which does not indicate such a tax has been paid. On a ticket bought in Canada I believe the amount paid would be $10, which would involve $5 going and $5 coming.
Obviously there must be a cost involved in respect of people coming here to cover the surveillance costs and other things, but they do not pay the tax. If the Olympics go ahead we will probably find that many people will be visiting Canada in the next year and yet they will not pay any departure tax from our airports.


John Napier Turner: I do not quarrel with what the hon. gentleman has said. However, jurisdiction over the tax is at the place in which the ticket is purchased, but the departure tax on the other hand is applicable at the port of exit. What the Minister of Transport ought to consider on the basis of the hon. gentleman's representation is a reciprocal departure tax, and I will draw it to his attention.
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]


B. Keith Penner: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, I have tried to follow the minister in all his explanations about the tax being the lesser of (a) or (b) etc. I notice that according to the final clause of the bill, sections 2 and 3 shall come into force "on August 1, 1975, which is only about four days away. Therefore can the minister tell us now what the tax rates will be on August 1, bearing in mind that the governor in council has the right to fix an amount below the maximum amount set in this bill? Could the minister give the information to us, both for domestic and international flights?


John Napier Turner: The maximum is $8 for both.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should just like to draw the attention of the Minister of Communications to this new system of beaming from the official gallery which we have. It seems to have worked a lot better than some other methods of communication.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is kind of expensive.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 
John Napier Turner: The hon. member may be looking at the old bill. This tax was originally imposed a year or so ago.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am referring to clauses 2 and 3 and the explanatory notes, which read:
These amendments relate to the air transportation tax imposed by subsections 10(1) and 11(1).
Then we have the following wording under (b):
such amount as may, for the purposes of this subsection, be prescribed by order of the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport.
This does not appear further down in the part which would now apply to Clause 3 of the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Look at the top of the next page.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It was in the old act under Clause 2, but will not be there any longer. Is that correct?


John Napier Turner: Yes, the same flexibility is now given to foreign flights that was given on domestic flights.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4.
July 28, 1975


William Arnold Peters: Madam Chairman, I have a question for the minister on Clause 4. I read in the expert column by Dillon O'Leary, the son of the famous Senator of the same name, and of Irish extraction, that when the increase was put on in the federal budget the amount was translated to 20 cents in Ontario. It is removed now and only 15 cents is deducted in Ontario, so the five cents is still a reflection of the federal tax. I am aware of what happened. The Ontario government decided to reduce it to 15 cents and to keep the five cents. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance in that he started it and he gave them the opportunity to do this. I wonder what extraordinary measures he intends to take with regard to those who favour the grape and its derivitives to get that five cents off so that wine producers in Ontario and elsewhere will benefit from the removal of the total tax.


John Napier Turner: The effect of the amendment, as the hon. gentleman surmises, is to hold back excise tax increases which were put on producers on November 18. This means the decrease represented by this clause amounts to 20 cents a gallon, as he said, on wines of all kinds containing not more than 7 per cent of absolute alcohol by volume, and 40 cents on all wines containing more than 7 per cent of absolute alcohol by volume.
The hon. member asked me what I will do about the provincial government and its pricing policy at LCBOs. That is within their jurisdiction, but it should be clear to domestic grape growing and wine producing industries that we have rescinded the 20 cent increase.


William Arnold Peters: We do not grow apples in northern Ontario but I am curious about the difference that has been made with respect to ciders. There is a stronger and a weaker cider. For instance, Calvados is almost undrinkable. I would like to ask the minister whether there is a tax on the ordinary cider that is manufactured for sale in grocery stores, and how is it supervised? I gather that after a period of time cider becomes stronger. Is there any tax on cider produced from fresh apples and sold along the roadsides in parts of southern Quebec and Ontario?


John Napier Turner: I do not know from what stores the hon. member buys his cider, but he cannot get high alcoholic content cider in grocery stores. Cider containing less than a certain percentage of alcohol is not taxed, it was relieved of the sales tax in two or three previous budgets, as is every so called soft drink. If it has the necessary alcoholic content it bears a general tax, but it was not affected by the special tax imposed in the November 18 budget.


René Matte: To elaborate on that question, Madam Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he is thinking of cider as well as wine? In other words, are ciders included in the wines mentioned in clause 4?


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, there was no special tax on beer or ciders on November 18, and therefore no need to repeal such a tax.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Chairman, it is not often that a minister changes his policy within six or eight months. In
Excise Tax Act
view of the fact that a large number of Canadians are incensed at his reducing the tax on wine at the same time as he is increasing the tax on gasoline, I am wondering if the minister is prepared to say that he made a mistake in the November 18 budget, or what is the reasoning for the quick change in policy?


John Napier Turner: Because of recent changes in the market the domestic wine and grape growing industry has been seriously affected, and I wanted to improve its position on the basis of representations made by very many hon. members of this House, particularly the hon. members from the Niagara Peninsula.


Mr. Allard:: Madam Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if we have to see the bottom of the bottle or the bottom of the barrel to know whether cider and beer are included in Clause 4. In fact, it seems that we did not get a satisfactory reply to the question asked by my colleague from Champlain.


John Napier Turner: There is obviously a certain excise tax on beer and a certain minimum tax on cider. However, this clause removes only the special tax placed on November 18 on wine. But no special tax was placed on cider or beer on November 18. This is why these two items are not included in the clause.

Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Chairman, before we get into the debate, I rise on a point of order. I know that the minister is prepared at this stage to move an amendment, as he indicated at second reading, and when he moves his amendment I will propose a subamendment, which would permit hon. members to discuss this clause in the light of the amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have another amendment.


John Napier Turner: One could see just how frustrated those two hon. gentleman would be if I did not present my amendment first.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would be prepared to move mine first.


John Napier Turner: The committee will recall that as a result of Mr. Speaker's decision a subclause of clause 5 was stricken because Mr. Speaker held that it did not correspond with the ways and means motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Very sound judgment.


John Napier Turner: In any event, I would like to move an amendment to reintroduce a clause, in strict conformity with the ways and means motion, to give furtherance to the sense and ambit of the decision of Mr. Speaker. I therefore move:
That clause 5 of Bill C-66, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, be amended as follows:

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act
(a)	by striking out lines 26 to 36 on page 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"(b) a municipality,
(c)	a person for commercial or business purposes,
(d)	a farmer for farming purposes,
(e)	a fisherman, hunter or trapper for commercial fishing, hunting or trapping,
(f)	a person under conditions for which relief from the consumption or sales tax is provided by virtue of any provision of this Act other than subsection 27(2), or
(g)	a person of such other class of persons as the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe,"; and
(b)	by striking out line 18 on page 3 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"(l)(a) to (g), for the purpose of making a"


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Chairman, a little while ago I heard someone ask the minister if he ever admitted making a mistake. Of course I understand it is a rule laid down in the Privy Council that any minister who admits making a mistake is forthwith fired, so we do not expect this to happen, but we have now gone all around the compass and come back to where we were at the time of the ways and means resolution, and I am one of those who feel that this is probably a wise decision.
I would like to believe that this was the advice originally given to the minister by his officials, that he took it to cabinet, and cabinet rather ruthlessly changed it and put in that unmentionable mess which brought into the bill the provision of the Income Tax Act, section 149, which would have been absolutely unenforceable. It will be difficult enough to enforce some of the provisions with regard to rebates, but section 149 of the Income Tax Act, as a basis on which rebates would be paid, would be simply nothing less than a monstrosity. I am glad to see that the minister recognized that, and I give him credit for doing so.
I feel that this is a case where we should object very strenuously to the governor in council having this power. If it is a matter of giving the governor in council power to impose a tax, I would strenuously resist it, and I think most members of the opposition would resist it, but giving the governor in council the right to add to the classes of people who are entitled to secure a rebate from a tax is something to which I am prepared to give acceptance, subject to an amendment which I will read now. I will not put the amendment, but I will read it now so that the minister, hon. members, and the Chair may have some idea of what is involved. My amendment will relate particularly to proposed Clause 5(g), and I think I will have to add to it. If the committee will look at proposed Clause 5(g) it reads as follows:
(g) a person of such other class of persons as the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe,"
My amendment will have the effect of adding after the word regulation the following words: "subject to negative resolution of the House of Commons", before the word "prescribe".
So Clause 5(g) would then read as follows:
(g) a person of such other class of persons as the Governor in Council may by regulation subject to negative resolution of the House of Commons prescribe,"

I see that I shall have to do some editing now, but that will be the effect of my amendment.
In support of this proposal I would like to read to the committee the appropriate section of the Statutory Instruments Act which gives to the words "subject to negative resolution" a statutory definition. Section 28A. of the Statutory Instruments Act provides in subclause (d) as follows:
(d) the expression "subject to negative resolution of the House of Commons", when used in relation to any regulation, means that such regulation shall be laid before the House of Commons within 15 days after it is made or, if the House is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days next thereafter that parliament is sitting and may be annulled by a resolution of the House of Commons introduced and passed in accordance with the rules of that House.
When my resolution is brought into proper form by adding one or two words, the effect will be that the governor in council-that is pursuant to subclause (g) if the amendment which the minister has introduced, is accepted-will have power by regulation to add a person or such other classes of persons as he may think appropriate as being entitled to a rebate. These classes will be in addition to those enumerated in the subclauses which appear in front of the new subclause (g).
My amendment will provide that by a negative resolution this House will have the right to debate and strike out such classes of persons as the governor in council may prescribe, as being additional to those already established. In other words, if the minister saw fit to prescribe that members of parliament, members of the press gallery or any other group were entitled to a rebate, this will be done by order in council. The order in council will come into effect immediately it is published and, according to the date fixed in the Statutory Instruments Act, if parliament is sitting, there is then an opportunity for members to post a notice of opposition to the arrangement. After a debate pursuant to the rules of the House if enough members could be found to vote a regulation down, it would be annulled.
We are not seeking to postpone the coming into effect of the regulation by waiting until this House has passed it. That would be an affirmative resolution. The meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act is quite plain, and I suggest the minister might be prepared to accept this, after consideration as part of his amendment. If not, I will move it in due course.
I have sat here very patiently listening to the excellent arguments advanced by all members, particularly those in the New Democratic Party, which had a strangely familiar ring. Of course, those hon. members, not being here for the early part of the debate, wanted to be involved when they finally arrived so they just turned to Hansard and read the speeches which members of this party made earlier!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: This repetition for the second and third time of the excellent speeches made by members of this party had its effect. I could tell this from the happy faces opposite.
July 28, 1975

I should like to give the committee the reasons for the amendment that I will propose-unless the minister is prepared to work my idea into his own amendment. As a member of the Joint Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments, I know that a number of anomalies were discovered with regard to delegation of powers by parliament through statutory instruments to the governor in council, individuals, corporations and ministers. An arbitrary decision has been taken by the Privy Council which made an interpretation of the Statutory Instruments Act which places certain orders in council outside the ambit of examination by the committee and ultimately by this House. It has also taken outside the right of the people of Canada to have published a large number of statutory instruments. This has been done by their definition of the words "statutory instruments". It is my opinion that the only safe thing is for this parliament, having once given away certain delegated rights to the governor in council, to ministers, to tribunals of any kind, to insist upon these orders in council, these regulations, these statutory instruments, coming before the House for consideration.
I am not going to go beyond that now because I believe we will have a debate on this subject later this year. I know some members of the committee from the opposite side have taken the same stand as I do. I think it is the part of prudence, when we give to the government a very important power such as is contained in the right to establish a group of people entitled to a rebate of tax, to ensure a method of bringing back the statutory instruments by which this is done to this House for examination and, if necessary, to be struck down. We are talking here about a fundamental right, one which goes to the heart of the process of government, that is the right to tax and who shall be exempt from tax.
People may ask-why do this? We elect a government and through parliament give that government authority for three or four years to pass orders in council, to make statutory instruments, to make regulations whether they are for the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Labour, the Department of Finance, the Department of National Revenue or whatever. Probably 90 per cent of the decisions which affect the people of Canada are not made by passing bills in this House, but by regulations passed under those bills. It is very important to make it clear that in doing so we must retain the right to review those decisions.
This government is not a benevolent dictatorship for four years. It received about 30 per cent of the votes of all people entitled to vote at the last election. I am not objecting. That is the process under which we operate and the government is entitled to be where it is, to form the cabinet and to sit on the right side of Mr. Speaker. The government received slightly over four million votes and 13 million ballots could have been cast at the election. That is the way we operate and we have not devised a better system.
During the four years that this government sits on the right side of Mr. Speaker, I will take every opportunity, when they ask for and obtain the right to act by order in council or regulation, to examine that power. They must bear in mind that a very large percentage of the people in
Excise Tax Act
this country do not support them. The powers they seek and the powers they exercise must therefore be subject to a reasonable measure of review in this House. This has not happened very often in the past. This would be a better parliament and a better country if we had more opportunity in the House to examine, review and, if the House so wills, to rescind, annul or change regulations and orders in council.
.
For that purpose, I propose to move this amendment. The minister has had a chance to consider it. If it has to be moved, I will have to put in it the fact that it has reference to subclause (g). The minister might have an opportunity at this time to indicate if it is acceptable to him. If so, it might well, by consent of the committee, be incorporated into his amendment.
Before resuming my seat, I want to say that when we get further along to clause 5, I will be moving an amendment with regard to clauses 3 and 4 which also give the governor in council the power to do certain things by regulations. They will be amendments of a kind similar to the one I will move now, if necessary.


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, I wonder if it would be more appropriate if, before we debate the subamendment of the hon. member for Peace River, the amendment I put forward to the committee to re-establish the bill with the ways and means motion might be approved. We could then debate the subamendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, I might be persuaded in a moment to agree to that, but first I would like to indicate what I had intended to do at this point.
As for the amendment of the minister, of course it is not necessary to comment on it in substance. It is simply a procedural effort to conform with the recommendation made by Mr. Speaker. However, we now have the amendment before us and the hon. member for Peace River has suggested that there is a subamendment he would like to move, but he has not yet moved it.
I have a subamendment that I would like to move. I am prepared to move it now. However, if the minister persuades me, I might be willing to wait until we have amended the basic clause. Let me indicate what it is. I had the amendment prepared in relation to the printed bill as it is before us. Of course, the minister has changed some of the lines in that bill. If I were moving it now as a subamendment to the minister's amendment, it would read as follows:
That the amendment be amended by adding in subclause (c) after the word "purposes", the following words:
"or for the purpose of getting to and from his place of employment,"
As the minister is aware, subclause (c) in his amendment is the same as subclause (b) was in the printed bill, which refers in terms of exemptions to "a person for commercial or business purposes". My amendment or subamendment, depending on where it is moved, will change that clause to read in its entirety:

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act
a person for commercial or business purposes or for the purpose of getting to and from his place of employment,
As I say, I have my right to move it now, but if the minister thinks it would be tidier to have his amendment voted on, on the clear understanding that we then come back to clause 5 as amended, with the full right to make amendments such as the hon. member for Peace River and I have suggested, I could be so persuaded. I gather that is the co-operative thing to do and I am prepared to do it in that way. I have indicated my subamendment. If we do it the other way, once the clause in the printed bill has been amended as the minister suggests, I will be seeking the floor to move the amendment I have just suggested which has to do with including exemptions for those who have to use their cars to get to and from their place of employment.


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, if the committee were agreeable, I submit we vote upon my amendment and it would then be in order for both the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to present their amendments to the new, revised bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will agree to that, Madam Chairman.


Gerald William Baldwin: Agreed.


Eudore Allard: Madam Chairman, I wanted to move a subamendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which has the same purpose as my sub-amendment.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has not yet moved his amendment.


Eudore Allard: But, Madam Chairman, I simply wanted to make a correction to the amendment he wants to move and add the following:
in the case of a worker who must travel a minimum of five (5) miles in his own car to reach his place of employment.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. I would like to point out that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has not yet introduced his amendment. When he does, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) can move his sub-amendment.

The question is on the amendment of the Minister of Finance. Shall the amendment carry?


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


B. Keith Penner: The question is now on clause 5, as amended.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Chairman, I should like then to move:
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word "regulation" in subclause (g) and substituting the following:
"subject to negative resolution of the House of Commons prescribe"


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, as a courtesy to the hon. member for Peace River, I would like to respond to his amendment about a negative resolution against the use of governor in council regulation as it affects the rebates under this tax. The hon. member knows that I share with him a concern about limiting the power of delegation and the power of regulation from this House to ministers and from ministers to their officials. With his co-operation and that of others still here, I might say that when I was Attorney General, I brought in the Statutory Instruments Act, as a result of which we now have a regular standing committee of the House and the other place dealing with the regulations coming before them and evaluating those regulations against other sets of criteria. They are set out in the bill.
The difficulty with negative resolutions is that as the hon. member for Peace River concedes, the House has not established rules for dealing with negative resolutions and, frankly, I hesitate to do something when I do not know what I am getting into. There was a precedent in the case of manufacturing incentives, as we included the provision for debate if 60 hon. members so requested. As the committee will recall, at that time we included rules of procedure right in the statute in order to overcome the problem as to what the governing rules would be. At the moment we do not have rules governing any general negative resolution.
My second concern is that the one thing we need with a tax is certainty, that is, certainty as to whom it applies and to whom it does not. I submit to the Chair that what the hon. member suggests would generate a great deal of uncertainty for taxpayers, because at any one time a taxpayer would want to assess the prospect of whether the House would annul relieving legislation at some future date. I should like to gain more experience with the operation of the regulations before submitting them to a further test in the House in the form of a negative resolution. We would want more experience as to how a negative resolution works, and would want to know what effect the rules of the House will have on a negative resolution.
I point out to the hon. member for Peace River that because the government had second thoughts about delegation it attempted to amend the bill, but Mr. Speaker, as a result of opposition arguments, decided that it went beyond the scope of the ways and means motion. We abided by Mr. Speaker's decision. We wanted, in writing the bill, to leave the House in full control of the ambit of the rebates and exemptions. I should hesitate to submit the substance of this clause to the untried procedure of a negative resolution.
Even under the present situation the regulations, when promulgated by the governor in council, must be published in accordance with the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act and will, in the ordinary course, be submitted for review by a standing committee of the House.
For these reasons, Madam Chairman, I am reluctant to accept the precedent of a negative resolution, particularly as it applies to a tax bill and as taxpayers must be assured of certainty. I would far rather see it introduced in some other type of legislation and see how it works, particularly
July 28, 1975

if it could be reinforced by some amendment to the standing orders of the House, so that we could know what we are getting into.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Chairman, there is no better way for the minister to obtain on-the-job training with negative resolutions than through the present means. There is a simple means of introducing a negative resolution, actually the only means available to us, namely, that of introducing such a resolution in connection with a motion on an opposition day on which there is to be a vote. That is the limited procedure available to opposition members to challenge the government on issues of this kind. That procedure is plain and well known. If I, or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, were to move a motion on an opposition day the effect of which would be to challenge any particular order in council, our action would be in accordance with procedures with which the House is familiar and which we have used previously.
I say to the minister that he is right-the House has been delinquent in not devising a code for dealing with negative and affirmative resolutions, and that explains much of the present difficulty. I suggest, nevertheless, that there are one or two government statutes-I cannot remember them just now but will bring them to the minister's attention-which use wording precisely similar to that we were contemplating in order to satisfy some request which had been made by opposition members.
I challenge the minister's assumption that this order in council will have to be published. This is precisely what I was trying to say a little while ago. The Privy Council has brought forward some arbitrary, arrogant, and seemingly unchallengeable decrees as to what, in its opinion, constitutes a regulation, subject to supervision by the scrutiny committee, and a regulation which must be published. This matter has engaged the attention of the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. It has caused a great deal of concern, and I shall bring before this House a proposal for the review of the statutory instruments legislation.
I have some grave doubts about the way the proposed section would read. The minister has introduced an amendment, and I doubt whether the proposed section would constitute a statutory instrument which can go before the joint committee and which must be published. That is precisely my fear, precisely my anxiety.
I, myself, am at the point of preparing a number of proposals having to do with how the House ought to deal with affirmative and negative resolutions. Judging from what I heard the Minister of National Revenue say, it may take him five or six months to complete the regulations and methods of paying rebates. I judge, if you consider the number of applications members will receive and proposals they will make on behalf of their constituents, it will take the Minister of National Revenue at least eight months to establish any standard form of jurisprudence or procedure dealing with the difficult question of rebates. And therein lies one of our criticisms of this bill.


An hon. Member:: Not at all.


Gerald William Baldwin: I hear an hon. member criticizing my suggestion. I say to the hon. member these criticisms are
Excise Tax Act
well founded. This bill was brought forward without adequate preparation, in a half baked form. There has been inadequate preparation with respect to the matter of rebates. That is why we, in my party, have been so vehement in opposing it. There ought to have been before the House a code or regulation under which we, our constituents, and all the people of Canada could know the circumstances under which rebates are to be paid.
I say to the minister-and I am trying to be conciliatory-that he is not losing anything, as, in my judgment, there will come before this House this fall a proposal for a code governing how the House is to deal with negative and affirmative resolutions. In this case we are considering a negative resolution. If the minister will examine the definition of a negative resolution he will see that the final words of the definition say that it may be annulled by a resolution of the House of Commons introduced and passed in accordance with the rules of that House. At this moment we must adhere to our present rules.
As the minister knows, a matter like this can be raised either by way of a private member's motion, which is of no great consequence unless the government is prepared to facilitate discussion of such a motion and allow it to come to a vote, or by way of a motion raised pursuant to opposition day procedures, and six such opposition days are available in one year. Those are two specific ways for the raising of this question. The minister does not need to be in a quandary as to how it will be done. I have suggested the only two ways in which, at present, it can be done. I suggest, and this is not only my belief but reflects the reality of the situation, that there will be in place, even before this fall, a procedure in this House for dealing with negative resolutions.
Speaking to the merits of the matter, I dislike very much giving the government, in a taxation measure such as this, the right to propose classes of persons who shall be exempt from taxation. My objection applies equally to the power to take away that exemption. If you give the government power to grant exemptions, you give it power to remove exemptions. I am reluctant to let such power pass out of this House unless we shall have some opportunity at a later date to challenge it and vote on it.
I am most sincere about this, Madam Chairman. We are dealing with a taxation question, and I simply do not think we should give power to the government to impose taxes by order in council, or even to propose rebates and exemptions, unless the umbilical cord to this House remains uncut. I suggest that if the minister is not prepared to do this, then it is evidence of bad faith on the part of the government, which refuses to allow to the House the simple right of review proposed in this amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, I hope the minister will give serious consideration to the proposal of the hon. member for Peace River. In fact I hope that consideration might be given to the amendment over the dinner recess between six and eight o'clock. Perhaps it would not hurt if we called it six o'clock so that the government could give the matter serious thought.
In the meantime may I just say a few words. I think we frequently put on the record what everybody knows, but

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act
may I do it again. The difference between an affirmative resolution and a negative resolution is such that the hon. member for Peace River has chosen the method that is least awkward for the government. As I understand it, if one is asking for an affirmative resolution it means that an order in council cannot come into effect until the matter has been brought before parliament and there has been an affirmative vote. On the other hand, use of a negative resolution means that an order in council can be put into effect at the moment stated in the order, but can be nullified if later on there is a negative vote in parliament.
The minister said that in the field of taxation there has to be some certainty. The government operates all the time on the basis of putting on taxes and then starting to collect them, counting on the fact that it will get approval from the House later on. The ten cents tax on gasoline is being collected right now even though the bill that would endorse it, Bill C-66, has not been passed.
The government will be in precisely the same position if it accepts the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. It would have full authority by order in council to make these tax changes having to do with exemptions-in or out, as you will-and to put those changes into effect at the moment specified in the order. So there is no awkwardness for the government in that case. If the government believes that what it is doing is right and believes that it will have the support of the majority of the House, it can act. Accordingly I submit very strongly that there is a good argument for the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Peace River.
As the Minister of Finance has pointed out, he was one who had something to do with this affirmative and negative resolution proposition. It was fine to put it forward academically as a proposition to protect the rights of parliament, but why not apply it when a practical situation occurs?
So, Madam Chairman, I have had enough practice at speaking that I think I could keep going until six o'clock if necessary, but surely this is something that the minister ought to look at with his officials over the dinner recess, and I suggest we not conclude the point now. The simplest way, unless somebody else wants to say something about it, is to call it six o'clock.


B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


B. Keith Penner: There being no agreement, is the committee ready for the question?


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, I think there is some sense in what the hon. member just said. I think that by general agreement we could call it six o'clock.


B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
B. Keith Penner: Order, please. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-66, to amend the Excise Tax Act. When the committee rose at six o'clock Clause 5 as amended was under consideration.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance looks to me like a man who has come here with an olive branch. Perhaps he might like to give us his views at the moment, or indicate that he is prepared to entertain more argument. I have a very large number of new arguments I developed during the supper hour. I have had a very good supper and I have all kinds of fresh ideas, so I am full of enthusiasm. If the minister needs more convincing, I am prepared to make the effort. Perhaps he is in the position of a hung jury right now. He has not made up his mind and wants to hear more arguments from us. I can carry on with those arguments, but perhaps the minister would like to say something about what his attitude is now.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have enough respect for the hon. member for Peace River to know that once he states his argument he does not have to repeat it.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have new ones.


John Napier Turner: He does it so succintly and clearly there is absolutely no doubt about what he has in mind. I would, first of all, repeat what I said earlier, that having introduced the Statutory Instruments Act, we sought to place some limitation on the power of the government to delegate to ministers, or the governor in council, the authority to regulate, through officials by way of sub-delegation.
I have a good deal of sympathy for the hon. member's argument, and quite frankly I share his concern over the fact that we have not been able to bring in to this House, or that this House has not been able to adopt, through the Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, new rules relating to this type of matter which would have provided a code for dealing with affirmative or negative resolutions challenging the regulatory authority given to ministers by this type of bill or bills. I am concerned also when the hon. member tells the House that he has some insider's information on what the Privy Council office is going to pronounce as to the necessity for publication of this type of regulation.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a correction to make in that regard.


John Napier Turner: It is my personal feeling that, this being a regulation, it would be subject to publication under the act. I leave it to him to expand on that if he wants to later.
July 28, 1975

There is, of course, a right of review already granted to parliament through the Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, although I have no quarrel with what the hon. member said about the limited occasions on which that right can be exercised, either by way of a resolution prompted by the committee or by the opposition designating an opposition day under which to bring to the attention of the House the fact the government or a minister may have overridden the criteria against which regulations are to be drafted.
My problem, as I stated before the dinner break, is in allowing this bill to be the subject of negative resolution procedure before I have any idea of what the rules are going to be regulating the disposition of such resolutions. I hesitate to launch a taxation bill into that position because of, as I said earlier, the necessity for certainty as it applies to the taxpayers being able to arrange their affairs, knowing some degree of precision what the law is going to be.
Perhaps I might say to the hon. member that I am committed to the widest review of regulations and to the public scrutiny the publication of these regulations demands. However, I cannot bring myself to putting this bill on an experimental basis until the House itself has agreed to ground rules for the disposition of resolutions proposed by hon. members.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I detected a note of hesitancy in the way the Minister of Justice approached-


An hon. Member:: The Minister of Finance.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, the Minister of Finance. Justice has long fled, Mr. Chairman. I noted a negative attitude in the way the minister approached this proposition. I can tell that his heart was not in it. It may be that his officials have persuaded him, and I have the feeling that all too often it is the officials, present company excepted, rather than the ministers who make the decisions.


John Napier Turner: That is not quite fair. I take the responsibility.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister may take the responsibility, but I have been around here too long not to know precisely how that responsibility is placed in the minister's hands. I have listened to representations before the statutory instruments committee in connection with my attempt to get a little more freedom of information, and I know just exactly how the situation lies. The minister knows this, as does the President of the Privy Council. They pretty well do what they are told. That is about the size of it, and most of us over here know that. Before I go on to make my other arguments, and because I have detected this note of hesitancy in the voice of the minister who perhaps wants more persuasion, I should try harder. Perhaps he wants to be courted a little bit on this, and I am prepared to court him. There is lots of time for courting and this is a fine evening for it, Mr. Chairman.
I see the President of the Privy Council in attendance. I have a suggestion for the minister. He says he does not want a tax bill to be the subject of this experiment, and I will come back to that in a little while. Perhaps the President of the Privy Council could also consider this suggestion, or undertaking, as I think he should. It is that
Excise Tax Act
this House will consider a code for establishing rules in respect of negative and affirmative resolutions. After all, we have had this law on the statute books since 1971, or 1972 when the Statutory Instruments Act was passed, yet we have never been given the authority to follow the Procedure set out in the Act. This situation is like the one created by the famous Roman emperor who was compelled by law to publish his statutes, so he hung them up so high no one could read them. That is what the government is now doing.


An hon. Member:: Give us his name.


Gerald William Baldwin: Perhaps it was Caligula, who also had some horses. We have some horses here, but I think we have the wrong ends, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Caligula was the Roman emperor who appointed his horse to be a consul. Sometimes when I look at the cabinet I have some doubts, I must say, about whether Caligula's plan is not still operating.
To get down to business, if the President of the Privy Council were prepared to co-operate in bringing forward this change in the rules, as it should be brought forward, then perhaps members could define the rules under which the House would operate in relation to negative and affirmative resolutions. I do not have much confidence that the minister would be allowed by his officials or his colleagues in the cabinet to bring this bill back later. For that reason perhaps we could pass this amendment and postpone its implementation for four months. I am being very reasonable. In fact, I am amazed by my reasonableness. The minister should consider that proposition carefully. Perhaps the minister and his colleagues could get together right now and hold a miniature cabinet caucus so that we can pass this amendment. I have three more as well, but I might be persuaded to drop a couple of them if we can get this thing started.
Perhaps the President of the Privy Council, in the discharge of his duties and responsibilities, would undertake that this House will have a chance to consider and pass a code governing affirmative and negative resolutions. If that were the case, I would undertake on behalf of this party, and I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would undertake as well on behalf of his party, to provide a very limited debate on a reasonable code defining the rules in respect of affirmative and negative resolutions. As a result of the way this government has been operating during the course of this parliament I am sure we are going to have a great many of these debates.
I could take this amendment back and propose an exceedingly complicated, complex and lengthy amendment such as I put forward in connection with the Petroleum Administration Act. That was accepted by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and you must admit, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources accepts something, that is quite an undertaking. If he can do it, I am sure the Minister of Finance, who is much more flexible than the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, would accept it. But that would be a very complicated and complex process and I do not think

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act
the House should be compelled to do that. What we need is a simple code covering these kinds of amendments.
While the minister is considering that, I want to place a few more arguments before him. First, I want to dispose of the rather ridiculous statement he made that he does not like to leave a tax statute in the vague position in which this legislation would be if such an amendment as the one I proposed were accepted. How ridiculous is the minister's statement! Here he proposes, by an amendment which he has introduced, which allows the government to add to the classes of people who may be exempted from this tax or who may secure a rebate, a person of such other class of persons as the governor in council may by regulations prescribe. That leaves the whole world within the ambit of that description. Any class of people may be defined by an order in council as being liable for the exemption.
This bill is not as concise and precise as a tax bill should be and the minister, by his amendment, has made it plain that that is the case. He can provide any class or group in this country with an exemption.
I will not go back on what I said at the beginning of my remarks that I would much prefer that than the ridiculous aberration put forward in the form of section 149 of the Income Tax Act. But that is not all of it. Also in this clause we find the expression "commercial or business purposes shall have such meaning as the governor in council may determine by regulation". The words "commercial or business purposes" have a very clear and definite dictionary meaning, whether you refer to the Oxford or Webster dictionaries, or any other dictionary. We know what those words mean, and not only do we know because of the normal use of those expressions in business and social life but because of their judicial interpretation.
I think you can go to the law reports and probably find a number of judicial interpretations of what "commercial or business purposes" means. Yet the government has taken to itself the right to place upon these words such tortured or unusual interpretations as it sees fit. In other words, if it is placed in a position of having to make a decision, it can say it does not want to have to make this decision, and it can take the ordinary interpretation of the words "commercial or business purposes" and can change that definition to suit itself. How can the minister say he wants a tax bill with precision and exactitude when he has the right to make these changes, he or whoever may succeed him? I think this is ridiculous. There is no measure of precision about this bill at all. It is a bill which can be widened, so far as exemptions are concerned, or restricted as the governor in council may see fit to do.
The minister has said that there is the right of review of orders in council. I want to call to his attention that there is the right of review by the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments which has the right of scrutiny, but not the right of scrutiny which goes to the question of substance. This is one of the limitations. We are not able to go into questions of policy.
If the government sees fit for some reason or other to say it places such and such interpretation on the phrase "commercial or business purposes," or it is going to extend the benefit of the right to give a rebate to some other class,

the scrutiny committee cannot pass judgment on the basis of the policy or the substance of that decision. If an unexpected or an unusual use is made of a power within the terms of reference, they have the right to comment upon it but not to challenge it in the sense that it can be reviewed and a recommendation made to the House of Commons that it be set aside. I think that is right.
I think that the purpose of the scrutiny committee is not to sit in appeal on the governor in council but to review the instruments, to see whether they conform to the legislation, to see whether they are retroactive in effect; and also they have one particular power, to see whether unexpected or unusual use is being made of the power given. We can only flag it as it goes past, whereas the right a negative resolution gives to the House of Commons, as it ought in matters of this kind, is the right to say that the basis upon which this decision was made was a wrong basis, that it was based on wrong facts, thinking, and assumptions, and that therefore the House, sitting in review by the process triggered off by the negative resolution, has the right to say it will set it aside.
As a matter of practical fact the minister knows, sitting as he does with the majority-I will be kind and not say anything about the quality of the majority-that this House will certainly not set aside the orders in council. But there would be the opportunity for a full, fair, and uninhibited debate so that we can bring to the attention of the country the basis upon which this is done.
I should like to go back to the issue which I raised at the beginning. We are living in a pluralistic society. There are many groups of people with vested interests, and there will be many classes of people in the days ahead who will have occasion to seek from the minister the right to have themselves established as a class suitable for rebate of this tax, and to make other applications. The minister may deal with them as he sees fit on the advice of his officials, and this will be a decision by a government representing 30 per cent of the people eligible to vote, as against the opposition representing almost 40 per cent of people eligible to vote.
While the rules of the game are what they are and the government is formed on the basis of those rules, and while it is true that with regard to legislation we have a chance to debate bills, and occasionally to have a debate that lasts a little longer than normal, such as this one, and we can bring to the attention of the public the defects in the legislation, when it comes to statutory instruments that right does not exist. Statutory instruments, as I indicated before, and statistically it can be established, are the legal documents which affect, more than any bill or any other form of law, the rights of the people in this country.
There is no certainty about the tax bill now; it is wide open to being altered in respect of rebates. I suggest that under those conditions the minister should have a conference with the President of the Privy Council and take advantage of the very generous offer I made to him to work out a settlement along the lines I outlined.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I admit that I had hoped, when I called it six o'clock at about five minutes to six, that the minister would take the
July 28, 1975

two intervening hours to consider the matter and would come back prepared to agree to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. I regret that his statement tonight, although it was put forward rather timidly, did not seem to represent agreement.
The hon. member for Peace River has stated the case exceedingly well. There is no need for me to spin it out, but I would like to do my best to set aside the argument of the minister that this arrangement leaves the government in an uncertain position with respect to tax law. If the hon. member for Peace River were proposing that these orders in council had to be subject to an affirmative resolution, that of course would put the government in a position of not being able to put its orders into effect, but under the provisions of the negative resolution an order in council goes into effect immediately and is set aside only if a majority in parliament votes that it should be nullified.
As the hon. member for Peace River has pointed out, in this parliament the government has a majority which seems to sustain it every time. Even in other kinds of parliaments governments have to present their tax measures on the basis that they will be able to win support. I submit that the chances of our upsetting one of these orders in council by virtue of using the negative resolution process are slim, but the effect could be very salutary, and I suggest that is the whole purpose of the proposal of the hon. member for Peace River. If the minister knows that an order in council which he passes under this legislation is subject to a negative resolution, he will be that much more careful to draft the kind of order which the opposition will not even try to subject to a negative resolution, and one which would carry the government's way even if we did try it. So I submit that the minister's argument about the uncertainty in which this process would leave the government does not carry very much weight.
As I said earlier-and the hon. member for Peace River has underlined it-it is nice to have these provisions for affirmative and negative resolutions, but it is a bit disappointing that when we come to a practical case where it would be very useful, the minister gives an answer which is stated very nicely and very respectfully, but which adds up to one big no. I still think that further consideration should be given to this matter along the lines urged by the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Because of what I said before supper, I would like to point out for the record that I have examined the letter from the Privy Council office, and I was incorrect. This proposal is one which is subject to review by the committee and to scrutiny by the committee. I do not think it will do any harm to refer to this letter in the presence of the President of the Privy Council, who has some measure of authority there. I want to say that I have a letter in my hand from Mr. McIntosh, director of legal services to the Privy Council, who doubles in brass and who is also connected with the Minister of Justice. It is from his pen that I learned of this most extraordinary interpretation of a statutory instrument or an order in council which is subject to scrutiny and one which is not subject to scrutiny.
Excise Tax Act
It is in this simple distinction that if this bill were to say that the government may exempt certain classes of people from payment of this tax, that is not a statutory instrument which is liable for scrutiny by the committee or which needs to be published, but if the bill says the governor in council may by order direct that certain classes of people are subject to being exempt from payment of this tax, it then becomes a statutory instrument which is liable to study.
In this bill alone there are two or three instances where a form is used which takes the proposal outside of the definition, and as such it is not liable to be published or liable to be scrutinized, and this is my anxiety. Where this House passes a statute, the Statutory Instruments Act, which from the course of the debate-and I was reviewing the debates the other day-made it abundantly plain that we wanted to have in our hands the right to review through a scrutiny committee, and the right to insist upon publication of orders in council and directives which deal with the lives or the property of persons, but now we find that by a simple interpretation taken unilaterally by the Privy Council officials on their own, they have in fact cut in half the cases which can be reviewed and taken to themselves the right to so word an order in council that it is removed entirely from the scope of study by this House, this is the sort of thing which is going to lead to difficulty. This is why I think that hopefully some time this fall the committee will bring in a recommendation so that we can debate it in the House. But it is because of these kinds of things, and because of the arbitrary right which government officials have seized, of saying what is and what is not a statutory instrument and so ordering by the form of construction of the words used as to leave it outside the ambit of consideration by this House, that I worry about tax measures.
I worry about measures which give the government the right on its own volition to exempt certain additional classes from the payment of these rebates, and the government will have its way if the minister is determined.
Ultimately the government will have its way on this and the other two or three amendments I will be moving, but I want to caution the government that the attitude it is taking is very serious. It is in defiance of the laws of propriety and of free government, and I do not think it is a very good thing for the democratic process in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, I take it that this marks the end of the discussion on the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River. I do not wish to speak on that amendment.


B. Keith Penner: I remind the hon. member for Victoria that the amendment has not yet been disposed of by the committee. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


B. Keith Penner: The amendment is in the name of the hon. member for Peace River.


Some hon. Members:: Out, get out.
8002

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Chairman, has the question already been put?


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. Earlier in the sittings of the committee the Chair made it perfectly clear that Standing Order 12(2) makes it plain to all hon. members that when the question is being put, no member shall enter or walk out of the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Amendment (Mr. Baldwin) negatived: yeas, 29; nays, 46.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of moving the amendment which I suggested when we were at an earlier stage. In fact, I almost reached the point of moving it as a subamendment to the minister's amendment to clause 5, but I was persuaded to wait until we had disposed of that and also until we had disposed of the amendment that has just now been defeated.
My proposed amendment relates to one of the most serious and most offensive features of this bill. I refer to the fact that although this bill, in providing for the ten cent tax on gasoline, does provide for some exemptions-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: You finally figured that out.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I was pointing out that this bill provides for certain persons to be exempt from paying the ten cent tax on gasoline provided in this legislation, but my amendment relates to people who do not get that exemption. I refer to workers who have to use their automobiles to get to and from their place of employment. The fact that this is perhaps the most offensive part of this bill has been demonstrated by the many speeches made on this aspect of the matter, both on second reading and during debate on clause 1 of the bill.
The minister admits that a very large number of persons will be exempted from paying the tax or will be given the privilege of applying for and receiving a rebate. He steadfastly refuses, however, to cover those workers on wages and salaries who have to use their cars to get to their place of employment. It is my contention, therefore, that we should now exercise our rights in committee to move for a reduction in the burden or the effect of a tax. I suspect that the Minister of Finance may hope-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


John R. Rodriguez: The Liberals will stay here another week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind shouting over other voices but I am not
[The Deputy Chairman.]
making this speech just for the fun of it; I am making it because I think at this point we are dealing with one of the most serious aspects of this bill.
I was about to point out that under the rules of the House when a tax measure is before us we have the right to make amendments that will reduce the tax or lessen the burden of that tax on certain groups of people. We do not have the right to increase the tax; neither do we have the right to transfer a tax from one group of persons to another. The right we do have has already been demonstrated by the amendment proposed the other day by the hon. member for Red Deer who sought to change the definition of gasoline so that gasoline which is coloured or dyed would not be subject to tax.
I now wish to move another amendment to clause 5 which will have the effect of increasing the number of persons to whom the ten cent tax will not apply. Since it is a reduction in a tax which the minister seeks to impose, I contend I am within my rights as a private member of this House to move:
That clause 5, as amended, be amended by adding to subclause (c) immediately after the word "purposes", the following words:
"or for the purpose of getting to and from his place of employment,"
Mr. Chairman, the subclause (c) to which I refer in my amendment is, of course, the subclause (c) in clause 5 as amended. If hon. members are looking at the reprinted bill the wording is, of course, the wording of subclause (b) and therefore the new subclause (c), if my amendment were added to it, would read as follows:
(c) a person for commercial or business purposes, or for the purpose of getting to and from his place of employment,
In other words, just as there would be an exemption provided by the minister for a person engaged in commercial or business operations, so there would be an exemption for a person who needed to use his car for the purpose of getting to or from his place of employment.
Mr. Chairman, if the minister says that definition is not as precise as he might like it to be, I remind him that his definition in what is now subclause (c) is not precise. It reads simply:
(c) a person for commercial or business purposes,
He has covered that by subclause (3) on page 3, however, which reads:
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the expression "commercial or business purposes" shall have such meaning as the Governor in Council may determine by regulation.
If my amendment to clause 5, as amended, is carried I would then move a consequential amendment when we get to the next page, that subclause (3) be altered to read:
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the expression "commercial or business purposes" and the expression "getting to and from his place of employment" shall have such meaning as the Governor in Council may determine, by regulation.
In other words, if there are questions as to what portion of the gasoline a worker uses is to be exempted, it should be dealt with in the same way the minister has decided to deal with doctors, lawyers and the rest. The government has made a provision whereby it is going to have the right to decide by order in council as to what is meant by "commercial or business purposes". Much as I do not like to give the governor in council the power to do so, I am
July 28, 1975

prepared to let the governor in council do the same thing for workers and determine what it means to use a car to get to and from a place of employment.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I place this amendment before the committee. It deals, as I have already said, with the most offensive part of the bill. I strongly urge the minister to consider it favorably. He has already exempted a great many persons from paying the tax by making it possible for them to get rebates. In fairness and in justice, he should go this step further and make the exemption from this tax available to persons who have to use their cars for the purpose of getting to work. I am not asking for pleasure travel or for all the other uses ordinary people make of their cars to be exempted, but surely this is something that is fair and just and ought to appeal to the sense of fairness and justice that I trust the minister possesses.
I should like to anticipate another argument that might arise by suggesting that in procedural terms it is similar to the amendment moved the other day by the hon. member for Red Deer. It is a reduction of the tax. It is less than is asked for in the ways and means motion and, therefore, is in order. I trust that the committee, with a sense of fair play and a sense of regard for the rights of hundreds of thousands of workers in this country who have to use their cars to get to work, will accept this amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Before putting the amendment, I would point out to the committee that from a point of procedural purity, it is somewhat irregular to reach back into an amended clause. However, the Chair has been advised that, prior to the time the minister moved his amendment, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated he would have a further amendment. That being done with the agreement of the committee, the Chair will rule that the amendment is in order.
Is the committee ready for the question?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope the minister will accept this amendment. It has been pointed out by a number of members in this debate that one of the unfortunate factors is that workers in many parts of Canada are not served by public transportation. They do not use their cars for luxury purposes, but in order to maintain employment.
If this amendment is not accepted, there will be an odd situation in my area. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a lot of people here who are not interested in the ordinary workers in Canada. If they are only here for the purpose of a vote, they should step behind the curtain for a few minutes because there are a few members interested in the working people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: My friend may not have workers in his constituency. They may all be very rich. Of course, he represents an area in Montreal where the federal government is assisting in public transportation to a great degree. However, I hope he will keep quiet while we make
Excise Tax Act
representations on behalf of other areas of Canada which do not fit into that category.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: I wish to give an example of what happens in my area. A contractor in New Liskeard who works in the Sherman mine in Timagami, 60 miles away, who uses his truck to transport his employees would be able to apply for a rebate for his transportation costs. Many other workers in the mine must drive their own vehicles because there is no public transportation. They would be penalized. A normal vehicle gets about 20 miles to the gallon. This means that for the 120 mile trip, the extra cost would be 60 cents.
The minister said he did not want the commercial entre-prises attaching the increased cost to the price of the end product. I suggest that no matter how it is done, it will be attached to the price of the end product because the workers will demand a transportation grant from their employer. This is a hardship they had not anticipated and which their wages will not cover. I suggest the minister is much better protected in this clause than in any other.
A private businessman, company, farmer or fisherman will make the declaration without any supporting evidence. It would not be difficult for the Minister of National Revenue to ask a company employing such a person as I have mentioned submit additional evidence to support the application for rebate. This is not possible in any of the other categories. I hope the minister will give some consideration to giving these workers parity with contractors as they work in exactly the same place and travel the same distance. However, they are not self-employed in the sense of being contractors rather than employees.
For years I worked in the mining field. There were segments of the underground employment, particularly shaftmen and sometimes driftmen, who were in effect operating on a private contract. In my opinion, they were doing the same work as some of the employees of the mine. These men worked on a contract basis rather than being permanently employed. I suggest that the clause as presently worded is very unfair. Those who live in downtown Montreal or Toronto have an alternative mode of transportation. In fact, it would be to everyone's advantage if they did not drive their cars to work. They should all be using public transportation. If they did that, this would also reduce the cost of public transportation. I submit that increased public transport facilities will induce more people to use the service. We want to see increased service provided in northern Ontario, but we realize that it will not come about for many years.
Those who are employed in the remoter areas of Canada must often travel considerable distances to work. Perhaps the Minister of Finance knows that people no longer live on mining properties. Ontario passed a good law prohibiting the existence of townsites on mining properties. I think there are no more company towns on minesites, at least in Ontario. Services and facilities are now provided in areas some distance away from mines. I am thinking of the Kirkland Lake Community, and of other, similar com-
29669-23V2

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act
munities. The people who work in the mines no longer live on the minesite.
The point is this. These people must be induced to work. Although they do not want to go on the unemployment insurance rolls, the minister will find that if these people must spend too much of their income to drive to and from work, it will not be worth their while working in the mines and they will seek alternative means of employment or assistance. You cannot expect a man to drive 60 or 70 miles a day to work, unless he is compensated for his expense.
I sincerely believe that the proposed amendment will make the supervision of this measure easier. It will also make it easier to police the exemptions to be granted under this legislation.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, you have already ruled on the hon. member's amendment, although I wanted to reserve our right to challenge it procedurally. We will reserve our rights. I suggest that the amendment would tend to reduce the imposition of the tax, or the ambit of the tax and, conversely, decrease the effect of the ways and means motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have gone through that argument for about five years.


John Napier Turner: May I deal with the matter on its merits. Many speeches have been made concerning the imposition of the excise tax, and its unfairness to those who do not have available other means of transportation. I am sure hon. members opposite are aware that the purpose of this special excise tax on gasoline is to cover the deficit on oil account.


An hon. Member:: On the backs of the poor.


John Napier Turner: The purpose is to preserve a single, national price for oil in this country.


An hon. Member:: At what cost?


John Napier Turner: Therefore, we wish somewhat to curtail personal consumption and are imposing a tax in order to preserve the price for oil used for homeheating, industry and by farmers and fishermen at two-thirds of the world price. That is the purpose of the tax.


Charles Joseph Clark: That's a lot of nonsense.


John Napier Turner: It is also designed to discourage gasoline consumption when an automobile is used for personal rather than business use. Under the terms of the tax, personal use includes using an automobile to get to work. In this respect, the special excise tax parallels the provisions of the Income Tax Act which does not allow the deduction of expenses incurred to get from one's home to one's place of business.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is wrong, too.


John Napier Turner: That is not wrong, and it applies to anyone, whether he be a doctor, lawyer or clergyman.


An hon. Member:: Then the law is an ass.


John Napier Turner: This rule of nondeductibility in the Income Tax Act has been a fundamental principle of that act for several decades. It must be recognized that every person who works must get from his place of residence to his place of business. We understand that. 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-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -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.


Charles Joseph Clark: Nonsense.


John Napier Turner: Given that every worker has the expense of getting to work-


Charles Joseph Clark: That, too, is nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I understand hon. members opposite were concerned about not being given a fair hearing. Perhaps we could have a reciprocal understanding, and perhaps hon. members will allow me to say what I must say.
Given that every worker has the expense of getting to work, it has always been recognized that the disallowance of these expenses is the most equitable way to deal with the considerable disparities in the amount of expenses incurred. This is undoubtedly more equitable than permitting a deduction which would vary appreciably as between taxpayers, and offsetting the substantial revenue loss by a general tax increase.
As I said earlier in this debate, because the energy shortage arose we were compelled to raise the price of oil and gas. We were compelled to finance the deficit in the oil account in order to preserve a single, national price for oil. This being so all Canadians, each one of us, must understand that, to a certain extent, we must change our lifestyles; to a certain extent we must curtail our use of transportation; to a certain extent we must use public transportation and, to a certain extent, resort more to using car pools and other ways of saving energy. If we do not do this the ten-cents tax will be minimal compared to what this country will have to do in order to become, self-sufficient in oil and gas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: 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. If the government were to allow a rebate of the special excise tax, it would be virtually impossible to ensure the extent to which individual claimants actually utilized their cars to get to work. Somebody, or more likely, a large group of people, would have to be employed doing nothing but determining whether public transportation is available from any particular residence to a particular place of work. To give a
July 28, 1975

blanket exemption to anyone who makes the claim would be to defeat the whole energy conservation purpose of their particular bill. We should not be able to raise the necessary revenue for preserving a single national oil price and for preserving a lower price for home heating oil, and a lower price for oil used by farmers, fishermen and by industries and manufacturing businesses in this country.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, and you are doing it on the backs of the workers.


John Napier Turner: There is nothing within the ambit of this special excise tax on gasoline which has not been present for 25 years or more in provisions governing deductibility under the Income Tax Act.
An hon. Member. Those were 25 Liberal years.


John Napier Turner: I am explaining the reasons for this tax. I know there will be cases of hardship, but if we did this another way, the administrative problems would well nigh be insoluble. That is why we have chosen the present course. Unless we pay these increases now, every Canadian will need to bear a far sharper burden in the years ahead.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister of Finance for taking the trouble to reply seriously to the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I give him credit for not ignoring serious arguments and for putting forward what he believes to be a serious recommendation. Having made that point, I do not agree in the slightest with what the minister said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I appeal to all the yelping voices in the backbenches to consider the arguments one by one. The minister says he must raise revenue, that there is a shortage of money due to the gap between the export tax revenue and the price we pay for imported oil off the east coast. I am sure no member on either side of the House will deny that additional revenue has to be raised, so one can write off the first third of the minister's speech by saying that no one disagrees with that argument. But that is not the point, if I may say so. The point is, how do we raise the additional revenue? That is the crucial issue and I will come to it in a minute. I do not take his first point seriously because no one disputes that the revenue is needed.
The second point the minister made was that the present law allows no one, not even a doctor or a lawyer, to claim expenses when going to or coming from work. So there is no argument there. But what we on this side of the House, and I presume the members of the Conservative party, whom I trust will support the amendment, are saying is that the means of raising this revenue by this kind of tax, as opposed to collecting it out of income tax and corporation tax revenue, discriminates unfairly against people of average or low income who have to use their automobiles to go to work because no alternative is open to them. Our point is that if the revenue is collected from general revenue, these people will pay on a progressive basis. We
Excise Tax Act
are telling them that they will pay the same as a doctor or lawyer, whether their income be $5,000 of $50,000 a year, but it will be based on ability to pay, not on a flat rate of usage of gasoline. At present it is a regressive form of taxation.
From that we conclude that if it is possible administratively to exempt from the tax workers who have no choice but to use their automobiles to go to work, then all workers in that category should be exempted and the shortfall should be made up out of the general revenue.
The minister has said that this would be administratively difficult. Perhaps he went even further and said it would be administratively impossible. I agree with the first but not with the second. For example, a worker like a logger, or a skilled tradesman, might have to travel to many construction projects some distance away from his home. Therefore, arbitrarily you say that workers such as loggers, skilled tradesmen, longshoremen, people in mining communities and so on are exempt from the tax because they have to drive to and from their place of work each day.
On the other hand, if there is in existence an adequate public transportation system in a city in Canada to which substantial numbers of working people could turn as a realistic alternative, then these people would not be exempt from the tax. The minister talks about changing lifestyles, and I suggest it would be a considerable change indeed, because at the present time these people would have to walk to work. Someone living in Scarborough would have to walk to downtown Toronto because there is no public transportation facility in that area. The same holds true of every urban community across the country. So I say to the minister quite flatly that he is talking nonsense.
There just is no possibility of a change in lifestyle for 90 per cent of the Canadian people at least for the next decade, because public transportation facilities do not exist. I suggest that to speak of conservation by encouraging people to stop using their automobiles, when no realistic alternative is available to them, is either hypocrisy or intellectual nonsense.
Let me return to the practical problem here. The minister has a reasonably competent civil servant sitting in front of him at the moment. Why not let him draw up a set of regulations for certain categories of workers, 90 per cent of whom, because they are lawyers, skilled tradesmen, longshoremen or miners, have to go to work by automobile, and work out a reasonable average drive to and from work, and put a ceiling on the amount of exemption. If there is a city in Canada with a public transportation system that can accommodate workers so they can leave their automobiles at home, then those workers would receive no exemption at all. But I would love to hear the minister tell me which city in Canada meets that test.
I conclude by saying that I strongly support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because it goes to the heart of what most of us have objected to in this bill, namely, that the bill puts an unfair burden in raising this revenue upon the average and low income workers who must use their automobiles to go to work. No glossy reasoning by the minister, or superficial

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act
pronouncements about changing lifestyles, can disguise that reality.


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I should like to correct a mistake on the part of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby which was quite unintentional. He referred to loggers and their method of getting to work. Loggers use logging crummies to get to work in most instances.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Chairman, many things have been said about Bill C-66. I would like at this time to point out to the government that, under the pretext of conserving gasoline, it is attacking those who do not have the means to pay for the orchestra that the government wants to hire. I shall be happy to support this evening the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). However I deplore the fact that like the hon. member, I have many constituents who must drive to work. They do not have any choice. With public transport, the distance that they must cover does not allow them to use another means of transport to get to work.
This is why I would have liked the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to include in his sub-amendment the provision that a worker who must use his car should be authorized to deduct the 10 per cent tax that he must pay on gasoline. I had prepared a motion, and if I am allowed to do so, I shall read it:
That Clause 5 be amended by adding, after subclause (g), subclause (h) which would read as follows: a worker who must travel a minimum of twenty-five (25) miles a week in his own ear to reach his place of employment.
When we talk about public transportation, we are talking about a service which is also aimed at urban dwellers. It is more to the advantage of a man who simply has to travel three, four or five miles to use a public transport system instead of his car. On the other hand there are many areas where public transport is not provided for every one. This is why I believe it would be fairer and certainly more honest to allow every worker who must use his car to reach his place of employment to claim the same rebate as companies and other individuals for transportation costs.
Now, that is why I am happy to express agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this regard. I congratulate him for having introduced a motion intended to help those who might find the "medicine" too hard to swallow. That is why I should like, if my motion cannot be accepted, a minimum distance to be incorporated into the motion of the hon. member to allow those who have three, four or five miles to drive every day, five days a week, in other words about 25 miles, to be covered by his motion.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The Chair must advise the hon. member for Rimouski that there is already an amendment before the committee. Therefore the amendment he proposes will have to come at a later stage in the debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. member for Rimouski that I sympathize very much with his attempt to move a sub-amendment. You have ruled that he would have to move it at a later stage. I assume he would have to move it if this amendment is adopted. Let me say that this is an honest and sincere attempt by the hon. member for Rimouski to add some credibility to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If it did nothing else, it would relieve the Minister of Finance of some of his ill-founded worries about such a motion being accepted.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has already pointed out that one of the main arguments we have about this legislation is that it requires the people who can least afford it to pay the overwhelming portion of this $350 million for part of 1975 and something over $500 million in 1976. It places the burden of raising most of that money upon the working people, the pensioners, the handicapped and the people who drive for pleasure.
The minister has said that he is attempting to get most of the money from those who consume gasoline for pleasure driving, when in fact a large portion of it will be received from the people who have no alternative but to use their cars to get to and from work. If the minister could sort out and identify every gallon of gasoline that is used for pleasure there would be some validity to his argument and to this kind of legislation. He cannot do that. As a consequence, he places the burden of raising most of this money on those who can least afford to carry the burden because they have no alternative means of transportation.
Workers are entitled automatically to deduct $150 from income tax as the cost of tools or other things required in their employment. That is a recent measure, adopted some four or five years ago. The effect of this legislation on the workers in the city of Regina, let alone those who work in remote areas, will be to take back more than any benefit they receive from the $150 deduction as expenses in respect of tools or other various things. This more than offsets whatever tax benefit they might get from that $150 deduction. If they were in the 25 per cent bracket they might benefit to the extent of $35 or $40. Through this bill the minister will more than take away that benefit because these workers will have to pay that 10-cent tax on the gasoline they use in driving to and from their work.
There are steelworkers in the city of Regina who work for the Interprovincial Steel Company and drive between 4,500 and 7,500 miles a year to and from work. I would ask my hon. friends to compute that at 10 cents a gallon, 16 miles per gallon. The minister will not only take back any tax benefit these people might gain from the $150 deduction to cover the cost of tools and so on, but he will also take back the entire $100 tax credit to which people have been entitled in the past year or so as a result of recent budgetary measures. The fact is that as a result of paying the additional 10 cents per gallon for the gas used to drive to and from work, these people will not only lose the meagre benefits they have received as a result of tax legislation in the last two or three years, they will be paying a large proportion of the revenue the Minister of Finance says he needs for equalization of oil prices.
July 28, 1975

When the hon. member for Timiskaming said it would be nice if the workers could use other modes of transportation, hon. members on the other side applauded by pounding their desks. I would ask those hon. members opposite what happened to the promises of a year ago July? What is more significant, if they agree that this tax should apply fairly and that the way this tax is applied most of it will be paid by those who can least afford to pay it, then where were they when they should have been persuading the Minister of Finance and other members of the cabinet that this was an unfair application of tax? If they had done their jobs, then this bloody kind of bill would never have been before us. If there had been any Liberal backbencher worth his salt this bill would not be before the House now, or such a member would vote against it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They can sit there like sheep and bleat, but they had their chance when the government was drafting this legislation. They had their chance when it was discussed in their caucus. They had their chance to persuade their cabinet ministers. The minister says this legislation is designed to discourage the use of the automobile and the consumption of gasoline. It will not do that. The minister knows full well that this legislation is put forward for one reason only, that is, to raise revenue. The argument is that he is raising revenue off the backs of the working people.


An hon. Member:: Humbug!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member can holler humbug. I would like him to come out to the IPSCO plant some morning next week; I am sure the boys there would like to hear him talk humbug-


An hon. Member:: Let us go now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -especially the ones who travel 15 to 20 miles a day going to and from work. The minister made his point in his remarks that professionals may not get a rebate for driving to and from work, and in the next breath spoke about the administrative impossibility of accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I should like to ask the minister about policing the Department of National Revenue with respect to the expense accounts claimed by professionals to see whether the expenses they claim from their income tax for the use of their private automobiles are deductible, whether it is for two-thirds or for their entire use. I should like to find out from the Minister of Finance whether the Department of National Revenue has decided how much is deductible for driving to and from work.
I doubt if I will get an argument from the Minister of National Revenue when I say that I have yet to find a professional whose deductions for income tax purposes for driving to and from work were not accepted by the Department of National Revenue. It never happens. I also suggest that whatever portion of those expenses they will be able to claim for purposes of a rebate they will get under this legislation. If the Minister of Finance thinks
Excise Tax Act
that his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, will have people running around checking on every doctor, lawyer, chartered accountant, or civil engineer to see how many miles they travel going to and from work, he is kidding himself.
The minister says that the bill is here because of the energy shortage. He says we will have to change our lifestyles, we will have to use car pools or use some other means of transportation. I would like to see the Minister of Finance and his colleagues change their lifestyle. How would it be if the 30 Cabinet ministers used only ten cars to transport them every morning to the hill? I wonder how many Cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, or members of parliament are prepared to use a car pool every day. I would like to see a genuine effort by hon. members opposite to change their lifestyle.
If this legislation is fair and logical, when the minister says people will have to change their lifestyles to some extent, I presume he means everybody, not just wage and salary earners, and I presume that tomorrow morning the Minister of Finance will either walk, take a bicycle, or come in a car with two other ministers when he comes to the House of Commons.
He also says that to some extent we should use some other means of transportation. That point has been dealt with very effectively by a large number of members ever since the bill was introduced, including two or three members on the government side. I must say one thing for the minister, he has a lot of nerve. He rises and repeats the same argument about taking some other means, but in his budget he stated that one of the departments which will have cut backs in its funding will be the Ministry of Transport. If the minister expects us to swallow, whether we agree or not, and accept a piece of legislation like that with those kinds of arguments, then he is really expecting too much.
The minister says there is no way in which the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could be equitably administered. What does he mean by that? In the first place, there is no equitable way in which this entire bill could be administered.


Reginald Cyril Symes: No honourable way.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: So much is unfair and intrinsically unjust in the bill that the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, even if the minister were partly right, would at least bring more equity into its administration. Even if some workers were to receive rebates for a few miles which they did not drive to and from work, that would be a much lesser evil, it seems to me, than all the unfairness and inequity that is in the legislation in the first place.
The Minister of Finance has many other ways to raise $350 million in 1975 and the $500 million plus in 1976 which would have some relationship to the ability to pay which applies to the greatest part of the population. Instead, he chooses a regressive measure which places most of the burden on those who have the least ability to pay, and he provides an exemption so that the rebates or deductions for income tax purposes go to those who are best able to pay, that is, the highest income people, the professionals and the businessmen.

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act
I talked to some farmers in Regina-Lake Centre over the weekend. They know they can deduct for income tax purposes expenditures on gasoline and farm fuels. If they had an automobile, after taking away depreciation on the car and the cost of gasoline for personal use, they could deduct the expense from their income tax. Farmers do not ask for more than other citizens get.
When the minister puts up the argument that if you apply a tax of ten cents a gallon across the board it would cause an increase in farm prices and therefore an increase in consumer costs, let me remind him of what I suggested to him this afternoon, namely, that it would be more equitable and fair if he applied a tax of three cents a gallon across the board to everyone, including farmers, and this would have less impact on the cost of living than the present legislation.
The farmer who had to pay an additional three cents would deduct the portion he is allowed as an expense from his income tax, the same as he has always been able to do. The same would be the case with the businessmen, the commercial traveller, and the professional. But applying it across the board would mean that those who are in the higher income bracket and who consume the most gasoline would pay the highest tax. Even when you apply this to the senior citizen, it may only amount to $1, $2 or $3 a month at the most in extra gasoline tax, but that wipes out the $2.30 cost of living escalator that will be in effect as of April 1 on the old age pension. It will wipe out the entire amount for many of them. Perhaps once a month they drive out to visit a son or daughter on the farm or in a neighbouring town. Whatever minimal amount they drive, the expense bears heavier on them than on the professional person, the wage earner, or the farmer who paid three or four cents per gallon right across the board.
Surely every reason put forward by the Minister of Finance falls flat on its face when it comes to the practical application and the administration of this bill, and when it comes to being fair. When it comes to the people who pay this money, they will be the least able to pay. Surely the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre lends a much greater measure of fairness and equity than the way the bill presently stands. Surely that is apparent and should not need to be argued.
I hope the minister will reconsider. He says we need the money, and he has been saying that since budget night, but why does he have to take most of it from workers and pensioners? What kind of philosophy or principle of so-called "Liberalism dictates that that method must be used? Many hon. members delight in saying that they have just as many workers in their constituency as I or anyone else, and that they will not take a back seat to us in sticking up for workers. I would like to know why they would not agree with an amendment which applies the same treatment for workers as it does for professionals, business people, and people in other occupations provided for in the legislation.
The legislation will exempt or provide some measure of relief for the well-to-do in addition to those who will be able to apply for a rebate. Those people are able to make deductions for some portion of their expenses for income

tax purposes. Many of those professionals and businessmen will recover that gasoline tax twice, in two ways, first by the normal expense deductions for income tax purposes, and secondly, by whatever amount of rebate for which they are eligible.
However, the wage and salary earner driving to and from work is not only not eligible for a rebate, but what he will pay in additional gasoline tax will take away any tax benefit from the $150 credit, which many Liberals have bragged about since it was brought in a few years ago. He will also lose the $100 tax credit-


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will be up again.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Chairman, I do not intend to take very long in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I simply want to say that if the government is serious about conservation and restraint, it may wish to set an example by using the tax system to give the ministers a car pool instead of a swimming pool.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Finance has stood up to defend a tax system which means car pools for the people and swimming pools for the Prime Minister, and that is a most inequitable system. In the minister's prepared and programmed response to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre he put forward a strong case which deliberately ignored the fundamental inequity in the tax which he and his colleagues are proposing. It is an inequity which protects the privileged and works hardships on people who are of low income or who happen to live in some of the distant regions of the country. If the government rejects this attempt to make the bill fair, it will stand as a deliberate unfair act against a group of people who have no option in transport and no adequate income to pay the extra shot which is imposed upon them by the Minister of Finance.
In his statement the minister defended this inequity by saying that a similar inequity already exists in the tax system. There is a refusal to recognize the unfair burden which is imposed upon people, particularly in remote or rural areas, who are forced to travel to work and who cannot claim that expense under the tax system, and who cannot now receive the rebate which will be available to the privileged, to doctors, lawyers, cabinet ministers, and perhaps even members of parliament.	'>
He defends this new inequity because it compounds an old inequity, and that might be logic which recommends itself to the Minister of Finance, but I doubt very much if it will recommend itself to the residents of Vars, Navan, Orleans, or of the other communities of his own constituency who will have to pay the shot themselves when they drive to work, and it is certainly not going to satisfy the people of my constituency, or of the constituencies of others on both sides of this House who represent remote

areas and whose people are being forced to bear the burden of this unfair tax.
I see that the minister responsible for Parks Canada is in the House, and he knows that it is the deliberate policy of his department to force some of the people who live in my constituency, and who work in Banff or Jasper, to commute to work. They do not do so by choice. They do not have any other option. They are forced by government policy to commute, and they are forced to pay the extra ten cents tax in full unless they happen to be doctors, lawyers, or other members of some privileged group.
The point which the Minister of Finance seems determined to ignore is that this country extends beyond metropolitan centres where it might be possible to have some form of public transportation even though it is not there now. It is geographically not possible in the majority of the country. It is not possible in my constituency or the constituencies represented by many of the silent members on the government side where distances are great, where there are no alternative means, and therefore no option but to pay the ten cents Turner tax.
The last point I wish to make is that it is surely typical of the government in rejecting this amendment that it uses the argument that this amendment would make it complex for the government, when it knows its system would make things unfair for the citizen. In other words, the government is prepared to put up with unfairness for the citizen, but it is not prepared to put up with complexity for the government in its own administration. That indicates a government which has been too long preoccupied with its own internal problems and has ignored too long the problems which it creates and allows to persist for individual Canadians who happen to live outside whatever favoured circle happens to attract the attention of ministers.
It is an unfair and inequitable provision which is being put forward here. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre proposes to make it less unfair, and I sincerely hope that if the minister has any belief in what used to be called Liberalism he will reconsider his opposition to this amendment and reconsider this most inequitable, unfair tax.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Chairman, the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is very wise indeed. It has been the thrust of the debate of this party consistently on this bill. It was rather interesting to hear the Minister of Finance claim that he is attempting to change the lifestyle of the Canadian people. Whose lifestyle will be changed? The wealthy? That ten cents per gallon tax will not stop the rich from driving their limousines for pleasure. It will change the lifestyles of the low income earners. What are they going to get-a 6>/2 cents reduction on a bottle of wine. That is some change in their lifestyle-they can all stay home and drink themselves sick.
When the government calls on people to tighten their belts then they want to know what the government is doing. No minister drives a car that is under eight cylinders. They are just gasoline guzzlers. A car pool has been
Excise Tax Act
suggested for ministers. They could use smaller vehicles that give better mileage and that would be an important example of changing lifestyle. An hon. member asks if the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion could get into a Volkswagen. That is a good question.
The minister has allowed certain groups such as farmers, fishermen and people in commercial operations to claim the rebate. They can claim it because otherwise they would have to pass it on to the consumer and so prices would be pushed up. When we asked for a rebate for the workers, the minister said they should negotiate an increase in wages which would take the tax into consideration. If they did that, then their employers would be forced to pass the cost along. International Nickel would increase the price of nickel and copper, and that would go through the economy. This is an inflationary measure and the minister knows that full well.
The Minister says he wants to get people away from using their cars often and, in many cases, uselessly. One would assume that the government philosophy is to move people on public transit systems. I checked with CNR and there is not one passenger car on order by that state owned railway. The cars in use are decrepit and there is a move to eliminate passenger service. The minister admits that.
A parking lot costing $100 million is to be built at Terminal Two of Toronto airport. If the idea is to get people away from cars, why invest millions of dollars in a parking lot? Surely people could be moved from the city of Toronto out to the airport very quickly by public transit. There will be no hardship to the jet setters; they will go on enjoying the benefits of those who work to produce.
It is rather interesting to watch the push to put people on airplanes. It has been established that air travel of under 500 miles is not an economical proposition.
We have the Turbo train which runs from Montreal to Ottawa in about an hour or an hour and a half. Millions of dollars have been spent on the STOL airport-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are exaggerating.


John R. Rodriguez: There are many remarks from the other side of the House. They say we in the opposition are trying to spoil their holidays by keeping them here, but this is an important point that is being debated. All they are prepared to do is holler when we are trying to make points.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. I must remind the hon. gentleman that Standing Order 55(2) states very clearly that speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the matter under consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Madam Chairman, but unless you are prepared to keep order in this chamber I will divert to the other side of the chamber. I expect them to have order in the chamber and to listen to the points that are made. If they do not agree, they can speak against them.
8010

July 28, 1975
Excise Tax Act


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: You sound like a fool.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Chairman, I was talking about conservation and the lack of continuity in the philosophy of the government. If the idea is to get people on to public transit systems then that technique must be developed throughout the departments of the government. The minister talks about changing the lifestyle of the Canadian people but does not provide them with the opportunity to change.
In my area many people drive 120 miles to work. It is fine to tell them to negotiate to cover the cost, but they had already signed a wages agreement prior to the budget. They are stuck for three years. These are not doctors who are self-employed and who can make changes to cover the increase in cost. There are women who work as waitresses for $2.50 an hour. They have to use the family car to go to work, and some have to pay a baby sitter. The employer refuses to pay more than the minimum wage, so they are locked in. Should we force them to go on the unemployment rolls, to face the bureaucratic giant of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and then call them lazy because they cannot afford to work for the minimum wage? Surely it is not beyond the ability of the government to use the tax system in such a way that it brings equity to working people. My hon. friend says it is beyond their ability.
I have always considered the Minister of Finance a very capable person. Surely he could offer a viable alternative. A year ago on the campaign trail it would have been interesting if someone had asked if an excise tax on gasoline would be imposed to make up the shortfall on consumption in the east. If that question had been asked, I wonder whether it would have been answered. I dare say it would have been answered in such a way as to indicate that no tax would be imposed that would fall heavily on any one segment of the Canadian public. What is said when we are seeking votes is very different from what we actually put into effect.
The government can sit back now, three years before an election, and say, "If we have to do something that is distasteful, let's do it now so that people will forget about it by the time of the next election." I am not a cynical person, but I think that there will be a budget before the next election that will remove the ten cents excise tax. They will say they are removing it because they realize how unfair it was.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


John R. Rodriguez: A Liberal says "right on". That is the height of cynicism. They are already preparing for the next election by thinking of removing this excise tax.


Francis Fox: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is talking about past and future elections. They should talk about the bill before us!


John R. Rodriguez: I am glad to see the hon. member identify himself. Now we know who was saying "right on". He has singled himself out.
There is another question. What if the differential keeps increasing and the ten cents a gallon excise tax is not enough to cover it? Do we have another bill to raise the excise tax by an additional eight cents a gallon? Is that the way the minister is suggesting we handle that kind of problem? I do not think that is the right way.
I made a suggestion earlier that those who can afford it should pay their fair share of the tax. I suggest that we tack on three cents on every dollar bet at race tracks in Canada. After all, race tracks are in urban centres. People use public transportation which the rest of the taxpayers have paid for, and on which they travel at an attractive rate to get to the race track. The Ontario Jockey Club races 265 days a year. With three cents added on to every dollar bet, $9 million could be raised from that one operation.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The hon. member is again straying from the amendment. He should limit his remarks to the amendment.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member's point in moving this amendment is that the tax is inequitable for workers who must use their cars to travel to and from their work. They are not doctors who can write this off as a legitimate expense. They have been doing that anyway under the income tax system.
What about the worker in Nickel Belt or in any other rural riding? I have workers in my constituency who must use their cars. There is no other way for them to travel from Noelville to Copper Cliff, a distance of 120 miles. This will mean another $250 in their budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Members opposite can shout all they like. The minister can come into my constituency and deliver the set speech he delivered this afternoon.
The amendment put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is very reasonable. It asks that the rebates be extended to those who must use their cars to travel to and from work. I do not refer to those who have a choice, but those who have no other way. If they do not use their car, they do not get to work.
Where is the public transit in northern Ontario? The people there have no choice. They cannot change their lifestyle. What lifestyle is there to change? They do not use their cars because they like driving 120 miles a day. That is no picnic. Now they will have this added burden. May I call it ten o'clock, Madam Speaker?


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Before calling it ten o'clock I wonder if the members who I know are not carrying on a filibuster might just like to complete the Committee stage tonight. It would be a great convenience. It would enable the hon. members to express their point of view and would enable us to come to a decision on it more quickly than otherwise.
July 28, 1975


B. Keith Penner: This can only be done with unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


John R. Rodriguez: I said no.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. It is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in the adjournment debate tonight I am referring to a question that was put by myself to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on April 8.
Before touching on the argument which I wish to raise tonight and which I hope will be responded to, I have to report on a question of privilege. A steering committee of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections has been absolutely frustrated by the action of certain members from the government benches who are on the steering committee. In short, we have held two meetings. At those meetings the steering committee has been consistently frustrated by government members with the result that the instructions to this committee to investigate the Montreal Gazette articles concerning the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid)-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member was to raise a question on the Canadian economy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a question of personal privilege which involves the Minister of Finance.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. There cannot be any points of order or questions of privilege at this time. The hon. member for York Simcoe is recognized for the purpose of discussing his question on the Canadian economy.
Adjournment Debate


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, may I serve notice of my intention to raise my question of privilege tomorrow.
On April 8 I directed two questions to the Minister of Finance, both dealing with unemployment and inflation in this country. I wanted to know what guidelines, if any, the minister proposed to introduce and wanted him to indicate to the country the degree of restraint which wage earners and other sectors of the economy ought to observe. Specifically, I asked the following question, as reported at page 4592 of Hansard:
Further to my original question I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Finance. With time lost due to work stoppages in January up 64 per cent as compared with January of last year when Canada had one of the worst strike records in the industrialized world, would the minister tell us why it is only after May that he seriously intends to set guidelines for future wage settlements, bearing in mind that 1975 is a very heavy bargaining year during which just under three-quarters of all employees covered by major union contracts will be negotiating?
The minister replied: "I will deal with that statement at the appropriate time".
He has not dealt with that statement, even though the budget I referred it to in May was not introduced until June 23. The budget specifically avoided mentioning guidelines governing wages.
Second, I point out that for several months we heard vague suggestions about some type of consensus program which would apply to all sectors of the country, the government, the private sector, and labour unions. All sectors were to be asked to accept certain guidelines governing real growth in the economy and inflation. It is time this House knew exactly what the Minister of Finance intended to do on the matter of wage guidelines; what were his intentions with regard to the consensus program which, I suggest, has wrought damage in the nation. We have heard no concrete statements on these subjects. Only ten days ago, when I again questioned the minister on this subject, he again avoided giving a specific answer.
We do not know if he has relinquished his pursuit of consensus. Actually we are labouring under a disadvantage. The by-product of the so-called consensus program is probably greater inflation in this country. While all this has been happening, the Minister of Finance has consistently avoided his responsibilities, namely, of putting forward concrete proposals to the country on the subject of wage guidelines.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Speaker, one wonders how sincere is the hon. member. He used the late show to climb on his most recent and favourite hobby-horse. Although called to order three times, he persisted. One wonders how sincere he is. He is keeping the House sitting and the staff working while he climbs on this latest hobby-horse.
The minister had the opportunity at the conference of first ministers to discuss the problem of inflation and the search for a consensus on ways of dealing with it. He had put forward suggestions with regard to the basic principles which should guide the setting of wages, other incomes, and prices. The statement was tabled in the House. The hon. member now ought to be familiar with those proposals but he has ignored them, because they clearly spell out the minister's stance, the government's
29669-2 4>/2

July 28, 1975
Adjournment Debate
position, and the direction in which the minister was heading.
Since the beginning of the exercise on consensus, we believed that if we were able to develop an agreement setting the right balance to be struck, it would be in the common interest of us all. We entered into these discussions with an open mind receptive to new ideas. We refused to be stampeded into rash and ill-considered action, and did not want any hard and fast agreement but one that would be fair to all and which would bring inflation down to acceptable levels.
Once again I commend a very careful reading of the speech on budget night, and I am more and more convinced that either the hon. member has not read it or he chose to put upon it the interpretation that suited his own argument. If I can give the hon. member one suggestion tonight, it would be that he carefully re-read the budget speech.


ENERGY-OIL-BASIS FOR CALCULATING LENGTH OF DELAY BEFORE INCREASING PRICE
Reginald Cyril Symes: Madam Speaker, on July 16 I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) two questions relating to the oil price increase in Canada. The first was how he proposed to monitor the oil price increase, and he explained that a federal agency would do so and that if any oil companies overcharged they would face a reduction in their oil compensation payment. By way of supplementary I asked how the federal government arrived at the delay of 45 days, until August 15, in the increase of the price, whereas the province of Ontario has calculated that the oil companies would not be justified in increasing the price of oil in that province until some time in early or mid-October. It is the latter question I should like to pursue.
The federal government has allowed the multinational oil companies in Canada, which control 90 per cent of our oil resources, to hit the consumers of this country with a further $1.50 increase in the price of a barrel of oil. But the federal government has said that because these oil companies have a certain amount of oil in storage, they would be required to delay increasing the price for some 45 days, or until August 15. The figure of 45 days is a national average of the amount of oil in stock across the country at the old price of $6.50 a barrel. Studies have shown that the amount of oil available varies from province to province. The province of Ontario has calculated that it has enough oil to last 90 days, not 45. That is 90 days' supply of oil at the old price of $6.50 a barrel, not $8 a barrel.
I draw to the attention of the House that the last oil price increase occurred in April, 1974, and there was a similar 45 day delay until the middle of May. We now know that in Ontario on April 1, 1974, there were 46.3 million barrels of oil on hand, or enough to last not 45 days but 95 days. But the federal government asked the oil companies to delay increasing the price for only 45 days. This brought about a windfall profit to the oil companies in Ontario in 1974 of some $61.8 million. This profit came to the oil companies because they did not have to extend the delay past 45 days. Ontario consumers, therefore, paid

dearly for this miscalculation on the part of the federal government.
On July 1, 1975, we had a similar increase, to come into effect on August 15. The figures I have indicate that as of July 1 there were on hand in the province of Ontario some 49.8 million barrels of oil at the old price of $6.50 a barrel, or enough for some 90 days.
The federal and provincial governments let the oil companies get away with windfall profits in Ontario last year by insisting only upon a 45 day delay in the price increase. Circumstances have now changed. The Ontario Conservatives are facing a fall election, and because of pressure by the NDP in the provincial legislature and the exposure of these figures I have just related, the province of Ontario has extended the 45 day freeze to 90 days.
Now we read in the newspapers that Imperial Oil, the largest oil company, is saying that if the province does extend the freeze to 90 days it will then increase the price per gallon of gasoline not five cents a gallon, as will every other company, but some eight cents a gallon or higher, after the 90 days are up.
Where is federal government leadership on this issue of the freeze? Why does the federal government not do an inventory of individual oil companies in each province, and if there is more oil, say in Ontario than in Saskatchewan, it would seem logical that there be a longer delay in the province of Ontario than elsewhere? As it is now, the oil companies that got us into this crisis will be able to get away with the 45-day national average.
The minister said in reply to my first question on July 16 that if the oil companies do not conform to federal guidelines the federal government will penalize them by reducing oil compensation payments. Imperial Oil has thrown out a direct challenge to the federal government by stating it will increase the price of a gallon of gasoline by more than the federal guideline of five cents a gallon after the 90-day provincial freeze has expired. My question to the parliamentary secretary is: will the federal government allow Imperial Oil to raise prices higher than the federal guideline of five cents after the 90-day freeze in Ontario expires?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) concerning the delay in the implementation of the oil price increase to allow for oil inventory at the time of the increase, let me say that the government has again this year had to deal with the difficult question of inventory treatment in a situation of rising oil prices. There are significant variances in inventory levels regionally; by product and by company. Some companies have no inventories. Particularly in import-dependent areas it is in the national interest that the industry should hold large inventories from a security of supply point of view.
Generally speaking, the largest inventories are held by the major companies. As the hon. member has pointed out, many of the large companies with large inventories are located in Ontario, and thus the Ontario government was
July 28, 1975

able to move to delay the date of the increase an extra 45 days. However, a number of minor companies, which represent an important competitive factor in the market, hold much less than average inventories. It would clearly be impossible to vary price increase dates by company or regionally. There is a need to find a common denominator.
In view of the foregoing, the government has decided that a compromise must again be struck on the basis of an assumed product working inventory of 45 days. This 45-day delay allows a reasonable degree of protection for consumers without unduly penalizing the sellers.


AGRICULTURE-INDUSTRIAL MILK-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LEVY
Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, daily for the last five days the matter of the 100 per cent increase in the levy on industrial milk producers for powdered milk has been raised in this House. During those five days the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) chose to answer the question on one occasion and either refused to answer on other occasions or was missing from the House. I should like to document very briefly those five occasions.
In the first instance my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle), asked the minister about this on July 22. The minister acknowledged he had received briefs from certain farm organizations and that they contained some suggestions worthy of consideration. On the following day my same colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, tried to move a motion under Standing Order 43 which would have required this House to debate the issue. This was turned down by government members.
On the following day, July 24, the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack), also a colleague of mine, raised the same question, and this time it was answered by the Acting Minister of Agriculture who said he would take it as notice.
On July 25, in private members' hour, a motion was brought forward by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) suggesting that there should be an investigation by the government of industrial milk producers. This motion was talked out by the government so that it could not come to a vote.
Finally, for the fifth day the question was again raised by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis), and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) chose not to answer it because he had answered it previously. On the second occasion I tried to ask a question, but Mr. Speaker turned me down because it had been asked previously.
I want to conclude by asking three questions which the parliamentary secretary can answer, I think, in his three minutes without difficulty. But before I do so I want to allude first of all to his rather extensive speech on the occasion of a private member's motion last Friday. It seemed to me that he began to speak in a confident manner. I should like to quote him from page 7959 of Hansard when he said the following:
I should like to clear up the situation with regard to the dairy policy.
This seemed to be a final statement once and for all. Then he went on to describe how the minister, in consultation with the Canadian Dairy Commission and the
Adjournment Debate
Canadian dairy farmers, had come up with a price adjustment formula which gave rise to the figure of $11.2 to underwrite the cost of industrial milk in Canada as of last April 1. Then he went on to discuss the export situation and how the price in Canada had been affected by the fact that subsidies by European governments had lowered the cost of powdered milk from abroad to a point where we in Canada were in difficulty in trying to make sales.
Once again the parliamentary secretary went on as follows, as recorded at page 7960 of Hansard:-
You know our department is much interested in exportation. We always tried to find new markets for Canadian products.
Then the parliamentary secretary went on to discuss the problem of the decreasing number of producers of industrial milk. He described how the number of farmers producing industrial milk had gone down but said that this was compensated for by the fact that new farmers were coming in as well as farmers' sons who were taking on the job. He alluded to the fact that productivity and efficiency had gone up, and he illustrated this by saying that there was a 16 per cent increase since 1971-1972 in the amount of milk produced by industrial milk producers. He did not say that the reward these producers received for their increased efficiency and productivity was a cut back of between $1,500 and $2,500 on the basis of this new levy, or a 100 per cent increase on industrial milk.
Finally, the parliamentary secretary concluded his speech in a grandiose and incredible manner with the following sentences as recorded at page 7961 of Hansard, as follows:
The government has been committed for a long time in the development of a comprehensive and long-term dairy policy. We have fulfilled our task completely. It is now up to the industry to assume its responsibility and to contribute to the success of the dairy policy.
I would like to close by asking the following three questions: first, what specific attempts have been made by the government to expand exports of Canadian powdered milk? Second, acknowledging the financial bind in which young dairy farmers now find themselves, having committed themselves to bank loans based on the $11.2 price promised them in April and taken away on July 1, what help will the government give these farmers? Third, since the parliamentary secretary has said the Department of Agriculture has fulfilled its task completely, is it then refusing to accept the challenge of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to try to develop a policy of funding for export products that will provide stability to industrial milk producers?


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I think the Minister of Agriculture has had the opportunity to answer that very same question several times recently, but I am pleased to answer it once again tonight.
We have all agreed for a long time on the importance and the special character of the dairy sector of Canadian agriculture. As in many other countries, the Canadian dairy industry is subject to a price control system. The government therefore has resorted to various ways of regulating production. Our programs have had a deep

July 28, 1975
Adjournment Debate
impact on dairy production and on the decisions of producers.
Producers want to be satisfied that their output will remain stable so that they can make the investments required to keep a modern dairy business viable.
The government in fact acted to give them such an assurance. One of the dairy policy's objectives is precisely to ensure reasonable revenues to milk producers. Allow me to refer to some parts of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on April 18, 1975 before representatives of the dairy industry. At that time, Mr. Whelan announced a new readjustment formula for the price of milk, which provides for the readjustment of dairy producers' revenues. The formula accounts for both production costs and producer and family labour salary. It was
developed after a number of studies and discussions with all parties concerned.
In April 1974, the Canadian Dairy Commission was empowered to meet producers' associations to develop a program ensuring better production cost-producer price relationship. Later on, the commission held a series of valuable talks with industry representatives, and their propositions were retained in the new policy. Producers undertook with Canada to pay export costs, under a supply management program. To that end, we received propositions from industrial milk producers. We would like to protect Canadian producers from the highs and lows of the international market, and we shall study in detail any propositions we may receive.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, July 29, 1975