1981-06-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that immigration officers have been instructed to require formal training before awarding points under the revised point system to domestics and occupational groups applying for landed immigrant status, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes):
That this House instruct the minister to issue a directive indicating that experience shall be treated as an equivalent to formal education for the purpose of administering the Immigration Act as it affects domestics, housekeepers, and children's nurses.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the support given by the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) in his interview on "Canada AM" this morning for the shipment of arms from Cuba to the guerrilla forces in El Salvador and his condemnation of the U.S. for its arms shipments, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens):
That this House condemn the Leader of the NDP for having set himself up as a mediator while holding a hypocritical double standard in his approach to the El Salvadoran question by favouring, on the one hand, the shipment of arms from Cuba to El Salvador and, on the other, a need for a negotiated settlement.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Paproski:: Stanley Knowles said no.


Mr. Knowles:: Yes, Madam Speaker, I did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POST OFFICE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion, seconded by the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt), and the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) representing the constituency of Terry Fox. In view of the very real concern by many millions of Canadians that the post office make an exception to honour an exceptional human being, I move:
That this House requests the government to consider issuing a commemorative stamp in honour of the Year of the Disabled featuring the famous run of Terry Fox.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, on this important day, the seventy-third birthday of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: -I want to place before this House a motion which has absolutely no relationship to that, but one I am sure will gain the support of everyone. Today there will be a petition placed before the House on behalf of 4,000 persons from the area of Hamilton, with regard to El Salvador.
We, as members of Parliament, know that all Canadians are saddened by the knowledge that for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent people living in El Salvador the proposed


elections scheduled for 1983 will come too late. In light of the fact that Canadians desire a peaceful and speedy resolution to the conflict in El Salvador, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki), and supported I know by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That the Government of Canada should reconsider its position on El Salvador.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Having regard to the preamble to that motion, I am sure the House would want me to wish a happy birthday to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL HOPPER CARS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, since the director of grain transportation at Transport Canada has said recently that the federal government will not decide whether to buy new hopper cars until early next year, but the director of the Grain Transport Authority has called on the government to order 1,300 new cars by the end of this summer if there is to be sufficient rolling stock by next year, I move therefore, under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That the Minister of Transport immediately place an order for sufficient hopper cars to meet the pressing grain transportation requirements for next year.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

*
* *


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday the United States Senate voted 98 to zero in favour of federally financed medical treatment of Vietnam war veterans who were exposed to the defoliant Agent Orange. Last January 27 the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamon-tagne) evaded questions regarding the damaging effects of Agent Orange on servicemen stationed at Gagetown base in New Brunswick by implying that, since U.S. experience had not yet been settled, there was no reason why the Canadian problem should be remedied. In light of the recent progress made in the United States I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That the Minister of National Defence immediately set up a strictly federally-sponsored inquiry to determine whether servicemen employed at Gagetown during this testing have in any way been affected by Agent Orange and, if they have, that the minister introduce legislation that would provide medical treatment financing for these people.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, evaluations of Outreach programs show impressive records of innovative and flexible approaches in providing community-based employment related services. Outreach is also a notably cost-effective program. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens):
That this House instruct the Minister of Employment and Immigration to spend at least as much to fund Outreach programs this year as he spent last year.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas 13 members of the Progressive Conservative party, including such well-known red baiters as the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), applied to be part of the IPU delegation to the sunny climes of revolutionary Cuba this September, and whereas those selected include the hon. com-


rades from Durham-Northumberland and York North, both of whom have recently demonstrated great political contortion-ism by criticizing one member of this House for visiting Cuba while secreting their own desires to go there, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That since their lives will clearly be endangered by their rubbing shoulders with raving Cuban commies, this House instructs the Solicitor General to send along three RCMP officers to ensure the safety of the Gamble-Lawrence brigade.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE CENSUS
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, because of the many infringements on the privacy of Canadians during the taking of the census and whereas many Canadians feel the information requested is highly sensitive, discriminatory, and possibly available from other sources, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That this House instruct the government to allow individual Canadians the discretion not to answer questions they feel infringe on their privacy in this year's census and in all censuses in the future.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Canadian Wheat Board lost its case against a Stavely farmer in a court of appeal in Alberta. This farmer, along with others, had rented available space in an elevator rather than store grain on the land, and this was considered a criminal offence by the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board used producers' money to prosecute the farmers. The farmers were put to needless expense to defend themselves. Now the Canadian Wheat Board is going to start the whole case over again.
Whereas the Canadian government, through CIDA, has given Grenada $475,000 to build a garage so that vehicles will not have to remain outside in the weather, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House urges the Canadian government to extend the same generous treatment given to the communist regime in Grenada to the farmers in Canada
by ordering the Canadian Wheat Board to cease and desist from this costly and needless litigation.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the government has recently approved a grant to the Marxist state of Grenada through CIDA of some $7.5 million to assist the cocoa plantation farmers replace existing trees and plant abandoned or neglected acreage, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the government recognize the plight of Canadian farmers in replanting their acreages because of high interest rates, labour costs, etc., and make available to them the same sort of generous monetary aid it is so anxious to extend to Marxist-dominated Grenada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Last week the Micmac Restigouche reserve in Quebec was raided by the Quebec Provincial Police. The raid was a blunt attempt to keep the Indian people from fishing. Today the reserve is again facing possible raids, as the police have once more surrounded the reserve.
The executive of the National Indian Brotherhood has gone to Restigouche in support of the Micmac people and to attempt to avoid any violence which might be sparked by another raid. As the Fisheries Act is a federal statute and the responsibility for Indian rights and lands is in the jurisdiction of the federal government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar):
That this House condemns the Restigouche raids and demands a full inquiry into the role of the federal government to protect the Micmac people.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE SENATE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 does not arise out of the fact that the journalists beat the MPs in the ball game last night; it arises out of the fact that today is the seventy-third birthday of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In recognition of his great contribution to this House and his service to Parliament and the people of Canada, as a birthday gift I call upon the Government of Canada, in full consultation with the provinces, to initiate the process leading to the abolition of the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance requested that individual cases be referred to when discussing farm bankruptcies in this House, and I would like to refer to a case from my constituency pertaining to a couple who have farmed for 40 years, paid off five bank mortgages during that period, raised nine children, some of whom have gone into agriculture, and were encouraged by a local lending organization to expand their operation in 1973.
In the last year and a half, Madam Speaker, this family have been faced with all their operating funds being cut off by their bank; their son has had his farm foreclosed by his bank; and now this family have been given 30 days' notice to repay their loan or face foreclosure. This leads to this couple, now of retirement age, selling their farm and their retirement home in Delhi, Ontario, to meet these demands. My question to the Prime Minister is this: what do you propose to do to help this couple and others like them in agriculture in Canada today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I remember the Minister of Finance made an offer to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, and I make the same offer to the hon. member. If he will forward the name to the minister he will see what he can do in talking to the banks about it.


An hon. Member:: Can they all do that?


SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOND PROGRAM
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleagues on this side will forward all their letters again to the minister, as this letter has been forwarded both to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance without response. I would think, Madam Speaker, when a member of this House rises to ask a specific question appealing a case for some of his constituents to the Prime Minister, that possibly we could have an answer of substance.
My supplementary is that the Prime Minister will know that the Minister of Agriculture stated some three weeks ago that the small business development bond would be extended to include unincorporated small business and farms. Can he tell us if this is a fact, is it a reality, is it happening, or is it another Whelan pie-in-the sky statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member expresses disappointment that he did not get an answer of substance. I think he is realistic enough to know that I could not possibly, without advance notice, know about a particular case of a particular family in one part of Canada and their troubles with the bank. That is why the Minister of Finance made the suggestion that if a particular case were drawn to his attention he would undertake to let the banks understand that this case had been drawn to his attention, and would ask them to exercise the kind of compassion that he talked to them about when he met them, with his colleagues, two weeks ago here in Ottawa.
As to the specific question of the hon. member, I think the Minister of Agriculture indicated this kind of consideration was one which had been drawn to the government's attention and to that of the minister, and that if he had any answer to it he would be making it known in this House.


GOVERNMENT AID TO PRODUCERS
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister, and it relates to the same topic of the problems farmers are having in financing. I also can refer to many cases from individual constituents who are having problems and going out of business, but I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he could hold out some hope in terms of government programs or assistance, or hope in the sense that interest rates would come down, to those people who have now either cut back on production or are in the process of going out of business, or those who have been forced to take jobs off the farm. In the process they are cutting back on

production. This will show up in the form of increased food prices to the consumer in years to come. If the government had some programs to help these people, they would have some incentive to try to hang on, to stay in business, and to produce food for the consumer for another year.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member approaches the problem from a different point of view. I think it is a very valid point of view. Perhaps the hon. member did not hear that the government announced this morning it would be paying out $81 million, mainly to western grain farmers.


Mr. Epp:: Four hundred dollars each.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps it was not made known to the hon. member opposite this morning, but I am announcing it now if he has not heard.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Portage-Marquette.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I indicated that it would be $81 million. Obviously-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member does not have the floor.


APPLICATION OF LOWER INTEREST RATES
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, certainly that announcement is welcome. I know it will be well received, but we have some concerns about this announcement.
I could indicate specifically to the Prime Minister that there are programs available to the American farmer through the so-called federal intermediate banks and production credit associations which are now making credit available to farmers at 16 per cent simple interest. If we take prime plus one and calculate it on an annual basis, it looks like we are paying something like 6 per cent more for farm credit than the Americans.
Would the Prime Minister be willing to use the Farm Credit Corporation or the FBDB to look at some of these new and imaginative ideas the Americans have been using, and some of the ideas we may have, in order to bring down interest rates to the farming community?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, this is the purpose of the Farm Credit Corporation; it subsidizes interest to farmers in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SHORT-TERM CREDIT
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, my further supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. He should know that the money made available by the Farm Credit Corporation is not for financing on a day-today basis, for example, to buy fertilizer and to feed cattle.
Oral Questions
Those are the kinds of things about which I am talking. We are not so much concerned about long-term interest rates. It is the short-term interest rates. I think we could come up with some of these concepts, if the government were really serious about looking at them.
Again I urge the Prime Minister to see whether we could use the Farm Credit Corporation or the FBDB to look at some of these instruments to bring down the cost of operating credit, not only to farmers but also to small businesses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question has already been answered by the Minister of Finance.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On Monday in a speech in the House of Commons the Prime Minister raised the question "who is my neighbour", and quite correctly asserted that when children are being murdered, or trade unionists are being jailed anywhere in the world, appropriately we should all be regarding them as our neighbours.
Considering that the former United States ambassador has said that the security forces under the control of the government of El Salvador have murdered 5,000 children and that trade unionists are being arrested daily in that country, including three who were arrested the day before I arrived in San Salvador, I should like to ask the Prime Minister quite seriously whether his vocabulary concerning ideals for the Third World means anything? Should he not now show leadership and join with the Government of Mexico in attempting to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the violent conflict in El Salvador?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows, because he was in that country, that acts of violence are being committed by both sides. I would not attempt to balance statistics for either side. I would recognize that both sides have extremists who are committing needless acts of violence.
As a solution, the hon. member proposes a negotiated settlement. The Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday quoted the words of President Duarte which indicated that he, too, wanted negotiations. He wanted negotiations which would result in a free election. That does not seem like something which is unacceptable to this side or to the hon. member's side. Surely we both agree that a political solution is what is necessary in El Salvador; and I believe those words have been used by the Leader of the New Democratic Party


Oral Questions
himself. The question is whether you can have a political settlement without a democratic election. I think the answer is that that is the best course, if it is possible.
What distresses me in the apparent attitude of the Leader of the New Democratic Party is that he does not put the accent on the election, he puts the accent on a negotiated settlement, as if somebody should form the government as a result of some kind of coalition.
We say that if an election is possible, and we know that it was possible even in Zimbabwe, and under very difficult circumstances, we hope it would be possible in El Salvador. We believe our government is on the right course in encouraging the parties in the field to negotiate the conditions whereby that election could be a fair and open one.


ESTABLISHMENT OF CIVIL ORDER
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would first point out to the Prime Minister that the legal adviser to the Archbishop in San Salvador, who did the verification of the terrorist killings under his direction, said to me that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the terrorist killings are being done by the security forces. The evidence is clear that they are being done overwhelmingly by one side. I do not deny that some are being done by the other side, but it is the policy of the security forces to carry them out. It is not the policy of the Front.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Conservative members to my right-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should remember that he must ask questions of members on the government side.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering that the bar association in El Salvador, as well as virtually every other interested group of citizens, has said that under present circumstances elections would be a charade because of the degree of terrorism, would the Prime Minister not agree that, as a pre-condition for elections, which we all favour, what must be established first is a minimum degree of civil order? Since the Front has offered to have unconditional negotiations to bring this about, would the hon. gentleman also not agree that the first priority ought to be the establishment of peace, which should then be followed by elections?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member assures us that terrorism is not the policy of the Front. I think we can make the assurance that terrorism is not the policy of the Duarte government.


An hon. Member:: It is so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I regret to say that if hon. members opposite say that, then they are not well informed. Mr. Duarte is not in control of some of his extremists any more than the Front is in control of some of its extremists. I think it would be fairer to say that both sides want to get rid of terrorism rather than to say that only one side condemns it. Both sides condemn it. But both sides have extremist elements which do practise terrorism.
The hon. member says that the bar association has stated that under present circumstances-if I noted his words well- elections would be a charade. We agree with that, and President Duarte agrees with that, which is why he is not proposing elections "under present circumstances". He is proposing that the elections be prepared by rules and meetings which would permit them to be held fairly.
I do not think there is a great difference between the position of the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the position of the government. The Leader of the New Democratic Party says he wants to see elections held one day, so does Duarte, and so does this government.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party shakes his head that he does not want that. I do not know if I misunderstood him. I understood him to say that he wanted to see elections held.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not think the members of the New Democratic Party are very serious.


ROLE OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I frankly do not believe the Prime Minister believes what he has just been saying about the position of the government in El Salvador. The position of the government in El Salvador is, indeed, to proceed with elections now. The government has set the date within the year, and it is that date which the bar association, in effect, has said is ridiculous.
1 would like to ask the Prime Minister, considering that before elections were feasible in Zimbabwe it required the outside pressure of dozens of states to make that a possibility, does he not think the Government of Canada should join in a similar kind of outside pressure to create peaceful conditions before elections take place in El Salvador? Second, I would like to ask him, since there is obviously some difference of views about what is taking place in that part of the world, will the Prime Minister agree to send his Secretary of State for External Affairs, along with representatives of all the parties in the House of Commons, to make an on the site inspection in El Salvador and Central America itself, so that they can bring back the truth to the people of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not think I can or should make that undertaking


any more than it could have been made in the days of Rhodesia when the revolution toward Zimbabwe was taking place. We think that outside pressure is useful, and we are using what measure of pressure we can to ensure that the elections will be fair. We participated as observers in such an election in Rhodesia. We would be prepared to do the same thing. Certainly the OAS has been invited to do the same thing by President Duarte. I concede that the one-year deadline does seem very short to set up the conditions for a fair election, but I can understand also the government of that country wanting to have the elections as soon as possible so that there be a clear electoral mandate for some government.
The difficulty is not with the fact that time is short. The difficulty is presumably with the parties themselves who do not even see the means of getting together to discuss or to begin to discuss-


John Edward Broadbent: That is why they need a mediator.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -conditions of such an election.
Well, the hon. member attempted to mediate on behalf of the International Socialist Party, a body much more prestigious than the mere Government of Canada. He knows what-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member knows what success he had. I suggest that when the Leader of the New Democratic Party went to El Salvador, he had behind him the moral authority of a recognized party in a great number of countries. How can he compare that to the mere Secretary of State for External Affairs, the hon. member from Windsor-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -going to El Salvador? It is not the lack of will. The hon. member's own backbenchers realize that he went there and he drew a dud. That is the reality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMPENSATION TO FARMERS FOR EMBARGO ON SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In light of his government's documented reluctance to compensate the farmers fully for the embargo placed on grain sales to the U.S.S.R., further confirmed by the announcement today, I would ask the minister if he would explain to the farmers of Canada and to this House why they should have suffered the cost of 25 per cent to 30 per cent in additional interest; and why it is $40 million short of any study done by any other economic body, when inflation has removed about $16 million because of the delay in that payment, so that farmers only receive $65
Oral Questions
million. Finally, why were rye, rape and flax not included in the compensation payments?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am quite sure that the opinion of the west will be different from the opinion indicated here. The amount of $81 million is certainly a considerable one, and everyone will understand the circumstances, which were quite difficult to assess. There was no effect on the quantities of grains sold last year. The effect was only on the price. There were all kinds of other compensating factors to take into account. On another fact, my hon. friend is wrong, because the assessment the University of Saskatchewan made was at a level of $71 million, which is certainly less than the amount that the Government of Canada is paying.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, the compensation was promised by the Conservative government. The farmers would be fully compensated for any loss.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LEVEL OF COMPENSATION
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: This government has said that a case cannot be made for the producers of rape, rye or flax; but it can make a case for the corn producers and winter wheat producers. As a matter of fact it goes far enough to make a case that the Canadian Olympic Committee suffered a loss by not going to Moscow. The Prime Minister asked for compassion from the banks. How about some compassion from this government for the problems of the farmers? If I could say this, $81 million, on an average, in western Canada works out to $400 a farm, which does not buy any more than a ton of nitrogen fertilizer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am surprised by the question because my information is that the off-board sales which have been made through the commercial system will be compensated on the same level as the on-board. That is the information I have.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. On Tuesday the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved a federally financed medical treatment package for Vietnam veterans who suffered the consequences of Agent Orange. As the minister knows, this poison was tested in the Camp Gagetown area prior to its use in Vietnam. Five months ago the minister promised an investigation into the possible effects the tests had on service personnel in the Camp Gagetown area at the time, and also the 5,000
10734


Oral Questions
or 6,000 civilians who live in the immediate vicinity of the camp area.
Will the minister now tell the House what the result of the investigation was, and in light of Tuesday's decision in the U.S. Senate of the dangers of Agent Orange, is he now prepared to recognize that there is a strong likelihood of adverse human reactions to those tests of Agent Orange in the Camp Gagetown area?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I must say that the matter concerning the spreading of Agent Orange at Camp Gagetown was taken very seriously when it was raised a few months ago. I think it is unfair to compare the spraying of Agent Orange in a test involving only a very limited number of Canadian or American servicemen with the massive spraying of the same agent in Vietnam.
When this matter was raised a few months ago, our officials tried to contact most of the servicemen who had taken part in this test. Their findings were minimal.
The House will also remember that at the time, I offered the government of New Brunswick, which was spraying its own forests, and various specialized medical groups to co-operate with them, if necessary, to ascertain the effects of Agent Orange on those involved in the test. The opinions differ greatly on this, some medical authorities even claiming there is no danger. Others say that it is indeed dangerous. We are still prepared to co-operate with the provincial government or the medical organizations.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this is a federal government responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the provincial government or any other agency. This is a federal government responsibility. The federal government approved the tests back in 1966. A Liberal government did that, and it is time that this government stopped shilly-shallying around and recognized that the people, the civilians in that region, are not to be expected to act as laboratory animals for tests that this government has perpetuated upon them.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Robert Alfred Corbett: This government promised an investigation. Again, I ask the minister if he is prepared to take his responsibilities to the people who are under federal jurisdiction in that region around Camp Gagetown and to initiate that investigation, forgetting about any provincial responsibility because it does not exist, and get a report back to this jurisdiction, the federal House, as quickly as possible, within the next few weeks and tell us just what we can expect, and what the people of the region can expect, as a result of the tests which are its responsibility?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I suggest that this government fully assumed its responsibility when it refused to carry out an investigation on the very few people who had participated in this test, but instead to do so with the co-operation of the province or provinces which are using the same defoliant, and also with medical groups which may have much more expertise in this area than the hon. member of the opposition.


DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO FARMERS FOR EMBARGO ON SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to put a question to his parliamentary secretary, in the hope that he knows a little more about the embargo than the Minister of Transport.
Given that the embargo payments were established at $81 million today in Winnipeg, and as the parliamentary secretary knows yesterday the University of Saskatchewan study-and here I disagree with the Minister of Transport-showed $117 million, and the Wheat Board study was over $100 million, could the parliamentary secretary explain the discrepancy between these studies and the level at which the government decided to put this compensation?
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: As the Minister of Transport explained a moment ago, Madam Speaker, a first study had been made. It was about $61 million. The Canadian government has now offered $81 million, and I think that what the Minister of Transport said earlier is quite accurate.


FACTS USED IN ARRIVING AT DECISION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, in light of that answer and the discrepancies between the position of the parliamentary secretary on these studies and our understanding of them, would he assure the House, as did the Minister of Agriculture when he said, and I quote:
At the time of finalization of this program all the facts with respect to how it came about will be made public.
-that all the facts about how this amount was arrived at will be put before the Standing Committee on Agriculture or the House so that we can examine them?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if I may answer that, all the different studies which led to different amounts from $71 million to $125 million, will be given to members to read. They will be available and hon.


members can make their own assessment. One thing is certain. A great number of factors went into the analysis. That is why there were different results from different groups of people who analysed the subject. That is quite normal. 1 might say we have that on almost any question that is raised in the country over any number of years.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and refers to the motion offered today under Standing Order 43 concerning a commemorative stamp for Terry Fox. I wish to ask the Minister why this motion was rejected.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I want to say in the House that Terry Fox has received the highest award given to a living Canadian, and that is the Order of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: There is a law and tradition among all the world-respected postal administrations not to honour living persons with a stamp but only their heads of state. This is a tradition which it would be improper to break, notwithstanding how good may be the reasons. There is also, in addition to these procedures, an additional ten years rule that has been followed in the past. Nevertheless, there have been a few exceptions to this ten years delay, particularly with reference to Pierre Laporte and Jules Leger. I want to assure the House that I am sure that such an exception would be made for Terry Fox by the Post Office. I am absolutely sure of this. At the same time, I am sure and certain every member of the House wishes that Terry Fox will live many, many years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: Traditions can be changed, just like unilateral constitutional changes; they are there to be changed.


THE ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
GOVERNMENT PROGRAM FOR THE 80s
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it is supplementary-never mind jerking the thumb to somebody else. Never mind the thumb jerk.
My question is supplementary to the first two questions of the day. Since the Prime Minister resumed office in March, 1980, interest rates have gone to 20 per cent, we have had a
Oral Questions
big increase in personal, farm and small business bankruptcies, mortgage interest rates are up to 18.75 per cent, and inflation is 13 per cent.
On January 12, 1980, the Prime Minister said in Toronto, "We have an economic program for the eighties which will enhance dignity, create opportunity and provide security." My simple question is: where is it? When will it be produced?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, it is always a delight to listen to the questions of the hon. member for St. John's West, especially when they have to do with inflation, because he is an inflation expert himself-verbal inflation, that is! He should remember that when the Prime Minister spoke those words, we could very well see just where the former finance minister was leading the Canadian economy. We inherited that situation. As early as October, the Minister of Finance set the stage to steer the Canadian economy on a better course. The hon. member should know that we have to bring down the inflationary pressure by trying all together to convince ourselves that inflation is indeed enemy No. 1. It will serve no useful purpose to shout and go on a rhetorical rampage since Canada's economic situation will not be improved by miracle solutions drawn out of a hat on a day to day basis, but indeed by applying the principles and the fundamental solutions set forth in the budget last October.


INTRODUCTION OF PROGRAM
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is not to the minister in charge of jerking thumbs or thumb jerks, it is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is a specialist in betraying solemn election pledges, so I will ask him the supplementary question again. When will we have the economic program for the eighties which will enhance dignity, create opportunity and provide security? Is that the program now in effect where hundreds of thousands have to renew their mortgages at 18% per cent, where hundreds of thousands are paying 21 per cent to 23 per cent interest, where farmers are going out of business and where personal bankruptcies are up? If there is such a program, why has the Prime Minister waited over a year and a half to bring it in? When are we going to see this program? When will he take the economy seriously?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right. The minister is not in charge of jerking thumbs, but he is in charge of jerks' questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Oral Questions


INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, it is perhaps not surprising that a Prime Minister who shows no concern about Canadians facing bankruptcy, Canadians facing loss of jobs, Canadians forced to leave their homes, that he, the millionaire from Outremont, sits there and smiles while Canadians lose their homes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is perhaps not surprising that he should show a similar contempt for the House of Commons. Let me ask him a question about the priorities of his government. Why does his government believe that it was justified in spending an extra $ 15 million last year on government advertising and propaganda when it will do nothing to help Canadians facing bankruptcy, foreclosure, and a loss of their homes, jobs and businesses?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the right hon. member's figure of $15 million difference is correct. The figures for when his government was in power are not available because there was an offshore private sector company that both assigned the agencies and assigned the time and space placement. Nor do we have from previous governments accurate figures for the totals. In any case, I make no apology, and I am sure my colleagues do not, for trying to relate better to Canadians the programs of the Government of Canada. If we have a crisis in this country it is that Canadians do not well enough understand the role of their national government, and all that people on that side of the House want to do is tear it apart.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TIMING OF PROGRAMS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, one role of the national government that Canadians very well understand is that when Canadians are forced into bankruptcy by federal policy, forced to leave their homes by federal policy, forced to shut down businesses which cost jobs by federal policy, they have a right to some response from the national government of Canada. We would like the Prime Minister of Canada to stand in his place, not jerk his thumb at his various ministers, and tell this House of Commons when the Government of Canada intends to introduce programs that will help Canadians being forced into bankruptcy by the Trudeau government policies, when measures will be introduced in this House to help Canadians who are forced to surrender their houses because of the policies forced by this government, and when an equal priority will be given to the needs of the people of Canada as the government gives to its own propaganda.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I accept humbly the lecture from the Leader of the Opposition. He should be concerned with another type of bankruptcy, that is the moral bankruptcy he has shown in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for housing I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the government of Nova Scotia moved to assist AHOP home owners suffering under the double burden of more stringent income criteria and high mortgage interest rates, and among other things fixed the mortgage interest rate of 14 per cent. The Nova Scotia housing minister stated that he made two special trips to Ottawa to seek federal government help, but was refused. Since the federal government created the AHOP program, why is it bailing out of its responsibility at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have no recollection of ever getting support for that program from the hon. member or his party. Now he is saying we should do more of it. I will refer him to the hon. member for St. John's West who is always complaining that we should be keeping the deficit down and be spending less money. I wish they would meet together and get their policies on the same line.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Surely once a program is committed you have to follow through on it.


ASSISTANCE TO LANDLORDS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The government recently moved to assist apartment owners who participated in the assisted rental program by increasing the maximum subsidy per unit from $120 a month to $180 a month. The reason given for the increase was that landlords are faced with an increase of 6 per cent or 7 per cent in mortgage interest rates. Why is the government moving to help landlords faced with bankruptcy, and refusing to help home owners faced with the same problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I indicated earlier that the representations that the minister had made to the banks applied to people who were in difficulties, such as bankruptcies, whether they be in one category or another.


MANPOWER
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On March 30 the minister expressed strong support for the women's Outreach program. Given that support, why has he moved to terminate the program? In particular, why has he refused to fund four excellent projects for women in Ontario beyond September?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, we have answered many of these same questions before, but I will repeat to the hon. member that we have increased the Outreach budget this year. We have substantially increased the number of Outreach projects that are allocated to women's concerns, almost 40 per cent above those of the previous government. We are finding new allocations of funds for Outreach projects. We have established eight additional women's counselling centres in our employment service. I think that demonstrates our very strong commitment to aiding women in the work force.


CONTINUATION OF FUNDING
David Orlikow: The reason why a Liberal government in 1972 created the Outreach program was the realization that the existing structure of the minister's department was not fulfilling the job properly. Given the fact that the need still continues, will the minister at least commit the government to continue full funding of the existing 19 projects for more than the next few months?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, one of the basic principles of any Liberal government is that it can always improve upon things. We are using our ability to improve upon the delivery of services of the employment service. As the hon. member well knows, and I will repeat so that other members get proper information, we have established a major computerized job placement centre in major metropolitan areas across Canada which provides a much more efficient and effective way of placing women in jobs, and all other Canadians.


AIRPORTS
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact Transport Canada has announced it will spend $27.2 million on extensive renovation of Terminal 1 at Toronto International Airport over the next three years, including $2.7 million to remove the asbestos coating from the ceiling, will the minister advise when this asbestos insulation problem in Terminal 1 at Toronto International Airport will be resolved so that this potential health hazard will be alleviated?
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it is a three-year program. Therefore, the asbestos will be removed as the program progresses. The short answer is over three years. I want to emphasize that the asbestos at the airport has been tested. The Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Public Works have stated there is no danger in the present situation.


FINANCE
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I shall ask my question of the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Every Canadian knows that an interest rate of 20 or 22 per cent is a perfect way to strangle our economy, and on the long term to force many individuals and companies into bankruptcy. For instance, during the first quarter of 1981 the number of loans granted under the Small Businesses Loans Act decreased by 50 per cent compared with last year. Madam Speaker, I simply want to know what action the government will take to help those Canadians who are faced with interest rates so shocking that they are literally strangled by them, and when it will take this action.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to have drawn certain conclusions from the figures which he quoted. I would invite him to check, for instance, the economic growth rate for the last quarter of 1980 and the first quarter of 1981. He will see that there is evidence of growth in the economy. He can take certain indications and draw conclusions from them, but he should check to see whether these conclusions agree with the facts.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. He is certainly aware that the Maislin transport company has asked its 15,000 employees in Canada and the United States to lend it a certain percentage of their wages to pay the $12.5 million in interest which it has to pay this year. Does the minister intend to wait until this company and a hundred others like it are bankrupt, before taking action, or does he really want other companies to use the same type of loan as the Maislin company?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think that every time he mentions a specific company the hon. member should explain the particular conditions which surround the financial problems of that company, because otherwise such a reference will mean absolutely nothing. This cannot justify drawing generalized conclusions. Let him find and explain the causes of the


Privilege-Mr. McKinnon
specific problems involved, and then he can draw valid conclusions.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
mr. mckinnon-move of rcmp headquarters "E"

Madam Speaker:: I would now like to rule on the question of privilege that was raised on June 16 by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).
The hon. member set out the facts of the case with reference to Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 51, and he alleged that the return to the order tabled on June 3, 1981, could not be considered to be "all letters, papers and studies concerning the move of RCMP Headquarters".
The practice in the matter of returns to such notices of motions for the production of papers was enunciated 20 years ago by one of my predecessors, Hon. Speaker Michener, when he pointed out:
-there has been a well recognized practice established in the House that a minister, who does not wish to be bound by an unqualified order of the House to produce documents which he does not propose to produce or does not wish to produce for some recognized reason of public policy, may rise and state his objection so that his objection will be a matter of record. This statement is, to some extent, a protection of the minister against the unqualified order of the House calling upon him to produce the documents mentioned. It is a practice which has commended itself to the House and which has been well established. Whatever the significance of such a statement may be... it is an established practice... when these orders are passed by the House they are noted in Votes and Proceedings without any reference to the reservation made by the minister. He is, therefore, confronted with an order of the House in unqualified terms if he has not risen in his place to claim that certain documents are privileged as interdepartmental communications, confidential documents, private papers or whatever good reason there is, in the public interest, for not calling upon the minister to produce the documents. He might very properly be said to be in contempt of the House if this reservation were not noted.
I quote from Journals, February 27, 1961.
The only change that seems to have been made in this practice is that the parliamentary secretary rather than the minister now makes the reservation concerning confidentiality or restrictions on certain documents. The reservation is nevertheless made, and the House also accepted this reservation in the usual way. Accordingly, the order of the House on June 3 last must be read subject to the customary reservations in respect of confidential documents.
The expression "confidential documents" has never been defined for this purpose and I do not think it would be proper for the Speaker to attempt to do that. Furthermore, while the government, when preparing a return, may govern itself by the principles it tabled in 1973 and which were set out in citation 390 of Beauchesne's fifth edition, the House has not adopted these principles, and in any event it seems to me that it would still be up to the government to decide whether any "letters, papers and studies" were of a confidential nature.
Accordingly, while the hon. member may have a complaint about how the expression "confidential documents" has been
interpreted by the government in this return to his motion for papers, this does not constitute a question of privilege because, according to the practice of the House, a proper return was made to hon. members' motions for the production of papers.
Hon. members might also be reminded that, in connection with practice and custom, the distinguished author Redlich in his work "The Procedure of the House of Commons" pointed out the following:
-the Journals are by no means the only authentic sources of information as to what has been established by custom. A large part of what concerns procedure is never recorded in them; for not unfrequently usages have been formed and long observed without giving rise to any definite decision of the House or the Speaker, which would constitute a precedent. Long-continued practice, moreover, is not always required for the creation of customs in procedure. In all such cases the only proof of a customary rule is the actual practice adopted, it being, of course, always in the last resort a matter purely for the decision of the House itself whether it accepts its customs as binding or not.
Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, I cannot find a prima facie case of breach of privilege in the question raised by the hon. member for Victoria.

[ Translation]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me. I did send you a note in this regard, but I thought that it would be more courteous to let the House Leader of the Progressive Conservative party ask me the usual question concerning the business of the House before we went on to questions of privilege.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, with respect to House business, we know what we are dealing with today and tonight, but would the minister be in a position to designate the business for next week, and would he designate an allotted day? I think there is one more day in the supply period. If he would do that I would be very grateful.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as everybody knows, we will be voting tonight. The bells will start ringing at 9 p.m. tonight until 9.15. Tomorrow we will have third reading of the same bill, C-57. There is an agreement among representatives of the parties that any vote required tomorrow will be deferred until next week. I suggest it be deferred until next Monday night at 9.45. If the House leaders agree I would appreciate confirmation in the next few seconds.
In so far as the business for next week is concerned, I wish to designate next Friday, June 26, as the last allotted day. Monday we will try to achieve what we failed to achieve yesterday, and that is to deal with three non-controversial bills, S-10, C-66 and S-19, in that order.
Following that, and if there is agreement-and we have had some representations made in the House on this subject-we


on this side are willing as the government to agree to have one speaker per party and to dispose of all stages of the following four bills, and this will answer requests which were made before. The first is Bill C-53, the sexual offences bill. If we can agree to one speaker per party and go through all stages within the same day, the government would be agreeable to providing one day next week, either Tuesday or Thursday. The same applies to Bill C-37 making July 1 Canada Day. Then Bill C-67, to amend the Adult Educational Training Act, and Bill C-65 dealing with the Public Service Superannuation Act, could be dealt with expeditiously if that is the desire of the opposition parties.
If we fail to agree on those bills, we will go on with bills on which debate has already started in this House, namely-and in this order-Bill C-58, Bill C-12 and Bill S-6. That is the business for this week and next week.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, that will be quite a week. In any event, I am prepared to confirm now that the deferred vote on Bill C-57 on Monday at 9.45, as suggested, is agreeable. I naturally have to consult with respect to all the other matters my friend mentioned.
Is the minister putting forward the list he has put forward as the list of business the government expects to complete before the adjournment? Is there other business he intends to add to that, and has the government House leader set a tentative date for the adjournment of the House? It might be helpful to us to know in terms of planning.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the list I spoke about is only an appetizer. I hope we can agree on it. If we cannot agree on the appetizer-I understand there may not be agreement-and if we do not succeed in dealing with all the legislation I talked about, the main course will come later on. This is not the list I talked about last week.
As far as the date of adjournment is concerned, we are hoping it will be as soon as possible. If it is the end of this month, that is fine with me, depending on the progress we make; but if that is impossible, obviously we will have to go into July.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, first may I join with the opposition House leader in saying that that is a fair plateful for next week, especially when it is only a four-day week. I believe the House will not be sitting on Wednesday, June 24.
With regard to the program the minister has outlined, may I say first of all that we agree to the vote at third reading of Bill C-57 being scheduled for 9.45 Monday evening.
With regard to Bill C-53, I can repeat the undertaking I have already given, that we would be prepared for the second reading debate on that bill to be limited to one speaker per party. I shall have to consult before I can give an answer on the others.
There is something else I should like to say. If Your Honour will pardon my immodesty, I note that the House has
Business of the House
already-and so has Your Honour-said kind things about this being my seventy-third birthday. When one reaches that age there are not many of the usual things which are given as presents which one needs or wants.


Miss Jewett:: Here we go!


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, there is a birthday present I want. I ask for it, and I hope the minister will give it.


John Edward Broadbent: A pay increase.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: A seat in the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, all of the guesses I have heard are wrong, and the minister knows it. I am speaking on behalf of 15,000 or 20,000 widows of disabled veterans who are still waiting for the oversight in last summer's Bill C-40 to be corrected.
This does not come to the government House Leader as a surprise, nor does it come to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs as anything new. In my bones I feel that legislation must be ready, and I hope the minister is in a position to announce today that it is ready and that it will be presented to the House. If it is ready, I would even suggest that we might sit an extra hour tomorrow. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) would be willing for her private member's bill to be put off to some other time; we could start a bill to amend Bill C-40 at four o'clock and finish it tomorrow afternoon before we adjourn. On behalf of the
15,000	or 20,000 widows for whom I speak I ask for that birthday present today.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member wishes for the gift. He should have talked about it earlier.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He has talked about it for years.


Yvon Pinard: In any case, I can assure the hon. member that failing giving him that kind of gift today-because he failed to ask for it, as 1 just mentioned-the cabinet is looking at the situation very seriously. I can assure the hon. member that we should be in a position to give a much more precise answer within the next days and weeks before we adjourn.


Mr. Andre:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council whether he is in a position to indicate what the plans of the government are with respect to correcting the legislation, estimates or whatever following the decision reached by the Chair. It would be useful information to have, in view of the fact that Supplementary Estimates (B) came down yesterday and in view of the fact that action might be initiated by me, depending on what plans the government might have. Perhaps the government House leader could indicate what the intentions are.


Privilege-Mr. Broadbent


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker, and I thank the hon. member for his question. That is part of the main course about which I was talking to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton.
In fact, we are working on drafting legislation at this stage in order to cope with this situation. I intend to meet with my colleagues opposite to discuss the kind of debate we could have on this legislation. I want to meet with them at the beginning of next week, either Monday or Tuesday. At this stage the information I have is that the legislation will not be ready for introduction before next Thursday or next Friday. That means that if we cannot come to some agreement to deal with that legislation within a very short length of time, that is, at the beginning of the following week-that is, June 29 and June 30-it is likely that we will have to sit in July. That is why earlier in my answers I had to leave the impression that it was perhaps not too realistic at this stage to think we could be in a position to adjourn on June 30. It is still technically possible, as hon. members can see, but if we are realistic I think we can see we will have to sit a few days in July.
I want to assure the hon. member that I will be talking to his House leader and, if he is interested in participating in the discussions because of his interest in this matter, I would be glad to have him around and to negotiate with him a reasonable length of time to debate the legislation about which I am talking.


Mr. Waddell:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council if he is in a position to tell the House whether the government proposes to bring in the report stage of Bill C-48, the proposed oil and gas act, before the House adjourns until the fall. I understand that third reading will take place in the fall, but there was what I have called a sweetheart deal between the Conservatives and the minister on this matter which seems to have turned sour, and I would like to know whether the President of the Privy Council proposes to bring in the report stage of Bill C-48. Because, as the minister knows, the government is imposing closure on that bill in the committee on June 25.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any closure. I think I can say that after many months the committee has decided to limit debate at this stage on Bill C-48. As far as the report stage of that bill is concerned, I will take the representation of the hon. member into serious consideration.


PRIVILEGE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In recent days concerning the important question of what is taking place in El Salvador members from all parties-I am thinking particularly of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), the hon. member
for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) as well as others- have revealed a distinguished, non-partisan approach, so to speak, to this question in the House.
In this light I was deeply disturbed to hear the motion moved under Standing Order 43 today by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) in which there was something which was not just misleading but blatantly false. When I explain the circumstances as to why that is the case, I hope the member will get to his feet and say that he was in error and withdraw the accusation contained in the motion under Standing Order 43.
This morning on the television program-


Madam Speaker:: Order, if the member's question of privilege is related to the motion under Standing Order 43 that we dealt with in the House earlier, I am afraid I have to tell him that, had there been unanimous consent to the motion, I would have put it to the House and he would have been able to debate it. It was not debated but the House did deal with it. There was no unanimous consent to that motion and I am afraid that one must not come back on what the House has already dealt with. If that is the substance of the question of privilege of the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), I will not be able to hear it.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I certainly respect your judgment but I would ask perhaps for some further consideration. I have consulted the oracle on the rules to my left and I am indeed told-


Walter David Baker: That is two reasons why it is not allowable.


John Edward Broadbent: -that it is within the rules to properly raise-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member trying to influence the Chair by citing this very competent oracle on procedure?


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, there is only one oracle in this House inferior to yourself on the rules, and that is the gentleman on my left.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Nonetheless, on a serious point, a charge has been made against me in the House by another member. The proceedings of the House-and this was done under the provisions of Standing Order 43, which I have some personal concerns about in terms of its propriety-do not enable me in that context to deal with an accusation which, I repeat, is not only misleading but is factually completely false.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: I do have to call the hon. member to order. Charges, accusations, are made from one side or the other of this House. That is what happens in the normal course


of debate. The hon. member is debating, he does not have a question of privilege, and I have to tell him that he cannot pursue it.


MR. LAWRENCE-NATIONAL SECURITY-REMARKS OF MR. KAPLAN DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, when I attempted yesterday to raise a question of privilege in respect of certain matters raised during question period and others attempted to join in, you quite wisely cautioned us all to make sure of the basis or foundation of what we were saying. I believe you cautioned us to wait until Hansard was available.
I have now had the opportunity of perusing Hansard, and if I may just draw your attention to page 10697 of yesterday's Hansard, the words I am complaining about were spoken by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). I quote the last four lines of what he said on that day:
What I would like to know is whether the leader of his party, the former prime minister, has authorized him-
That is me.
-to make these statements notwithstanding his oath of office as a privy councillor.
I merely reiterate to you, Madam Speaker, and the House that nothing I have said publicly in this context in any manner, shape or form offends any oath I have ever taken as a privy councillor.
Therefore, I think the Solicitor General has simply two courses of action open to him: he can either apologize and withdraw those words today; or I suggest to you that he must be made by you and this House to detail anything I have said publicly about this matter which was presented to me by departmental officials or any other agency of the government while I was solicitor general.


Walter David Baker: Prove it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Yes, prove it.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, there have been a lot of so-called revelations in the House and elsewhere recently about national security operations. Some but not all have been attributed to the hon. member. Yesterday in the House he said, as reported at page 10696 of Hansard, that there have been, and I quote:
-what I believe to be inspired and selective leaks from within the government itself-
My officials, Madam Speaker, are entitled to be deeply indignant about this suggestion. They cannot speak for themselves here or elsewhere and it is my responsibility as their minister to do so. Therefore, as he was the minister responsible for the internal security of Canada, I ask him to come clean with me and the House and indicate if he has any grounds at all for his belief that there-
Point of Order-Mr. Rose


Madam Speaker:: Order. Hon. members are continuing debate on this question. I have looked at Hansard very carefully and have found that none of the words recorded there would seem to impute motives to one member or another. That is quite clear to me from reading the record pertaining to that particular exchange in the House.
The minister on one side and the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) on the other side did state to the House that they had made a certain statement. The hon. member for Durham-Northumberland did say to the House that he had not broken his oath, and it is the custom of the House to take the hon. member's word for that.
I think that puts an end to this particular question of privilege. There was nothing unparliamentary in the words uttered in this House or recorded in Hansard; therefore I must rule that matter is closed.


POINTS OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
mr. Mcknight-remarks ofmr. pepin respecting COMPENSATION TO FARMERS
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I notice that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is not here, but I am sure that he would not want to have left the impression in answering a question 1 asked that the producers of rape, rye and flax would be compensated under the embargo payments when in fact the release from the Department of Agriculture states oilseeds and other grains are not covered under these payments. I am sure the minister would not want to leave the impression with the House that the producers of those grains would be compensated.


Madam Speaker:: That is up to the minister, and 1 am sure the point of order will be noted by him.


MR. ROSE-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF RULING BY MADAM SPEAKER
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I would be grateful if you could perhaps provide the House with a clarification of the ruling on the question of privilege of the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). Is it in line or congruent with the Speaker's ruling that a member of Parliament, moving a motion under Standing Order 43, can from now on get up and say anything, truthfully or untruthfully, make any kind of charges against another hon. member, and that once that motion has been disposed of, by unanimous consent or otherwise, there is no protection and the member has no recourse to have the record changed or demand an apology? 1 find that to be an incredulous ruling and I think we should do something about that rule.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, obviously I do


Point of Order-Mr. Rose
not propose to question your ruling, but I do have a question along with the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose).
I have been concerned for some time now, as have my colleagues, about certain statements left on the record which then become public and perhaps do constitute the imputing of motives or unparliamentary language, or in some way are not dealt with at the time but are left on the record.
about motions under Standing Order 43 than what is provided within the scope of that Standing Order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Agreed.']
Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Most of them on your side.


David Michael Collenette: If an hon. member is not on his feet at a particular time or not in the Elouse to raise the question, what is one then to do to correct what obviously could be construed as a question of privilege? It is very serious, Madam Speaker. This occurs not only in motions under Standing Order 43, but it occurred most recently on an alleged question of privilege by a member of the Conservative party. In the course of exposing that question of privilege, my friend the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) objected to certain innuendos alleged about members of Parliament from Hamilton. Because you had already ruled that the Conservative member did not have a question of privilege, the hon. member for Hamilton West could not join in further debate.
With all due respect, perhaps you and your officials would give some consideration to what is becoming a frequent occurrence. It leads to the problem outlined by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) which occurred earlier today.



Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present to the House a petition signed by over 4,000 citizens of Hamilton and area, drawing the attention of Parliament to the social injustices which are prevailing in El Salvador, urging the government to oppose military support by the United States to that country, and requesting a clear and independent policy on El Salvador.
*
* *


SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD DAY ACT MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-636, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day.


Madam Speaker:: First, I must make it quite clear to hon. members that, aside from what happens during the course of motions under Standing Order 43, the fact a member complains that something said about himself in the House was true or untrue does not constitute a question of privilege. As long as unparliamentary language is not used, the Chair can do nothing about forcing one member to be more or less truthful about something. The Chair has no responsibility with regard to the substance of the interventions of hon. members in the House.
Second, I should like to address myself to the matter of Standing Order 43. One of the weaknesses of Standing Order 43 is that one either receives unanimous consent to put a motion to the House or one does not. If one receives unanimous consent to put it to the House, it can be debated. Then hon. members may rise and complain about the motion or its preamble. It is one of the weaknesses of that Standing Order, but the only way the House can deal with it is by giving or not giving a member unanimous consent to put a motion to the House.
I was victim of the same thing the other day with a motion which related to matters under the jurisdiction of the Chair; there was not much I could do about it. If hon. members want to change the Standing Order in order to allow the Speaker to determine what is adequate as a preamble or as a motion, I am in the hands of the House. But I cannot do anything more


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I am moving for leave to introduce a bill intituled "An act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day". As the House is well aware, there has been a proposal for some time now that the third Monday of every February be observed as a statutory holiday. My bill would establish that day as a legal holiday and would determine that it be observed as Sir John A. Macdonald Day, in lasting tribute to the man who had a vision that there should come into being a country stretching from coast to coast on the northern half of this continent, and who went on to become the first Prime Minister of the country.
This bill will not only receive overwhelming support from my constituency of Kingston and the Islands but from all across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,409, 2,423, 2,477 and 2,510.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation acquire the Manoir Kirkland, Kirkland, Quebec and, if so, on what date and at what cost?
2.	Was the property sold and, if so (a) to whom (b) on what date (c) at what price?
3.	(a) How many apartments are in the buildings (b) were the occupants eligible for a rent subsidy and, if so, was an agreement concluded to continue the subsidy (c) in what manner were the occupants notified of the change of ownership?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes, CMHC acquired the "Manoir Kirkland" project on December 12, 1979, and the claim paid for its acquisition was $5,564,300.
2.	(a), (b) and (c). The "Manoir Kirkland" project was sold to Acquilini Investors Group on September 1, 1980, at the market price of $3,194,000.
3.	(a) 198 apartment units.
(b)	No, all tenants were paying market rents.
(c)	Occupants were notified of the sale of the project by individual letters delivered simultaneously with the usual letter of introduction of the new owner/land-lord.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Postmaster General receive a letter from the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville enclosing evidence of correspondence mailed on April 9, 1981 in Toronto to the member and received 13 days later at the House of Commons and, if so (a) what are the reasons for this type of postal service (b) for what reason did it take 13 days for a first-class mail item to travel from Toronto to Ottawa?
2.	Did the minister receive other complaints of a similar nature and, if so, what action was taken to deal with the complaints?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: 1. Yes. (a) and (b). First, it should be explained that with the exception of those registered, records are not maintained for individual pieces of mail. For this reason, we are often unable to determine precisely why or where most irregularities occur. In addition, the cover provided did not bear any endorsements or markings which might indicate the handling accorded and furnish some clues to the reason for the late delivery.
2. Yes. Unfortunately, inquiries into individual cases of delay where the cover or envelope bears no indication of abnormal handling generally prove fruitless. Nevertheless, we
Order Paper Questions
concentrate our efforts on analysing statistics gathered from reported service failures in order to identify areas with serious and recurring difficulties. In this way, our operating people can focus their attention on resolving the identified problems.


Mr. Herbert: Is there an appreciable variation in the consumption of all forms of oil on a regional basis and, if so, can this be illustrated on the basis of barrels of crude oil used by province per annum per 100,000 of population?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: Yes.
Oil Consumption In All Forms * [litres per capita]
Alberta	4,968
British Columbia	4,069
Manitoba	3,159
New Brunswick	7,145
Newfoundland	4,483
Nova Scotia	5,866
Ontario	3,627
Prince Edward Island	4,331
Quebec	4,294
Saskatchewan	4,102
Northwest Territories	10,000
Yukon Territory	9,141
* Computed on the basis of 1980 sales of all oil products and estimates of mid-1980 population.


Mr. Howie: Is a Canada Fitness Survey being conducted and, if so (a) over what period of time (b) what will be the cost?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Yes, a Canada Fitness Survey is being conducted at the present time. Data collection in the field will take six months from January to July of 1981. The final report should be ready in the spring of
1982.	The cost of the survey, which employs more than 180 previously unemployed physical education graduates across the country, will be $2.9 million.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 1,607 could be made an order for return, this return will be tabled immediately.


Excise Tax


Mr. Cossitt: Since the answer to question No. 31 was prepared, how many additional requests have been received from Soviet diplomats to travel outside the National Capital Region and, in each case, what was the (a) name of the diplomat (b) date of the trip (c) destination of the trip (d) duration of the trip (e) purpose of the trip (f) mode of transportation used?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, June 10, consideration of Bill C-57, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Madam Speaker:: On May 26 I expressed some doubt as to the acceptability of motion No. 10 in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). On June 10 the hon. member presented argument in support of that motion. I must confess to the hon. member that on procedural grounds he did not convince the Chair his motion ought to be put to the House. Therefore I regrettably confirm my comments of May 26 and rule the motion out of order.
Motions Nos. 27 and 28 could be grouped for debate, and a vote on motion No. 27 will dispose of motion No. 28.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved:: Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-57, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause 29 by striking out line 9 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor: "apparatus for use in".


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved:: Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-57, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause 29 by striking out line 9 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor: "apparatus that are used in".


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I will speak very briefly on this motion. Because of the unrealistic time limit imposed upon this debate, I think we should discuss the significant amendments with respect to the petroleum and gas tax.
This particular amendment will broaden the exemption for universities and others doing laboratory work to enable them to buy utensils, equipment and instruments which may be used for some purpose other than experimental work.
If we want to encourage research and development, it is realistic to encourage it by allowing equipment which is not necessarily designed for experimental work to be purchased for use in classrooms and elsewhere. The intent of the amendment is to allow items which are used in classroom instruction and in other places to be purchased in the normal course. This would not involve any problem concerning administration. In my view, the amendment should be immediately granted by the government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will keep my comments very brief in consideration of what little time remains under the closure brought in to limit this debate. We want to emphasize the matter of the natural gas and petroleum tax.
This particular amendment was introduced because of the important times in which we find ourselves today. The various groups representing the technical services and the scientific community of Canada have made it perfectly clear to all hon. members of the House that, within this decade and the one following, the necessity for training individuals to participate in scientific research and to serve in a technical sense Canadian industries is absolutely mandatory.
We felt it important to include this particular amendment so that universities, technical schools and institutions of one kind or another would have access to research related materials at a reasonable and fair rate. It was the universities which suggested the wording change. It is a minor change but it attempts to identify not tax exemption for materials which may be used for scientific research and for educational research but materials which, in fact, will be used for that particular use. That is the reason behind this change in wording, Mr. Speaker.
We urge the government to give it consideration, again to focus the attention of manufacturers on this particular use of apparatus and also to recognize the leadership role which the federal government may play in encouraging scientific and technical research in Canada.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I would like very briefly to remind hon. members that the provisions which excluded some of the material used in universities from the excise tax were related to the fact that to impose or not to impose the tax on this material was dependent upon a tariff number. Everyone knows that the principles


which are basic to a tariff policy are not the same as those which generate a taxation policy. For instance, the major objective of a tariff policy is to develop measures for promoting domestic production of certain goods while a taxation policy is aimed at collecting excise tax on all goods sold in the country.
It is said that this provision will discourage research, development and academic initiatives. We are wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether the best policy for promoting research and development is to resort to excise tax exemptions or whether it is not better to use far more important fiscal measures, such as the one included in the Income Tax Act which provides tax credits for whatever amounts are invested in research and development. We are also wondering whether we could not do a lot more to provide support and direction to research and development activities by allowing grants in certain specific fields of research. We are all aware of the many research councils financed by the federal government and we know that these councils, whether we are talking about the Medical Research Council of Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council or the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, provide grants that make research possible in very specific fields, such as health, social sciences and humanities, natural sciences, physics, aeronautics and many others.
Thus, rather than providing excise tax exemptions for certain items, we believe that it is much better to support research and development with appropriate measures such as research and development tax credits, for instance, or else through major grants or major financing through agencies such as our own research councils. By restoring consistency in the excise tax area and keeping it apart from tariff policy, we are providing our excise tax system with a better organization and a better rationalization than we had before, and I would ask hon. members to reject the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on motion No. 27, and a vote on motion No. 27 will dispose of motion No. 28. It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.
Excise Tax


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. This also disposes of Motion No. 28.
The House will now consider motions Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 35, each of which is to be debated and voted on separately.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Motion No. 29.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause 33 by striking out lines 40 and 41 at page 41 and substituting the following therefor:
"made to order for a crippled, deformed or otherwise debilitated person; parts of'
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief remarks since this is the International Year of the Disabled. In recognition of this fact we were encouraged to look very closely at this particular item in the bill with regard to disabled persons. The present provisions in Bill C-57, in addition to artificial limbs and related accessories, spinal and other orthopaedic braces, only provides exemptions for specially constructed appliances made to order for a person having a crippled or deformed foot or ankle. It seemed to members on this side of the House that, if we are to recognize those persons with problems associated with an ankle or a foot, the same recognition should be given to persons who experience difficulties with their elbows, shoulders, hips, or whatever.
The nature of motion No. 29 recognizes what obviously must be an oversight, a technical one, in this legislation. Because this is the Year of the Disabled, I think we are all concerned about disabled persons. All members of this House are on record as recognizing the plight of disabled persons. We have seen activities around Parliament Hill which give evidence to Canadian society that changes are certainly in order to assist those who are disabled. This particular motion which is before us is one more way for us to recognize the concern of disabled citizens, and by making a small change in the wording we can expand the provisions of this particular bill not only to people with problems associated with feet and ankles but all parts of the body.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: We support this motion, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express the government's concern with this matter. Hon. members will remember that a task force studied in depth the problems faced by the handicapped in our society. I must emphasize however that this is not a new exemption. It is a technical amendment which explains, under


Excise Tax
the specific terms of the Excise Act, provisions that were correlated with the Customs Tariff Act.
In principle I would be favourable to these proposals. Unfortunately, I cannot support them for three reasons. First, there already are tax reductions for the handicapped, those in particular with physical disabilities that hinder their movements, in respect of a number of items made specifically for their use, to help them overcome such problems. Secondly, I am not convinced that an excise tax reduction on a particular item is the best answer to the handicapped person's needs. I am not saying it could not be so, only I am not convinced it is. Thirdly, I referred early in my remarks to the report on the handicapped people. A number of members in this House have worked on it. All hon. members recall the efforts made by the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith). Officials within the Department of Finance want to take time to have a closer look at each of these proposals, and if there is a need to better adjust our tax system to the proposals made by the task force, we will be inclined to do so at the conclusion of the study.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the minister had to say in defence of not accepting this particular amendment. As a member of that Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, to which he also referred, I can assure him that of the 643 witnesses that the committee heard from as we went across this country, we heard particularly from people with physical disabilities, people who have mobility problems.
If not wholly, at least the majority of the technical aids which are used in this country have to be imported into Canada. If the minister cares to take a look at the report on obstacles again, he will recognize that, considering the recommendations which were made by that committee after listening to those witnesses, it is an absolute necessity that the government side agree with this particular amendment.


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, just so the House understands exactly what is going on here, we are now looking at a number of items which the government has decided should be exempted from the 9 per cent sales tax. There are a number of areas where, for a number of years and for a number of reasons, the government has decided that it will not impose a sales tax on particular items because it would impose a hardship on a group of people. Our society decides that because items respond to a vital need, quite apart from the area of commerce, the arguments in favour of a sales tax do not apply because those items are, by any definition, necessities.
We do not have a sales tax on food. What could be more of a necessity than the provision of prosthetic and other devices for individuals who are physically handicapped? What could be more of a statement by this Parliament, particularly in a year in which Parliament has established a committee which
has made a report, which report has made a substantial impact on public opinion? This is the Year of the Handicapped. What could be a more simple and clear gesture on the part of the government than that it recognize that our laws have not always been in keeping with this fact, and that there is a need to exempt particular areas?
Particular groups of people are buying these items, not in the order of commerce, not because they want to make money from selling or because they want to engage in the commercial life of the country, which we all recognize should be subject to sales tax, but because these items are basic, fundamental necessities for people who, through the cruelty of nature, are handicapped.
People want to know why the opposition gets frustrated. People want to know why, when they deal with their government, they feel that they are talking to a brick wall. All of us who have dealt with the minister know him to be a man of intelligence, compassion, a man capable of understanding basic and simple arguments. We wonder why he would not be able to say: "All right, the officials do not understand how Parliament and how the people of Canada respond to this kind of an issue; and we as a government are going to accept this amendment because it makes sense. It responds to the very basic, fundamental feeling of the people in Parliament. Where items are not being purchased for commercial reasons but are being purchased because they are necessities, we as a Parliament will not impose a sales tax. The government is not interested in collecting taxes of 9 per cent off people who are handicapped."
Why could the minister not make that kind of a statement? I see him there, I heard his answer today, and I was in a state of disbelief. He said: "Oh, there are other ways, and I read the brief from my officials; this may not be the best way". The notion of a government not making a distinction between things which are necessities, which should not be subject to a commercial sales tax, and items which should be subject to a commercial sales tax is an elementary one.
If people want to know why, in a sense, Parliament really does not work very well, it is because there is an officialdom in the Department of Finance which has decided who and what will be taxed, and it does not matter what any group, any member of Parliament, or anyone says. It goes through, because we have a government which is not prepared to listen.
I am glad we are forcing 12 votes tonight, or 13 or 14 votes. I want to see all the Liberal members opposite get up and tell every handicapped person who has to buy a prosthetic device that they will have to pay the 9 per cent tax and that they are the government which is imposing it. I want to see them tell the artists of the country upon whom they are imposing this tax, and every other little group, that they do not have the compassion and the guts to say that they will make an exception in their case.
That is why we are forcing the votes. That is why it is high time that this government started listening to people who want a fundamental issue dealt with. I am simply asking that the government respond with a little bit of compassion.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Very briefly, I am wondering whether the minister had the figures as to the tax loss which the country would suffer if we accepted motion No. 29. After all, the present bill before us exempts limbs with or without power, accessories and devices therefor, spinal and other orthopaedic braces. All the motion does is say, generally, devices which are:
-made to order for a crippled, deformed or otherwise debilitated person;-
It is not much of an extension. Surely, the minister and his departmental officials have looked closely at the amendment. T think the minister has a duty, in this Year of the Handicapped, to say to what extent the revenue is impaired by refusing this motion. I suggest to the minister that the loss of revenue is so inconsequential as to not even form a change in the estimated revenue received. That being the case, in the interest of the Year of the Handicapped, and in light of a report on obstacles about which the minister spoke highly, this motion ought to be accepted, and I demand that the minister give us the figures.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the grounds for imposing a tax should not rest mainly on the revenues it will generate, if that tax is to be collected on a specific item. That is not the only reason. First, the kind of rhetoric used by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) is quite easy. It is simply a matter of referring to the extremely difficult situation of the handicapped. But this is not necessarily the best way to help them. I have indicated that a report has been prepared, and we must ask ourselves which is the best course of action, even within our taxation system. We know that excise tax is but a very narrow aspect of the general taxation system. Within the over-all taxation system, what is the best way of helping the handicapped? Such is the question to be addressed. In the light of the committee report, once it has been thoroughly examined, we will give a much more exhaustive answer to the needs of the handicapped, and by adopting the best answer we will give still more emphasis on the concerns of the government and the response of society to the Year of the Handicapped.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.
Excise Tax


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now deal with motion No. 30.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 34.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this really is a motion that my friends from the Atlantic provinces are interested in. It means that fishermen will have to pay the sales tax on a good deal of their equipment. They will be permitted to draw back but they will be dealing through their regular outlets, the small stores and outfitters. The paperwork involved will make it self-defeating. My colleagues from Newfoundland tell me that this will be a pest for the fishermen; it is another handicap. The only beneficiary will be the government. If it is too difficult to claim a draw back after the equipment has been purchased, then the government will be the beneficiary.
In these circumstances, why does the government have to go after sales tax on this type of equipment? It was not done before. Now not only the Newfoundland but the Quebec fishermen in the gulf are in the same boat.

I wonder why they are being treated like that! In my opinion, it is just another nuisance in people's life especially those involved. What is the reason for it? For instance, they may suffer a disaster and have to replace their lines and other equipment. An additional tax of 9 per cent is a considerable amount for those people. They must find a place where they can get credit and afterwards they will have to fill an application to get a refund from the government. In such circumstances, the government usually takes up to three or four months to process the application for refund and, upon final approval, the whole matter is referred to the Department of Supply and Services which in turn takes over a month to issue a cheque. Now, why should those people be treated in such a way? The government will not be making any money, since they will be entitled to a refund. Therefore it is an exercise in futility. On behalf of my colleagues from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, I am introducing this amendment and I would ask my colleagues to support it.


Excise Tax


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that we will support the amendment with respect to fishing and fishing equipment. I want to remind the House that the government's amendment is based on the illusion that one can readily distinguish between equipment which is used for commercial fishing and equipment which is used for sports fishing. The amendment replaces an existing section which is different and enumerates all the items to be exempt from the sales tax, as follows:
Fishing nets and nettings of all kinds; specially designed needles for use in repairing Fishing nets; metal panel devices for use in keeping nets open; metal swivels; fish hooks, lures, jiggers and artificial baits; sinkers and floats including trawl kegs;
The section goes on to say:
-none of the foregoing for sports fishing purposes:
This is based on the illusion that one can readily distinguish between equipment which is sold for the purpose of fishing for sport and equipment used for commercial fishing. Who makes the distinction? Is it the store owner who decides that someone is going to be engaged in sports fishing, or is it the manufacturer who decides what equipment is going to be used in one domain and not the other?
I find it a little strange that the government would exempt an objective number of items that are described in such detail. It describes the interstices of each piece of twine and says which will be exempt.
At the end of this objective definition it introduces an entirely subjective notion, which is the purpose for which the article is intended. That is the kind of thing that can lead to invidious distinction and petty hardship for many inshore and offshore fishermen. I think it would be easier if this particular clause was dropped and the previous legislation retained.
As I am from a land-locked constituency-the old constituency of Broadview once opened on to Lake Ontario so I was not land-locked all the time, but Broadview-Greenwood has been cut off from the sea so I do not get extensive correspondence from fishermen-I would appreciate it if the minister would tell us how many complaints have been received from the industry and from the fishermen involved about the previous section and why it is necessary to replace it with this one.
I suspect that the accountants in the Department of Finance decided that they had discovered some discrepancy between this and the perfectly rational system they are looking for with such almost absurd persistence, and they are responsible for this amendment rather than having concern for the needs of the people in the industry.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that a quick look at the new provision of the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act makes one wonder why such an administrative nightmare is created for so many wholesale dealers dealing with fishermen as well as for the Department of National Revenue. There have been many
representations made directly or indirectly by those involved in the fishing industry and as a result of those representations, the Department of National Revenue has set some administrative standards.
First of all, some equipment which clearly can be used only for commercial fishing, such as the large nets, various kinds of needles of a special design, sinkers and floats, will be automatically exempted from the excise tax. A second measure has been proposed by Revenue Canada. Storekeepers will be able to purchase other items which are normally used in commercial fishing, such as strings and Fish hooks, provided they agree to collect the tax when they sell these items for non-commercial use. And finally, a third measure has been taken by Revenue Canada whereby wholesalers of fishing gear who meet certain requirements previously established by the department may obtain a permit enabling them to import the items duty-free and to declare the tax only when they become taxable under the excise tax, that is to say, when they are sold for non-commercial fishing purposes.
I believe, therefore, that these new arrangements made by Revenue Canada should solve most of the technical problems which may arise and allow more flexibility in the application of this section.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on motion No. 30. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until later this day.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 36 by striking out line 34 at page 43 and substituting the following therefor:
"20. Paintings, original prints, drawings and pastels, all".
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say that I find it quite incredible hearing members opposite yell out nay most of-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps the hon. member has already realized he was going beyond the intentions of the Standing Orders.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This motion recognizes a very important group in Canadian society, our artisan community. I do not expect there are many members of the House who do not have in their ridings a number of artists, people who participate in the artisan community. Those of us who know artists of one kind or another I suspect are always quite amazed at the commitment these people have to their work and the price they are willing to pay for their commitment as an artist.
What I am trying to say is that artists are not usually the most wealthy folks in society, not the most highly rewarded financially. Of course, they are motivated and moved for reasons other than financial.
The present legislation suggests that the prints we find in a gallery, original prints, are virtually the same as the posters we send to our constituents with various pictures of Canada, the various statements about the possibilities of becoming a citizen of Canada and so on; in other words, mechanical prints. I do not expect that anyone who has visited an art gallery believes that a mechanical print is the same as an original print.
An artist may make 20, 50, or perhaps as many as 200 prints, number them and sign them, whereas hundreds of thousands of mechanical prints may be run off. This legislation does not distinguish between these two types of prints.
I do not know if we can continue to call this an oversight in the legislation or simply a bureaucratic miscalculation. I suspect that many of us have had the opportunity of attending gallery openings, witnessing the showings of artists of one kind or another in the various parts of Canada. We are familiar with the whole matter of original prints. Now it is proposed to tax original prints.
We as parliamentarians recognize that the artist community is not encouraged as much as we would like to see. It is a struggle to be an artist in Canada today. It is a struggle for people in central Canada to show their goods in western Canada and vice versa. It is a struggle for maritime artists to show their works in central Canadian galleries. It is costly.
Few government programs exist to facilitate the development and encouragement of the artisan community. However, this legislation is a slap in the face to the artisans. It is going to tax original prints in the same way that it will tax a mechani-
Excise Tax
cal print. I cannot believe that members opposite in a few moments will yell out against this amendment because they want to see original artists' prints taxed.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, 1 realize that my colleague for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and I are beating our heads against the wall, but I want to take a little of the time of the House to go through and point out precisely what this government is doing.
It is an established tradition in Canada that artists are not to be treated like manufacturers and that original works of art are to be exempt from sales tax. This tradition is not unique to Canada; it is a policy which is common to all western industrialized countries. In taking the position the government is taking today, Canada will stand alone with respect to a sales tax on original works of art.
Up until the present time, there was an exemption for lithographs and wood plates. The government said it was having a hard time dealing with new mediums such as seri-graphs. Instead of trying to deal with these new mediums, it said it would exempt only paintings, drawings and pastels.
What was the response of the artistic community when it heard what the government intended to do? The government has a reasoned, lengthy memorandum giving details of what other countries do and pointing out how it is in breach of commitments which Canada may be making if it joins the Florence agreement. That agreement calls for the free exchange of cultural, scientific, artistic and educational goods throughout the world. Countries which sign it will commit themselves to the free exchange of works of art, among other things.
We have had an extensive discussion on what the effect and impact will be on ateliers, co-operative workshops, our native communities, and whole groups of people who have come to rely on the production of original prints of one kind or another not only for monetary support for their way of life, but as the key to the expression of their personalities.
Earlier we spoke about the problem regarding prosthetic devices. The reason those items should be excluded is that they are out of the world of commerce; they are items of necessity. Governments in Canada for generations have also said that artistic works, works which are the expression of the human personality, the world of culture which is the expression of our collective and individual personalities, should not be subject to sales tax. The government is not interested in making money off somebody who produces what is called a work of art. But the minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) know better now.
The Minister of Finance has decided that he knows best; he knows what the definition of art is far better than all the ministers of culture throughout the world, better than UNESCO and better than the Florence Agreement. The Minister of Finance really has an appreciation and knows that what we are doing here is in no way harmful.


Excise Tax
I want to say to the minister that if he takes a little walk around the corner to the National Gallery he will see outside a large sign advertising the current exhibit. It is an exhibit of the art of the lithograph in the nineteenth century in France.
[ Translation]
L'art de la pierre\ how convenient that the minister's name is Pierre!

But the minister says: "No, no, no, no, no, that is not art; no, no, no, no, that should have been manufacturing in France in the nineteenth century". That is the exhibit that is in the gallery today. He says that that is not art, that they are reproductions which are being shown and they are not art. Because the Minister of Finance knows much better than the National Gallery, or generations of governments and scholars as to what is art, this is what the government is going to do. It is going to impose a 9 per cent sales tax on lithographs, on wood cuts, on serigraphs, on zinc plates, on lead plates and on any original print which up until the present time has been exempt from sales tax.
The assumption seems to be that it is very difficult to make a distinction between what is an original print and what is a mechanical reproduction. If it is difficult, let the error be made on the side of the artist. If a customs official or a government tax collector has difficulty distinguishing between an Elvis Presley poster and an Alex Colville print, because he does not know whether one is a mechanical reproduction or does not know the means of reproduction, let the error be made on the other side, not on the side of the artist.
I want to say on behalf of our motion that there have been extensive submissions to the government in respect of what is an original print, which is a term that is generally understood in the industry. It is a concept which is understood by artists, which has meaning and substance, and one which is generally understood. It was described most recently in an article written by Walter Jule which appeared in the Print and Drawing Council of Canada Newsletter, Volume 3, number 3, on page 4, and I should like to quote from it. It says:
An original print is a work of art that fulfils the following four requirements:
1.	The artist alone or in collaboration has created the master image or images in or upon the plate, stone, wood block, or other material for the purpose of creating the print.
2.	The image is conceived and develop within the print medium and does not constitute a reproduction of any image which existed previously in total in another medium.
3.	The print is made from the said material by the artist or pursuant to his directions.
4.	The finished print is approved by the artist.
I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Finance, with the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) and with officials in the Department of Finance, and so have representatives of the artistic community and Canadian artists. The minister has also had extensive correspondence with Mr. Robertson from the Professional Art Dealers Association of Canada. At any time any of these individuals, or those of us who put forward this amendment, would have been only too
pleased to sit down with the minister and say, "If you do not like our amendment and there is something bothering you about it and you want to improve it, we will be happy to discuss it and to go through any process of negotiation and discussion that is possible in order to protect that important principle."
This is not a principle that is going to grab headlines. It is not a principle that is going to grab headlines. It is not a principle that is going to cause great gnashing of teeth within the country. The government is right, it can get away with this. The artistic community will be upset, art dealers will be upset and so will a few art collectors; but the government says that is a minority of the population so what does it matter? The government says it will go ahead because it is easier and it is administratively more convenient just to tax everybody anyway.
I suppose if we were living in a totally monolithic society one would just say fine, that is a decision of the government and one has to just sit back and take it. I want to say to the minister that when the Secretary of State for Canada (Mr. Fox) stands up tonight and votes against this and says, "no, no, we are not going to accept this principle", he is flying in the face of the obligations of ministers of culture which are generally accepted across the western world. Even though he and the government might say, "no, no, we are not going to do it today", they are flying in the face of logic and in the face of what every person who has ever thought about this problem has concluded, and that is that there is a distinction between a work of art, which is the product of the direct application of the creativity of an individual in the print medium, and the mechanical, photographic or other reproduction of another work of art. There is a distinction between those. There is a distinction between the art of the stone exhibit which is going on currently at the National Gallery of Canada and the reproduction of an Elvis Presley poster. There is a distinction between that and the geese and ducks which the government has been paying so many millions of dollars for in order to tell people they are Canadians, as if they did not know that already.
I say to the minister that in a small way my experience in dealing with this problem has taught me more about the way in which the government operates and does not operate than many other experiences I have had. We have had meetings with the groups themselves. We have had discussions with the officials involved and we have tried to explain the very basic, simple distinction which is fundamental and which has been generally accepted and is part and parcel of our tax system as it has grown up over so long, and I find it absolutely amazing that the government would be unable to make that distinction.
Do you know why the government could not make that distinction, Mr. Speaker? It is because it decided it was administratively too difficult to make distinctions to keep up with the number of media being developed by artists. All that is saying is that the administration of our tax system cannot keep up with what is really going on in the world. Rather than applying its mind, imagination and sense of culture to this


problem, the government takes the easy, Philistine approach: "If it walks, we will tax it!" That is the approach.
In the government's mind there is no difference between a Xerox copy and prints which are produced in Eskimo co-operatives and native co-operatives throughout this country. This provides them with the only income they have, and it is a vital source of income. If that is not unbelievable, I do not know what is.
Where has the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) been? Has he been here to defend this policy? Has the Secretary of State come in here and said that the reason the government is doing this is because of its view as to what art is? Has any member of the government said that this is an aspect of its cultural policy?
Mir. Riis: Not one person has spoken.


Bob Rae: The minister has not spoken in this debate, and yet matters of tax are fundamental to a cultural policy. The government has moved in all sorts of areas to encourage production in certain media because it is concerned about what happens to Canadian artists, because it is concerned about Canadian jobs and because it is concerned about the impact of the American mass media on our way of life, our sense of identity and on the way in which we express ourselves in the world. Yet when it comes to a very simple and basic problem as to whether to tax artists who produce original prints, the government takes the basic and simple Philistine approach. That is what I have called it; it is probably too good a word for it. The government is not even conscious in the sense of understanding the nature of the distinction. The government just says, "Go ahead, we will tax it". It is easier to tax it than not to tax it, and this government cannot be bothered making a distinction.
All I can say about this proposal by the government is that it is so inane and flies so much in the face of what makes any sense that I can only hope and expect that, because of its inanity and its absurdity in the face of what is needed and what makes sense, the government will have to change its mind, if not this year then next year. Posters will all have to be changed. All the concepts will have to be changed. All the exhibits in Canada and the rest of the world will have to be changed. The government will have to tell all the art gallery dealers and all the cultural historians that really an original print is not a work of art but a piece of manufacture. The government will have to say that what the Inuit are producing is not art but simply mechanical reproduction, that they are engaged in manufacturing and might as well be producing nails, bolts, nuts or screws rather than expressing their heritage, their culture, their concern and their humanity in a unique way. To say that an original print is not a cultural activity, not an expression of a way of life and not an expression of one's humanity is absurd.
This is a small thing. It will not add a lot of revenue. But in a small way the government is doing just what I have said and
Excise Tax
it deserves to be ridiculed for it. It deserves to be condemned for it. It deserves to be the subject of publicity. We should let the artistic community know that when it came to make representations on a very simple matter, on a very fundamental matter, on a matter which is not one of earth-shattering or treasury-shattering principle but one which is absolutely fundamental to one's notion of culture and one's appreciation of cultural life, this government sat on its hands and did nothing. Let the record show that. I am glad the record will show that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we support the amendment and, in the interest of getting on to more important parts of the bill, I trust that we will move expeditiously toward the next clauses.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will not hold the House up for long, but I do want to say that man does not live by bread alone, and surely to goodness we do not expect a painter to repaint the same scene time and time again. If his only means of making a living is through original prints, surely it is unfair to tax them. If we do that, we kill initiative and kill creativity.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I confess that I am somewhat amazed at the relentlessness exhibited by the member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) in his effort to explain to us the cultural policy of the New Democratic Party and to link it up with a 9 per cent excise tax. I suggest it is not only a matter of making the distinction between what is a work of art and what is not, but rather of wondering what is the best government policy to support the arts and encourage artists to create original productions.
Precisely because the government is always endeavouring to tailor its cultural policy to all artistic circles in Canada, it has set up the Applebaum commission which is studying the problems inherent in artistic circles and will make its recommendations to the government. We will see what recommendations the commissioners make in their report. Will they say that the cultural policy ought to be geared to the excise tax and that encouragement to the arts should be restricted by repealing the excise tax on materials used by artists, or else will they recommend that the government expand the significant measures already being implemented both by the Secretary of State and by other organizations such as the Canada Council, and that we make more extensive use of those mechanisms with a view to promoting artistic production in Canada? I think it is within such a broader scope that we must examine how a government can lend its support to the artistic community and to the production of works of art instead of concentrating on a 9 per cent excise tax on a given production.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Excise Tax


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the motion is deferred.


Pierre Bussières: Motion No. 32.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause
38	by striking out line 13 at page 45 and substituting the following therefor: "Governor in council, which regulations may be made effective with reference to any period commencing on or after November 17, 1978."
He said: Mr. Speaker, quite briefly, this is a technical amendment, subparagraph (r) that is found on page 45 of this bill, which amends section 38 by allowing the Governor in Council to make regulations in order to identify certain manufacturers entitled to tax exemptions for machinery.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Bussieres, for Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Motion No. 33.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause
39	by striking out line 20 at page 45 and substituting the following therefor:
"dally designed for off-highway use, but including explosives for construction or demolition purposes) where,".
He said: Mr. Speaker, while this amendment is perhaps not as important as the debate we will be entering into shortly, for many construction firms in Canada it deals with a very important issue. Traditionally construction items have been tax exempt. This has reflected an effort by the federal government to encourage the construction industry. That industry
operates in every single community across Canada. For some particular reason this very important commodity, dynamite, used in the construction industry is now going to be taxed.
The construction industry made it clear to the finance committee that in many parts of Canada this can be a very important cost. Across the board with the industry as a whole the cost of dynamite is not a crucial cost element, but in British Columbia changes in elevation of 10,000 or 15,000 feet are not uncommon, such as in the Rockies or the coastal range, and blasting rock is a very important aspect of the housing construction industry.
What this amendment does, Mr. Speaker, is simply include in the legislation a clause that would exempt dynamite from the 9 per cent federal tax. This is in keeping with a tradition which has existed in the construction industry I suppose from the beginning, that items such as dynamite ought to receive tax exemption, which is simply what this motion does.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one comment. I agree entirely with the comments of the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). Not only in the Rockies, but in the case of Chipewayen in the Fort McMurray area there is almost solid rock and it is very expensive to get dynamite up there. There are many places like this where dynamite is as essential as a tractor or grader or any other equipment. It is a vital part of construction and I certainly support the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I urge members to reject this amendment and I remind them that if explosives among all other building materials were previously tax exempt, it was under the provisions of the Excise Tax Act related to the tariff item granting tax exemptions. It restores the balance, and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) tells me that it is the case of several of the items discussed, and he is quite right. A distinction is made between the principles underlying a tariff policy and the policies underlying the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act. These changes in the tax will make dynamite a taxable item as well as other equipment used for dynamiting, such as detonators and pads. Like all building materials, they will be subject to the excise tax. That is the explanation Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I should recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), but perhaps I can shorten the matter by saying that he has indicated the official opposition supports the amendment.
The question is on motion No. 33. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion (Mr. Riis) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House will now proceed to motion No. 35 standing in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen).


Pierre Bussières: Motion No. 35.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause 42 by striking out lines 14 to 20 at page 49 and substituting the following therefor:
"fuel-1.0 cents per litre.
2. For the purposes of section 1, "gasoline, premium, no lead" means gasoline Type 1 that has a lead content in mg/1 equal to or less than 13 mg/1, a phosphorous content equal to or less than 1.3 mg/1 and an anti-knock (Octane) Index of not less than
(i)	90.0 in the case of gasoline in eastern Canada (including all of Ontario) and coastal British Columbia,
(ii)	88.0 in the case of gasoline in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and
(iii)	87.0 in the case of gasoline in Alberta, interior British Columbia, the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories,
as determined by the methods referred to in "Standard for: Gasoline, Automotive, Unleaded 3-GP-5Ma" of November 1978 published by the Government of Canada Specifications Board;
"gasoline, grade 1" means gasoline Type 1 that has an anti-knock (Octane) Index of not less than
(i)	94.0 in the case of gasoline in eastern Canada (including all of Ontario) and coastal British Columbia,
(ii)	92.0 in the case of gasoline in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and
(iii)	90.5 in the case of gasoline in Alberta, interior British Columbia, the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories,
as determined by the methods referred to in "Standard for: Gasoline, Automotive 3-GP-1M" of November 1977 published by the Government of Canada Specifications Board;
"gasoline, grade 2" means gasoline Type 2 that has an anti-knock (Octane) Index of not less than
(i)	88.0 in the case of gasoline in eastern Canada (including all of Ontario) and coastal British Columbia,
(ii)	86.5 in the case of gasoline in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and
(iii)	85.5 in the case of gasoline in Alberta, interior British Columbia, the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories,
Excise Tax
as determined by the methods referred to in "Standard for: Gasoline, Automotive 3-GP-1M" of November 1977 published by the Government of Canada Specifications Board;
"gasoline, no lead" means gasoline Type 2 that has a lead content in mg/1 equal to or less than 13 mg/1, a phosphorous content equal to or less than 1.3 mg/1 and an anti-knock (Octane) Index of not less than
(i)	87.0 in the case of gasoline in eastern Canada (including all of Ontario)
and coastal British Columbia,
(ii)	85.0 in the case of gasoline in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and
(iii)	84.0 in the case of gasoline in Alberta, interior British Columbia, the
Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories,
as determined by the methods referred to in "Standard for: Gasoline, Automotive, Unleaded 3-GP-5Ma" of November 1978 published by the Government of Canada Specifications Board;
"diesel fuel" means fuel oil that is suitable for use in internal combustion engines of the compression-ignition type." "
He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. To my mind, this amendment will do away with the need for the various types and grades of gas to be set and defined by an order of the Governor in Council, as was done until now by regulation, by defining and classifying within the act itself the various types and grades of gas. That should satisfy many hon. members who feel existing regulations under our various acts are far too vague and gave far too much leeway. We thus do away with a provision that used to be implemented by regulation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have no objection to it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion (Mr. Bussieres for Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House may now wish to consider motions Nos. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43, which have been grouped by the Speaker for debate with the question to be put on motion No. 36. After that it may become complicated.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) moved:: Motion No. 36.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 43.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate over the past hour and a half and I think it illustrates very clearly the odious nature of this closure motion brought by the government on this very complex bill.
We have heard a number of very worthwhile proposals for changes in the bill as it has been presented. In looking at the number of motions we have to consider as yet in the next two and a quarter hours, there is no possible way we can give proper consideration to the very important oil and natural gas


Excise Tax
elements of Bill C-57 as well as the fuel alcohol amendments. For us to rush this through, have a vote and then an abbreviated third reading consideration tomorrow is entirely inappropriate to the importance and impact this legislation will have in this country. It is a sad day for Parliament and this country that these very important elements of the government's energy program will be rushed through without proper consideration.
In Bill C-57-I am addressing the natural gas tax but my remarks also apply to the production tax-the government has put forward the most important legislative elements in its National Energy Program. They are the elements which have the most immediate impact in that the taxes will be felt right away. But they are also those elements which will have the most far reaching and long-lasting impact since the taxes levied as a result of Bill C-57 will cause action to be taken over the next one, two or five years that will affect us for years and years from now.
We had in committee a very abbreviated consideration of this legislation. We had witnesses covering all aspects of the bill, but the government would not allow it to be considered by the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works where the oil and natural gas elements should have been considered.
When we look at the very short consideration, the report stage here and third reading tomorrow, it is shocking to consider what we are doing in such a short period of time. I have to wonder why the government is rushing these things through so quickly, particularly when one considers that the natural gas tax has been declared unconstitutional by the Alberta Court of Appeal. Just yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments as to whether that ruling should be upheld.
This tax is obviously the most odious part of the whole energy program as far as Alberta is concerned, because it is the one tax they took to their Court of Appeal and which is now in the Supreme Court. They have opposed it right from the start of negotiations between the two levels of government, and to force closure at a very sensitive part in the negotiations to me is totally wrong and insensitive to the considerations of the various participants in those negotiations.
The excise tax on natural gas represents a triple whammy on natural gas producers in this country. Later today we will be considering the PGRT, the production tax. The natural gas tax itself, together with the fact that prices for natural gas at the wellhead will not increase over 1981, represents a compounded three-way penalty on Canadian gas producers. It will set back production as well as exploration of natural gas for a number of years.
Prior to the issuance of the Liberal energy program, we heard about the severe cash flow problems many gas producers were facing. Today we are discovering that wells will be shut in for five to six years from now. The federal government price policy has priced Canadian natural gas out of the United States market. The result is that gas discoveries today are
treated with a shrug of the shoulders. Companies really do not want them, but they are making discoveries because there are ample amounts of natural gas in Canada.
The excise tax has been called by most observers an export tax as it relates to sales to the United States. The Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of that, and its constitutionality is now being considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is an important factor in the deadlock between Alberta and the federal government which has resulted in many of the adverse reactions of the province of Alberta to the Liberal energy program.
When one sits back and wonders whether it is a fair tax, one must ask what other forms of energy are being exported. If a tax is to be put on the export of natural gas, why is it not put on the export of electricity, which amounts to approximately $1 billion a year, or on the export of coal and uranium? These are all forms of energy which are being exported, yet only one element is being singled out. One must question the objective approach of the government toward taxation in order to assess whether it is an appropriate tax. If it is the only source of energy which is being taxed at the border, it is not equitable. This is why we are proposing a deletion of this tax in its entirety.
The government has indicated that it will steamroll ahead and force this tax through by the use of closure. Then I must ask myself where the government has been over the last three or four months when people came forward with suggestions on amendments. For example, the co-operative gas association of Alberta indicated that it did not receive the moneys on the sale of gas in Alberta for 45 or 60 days. The association asked the government if the payment period could be extended from 30 days to 90 days, but there was no response. The government has not paid any attention to the fact that this is causing a cash flow problem for that important element of the gas distribution system in Canada, particularly the critical element of it in the province of Alberta.
Other people have suggested that the new tax should not apply on natural gas used in the food producing industry, particularly in the manufacture of fertilizers. I hope the minister of state will respond to these questions. Why has the government not put forward an amendment to exempt natural gas used in the manufacture of fertilizers? It would keep food prices down and lower the costs of farmers in the production of food.
Inflation is running at 12 per cent to 13 per cent, food prices are in excess of that, and fertilizers are a very important element in the production of food, yet no consideration is given to the very important request to remove the excise tax. It is another illustration of the insensitivity of the government in the whole battle against inflation. The government is much more the cause of inflation, this is becoming clearer every day.
Another result of this gas tax is that the exploration budgets of gas producers have been chopped by 30 per cent and, in some cases, by as much as 40 per cent. It is not only the gas tax, it is the pricing policy of the government for natural gas, as well as the impact of the production tax. The only element


of the country which is benefiting from this tax is the federal government. It is part of the massive tax grab introduced on October 28 in the National Energy Program.
Another result is that independent companies not as strongly capitalized as the multinationals have found their capacity to obtain financing from the banks and from the marketplace has diminished significantly. These are the companies which were supposed to be helped by the Canadianization program of the government. They are sending money out of the country because the environment in Canada is not favourable by a considerable margin when compared with the environment in the United States, the most readily available place in which to invest that money. The netback to producers in the production of natural gas is approximately one-fifth or one-sixth of the netback in the United States. The United States has not moved to deregulate the price of natural gas as yet, which, if it did, would increase the disparity between the two countries.
One of the objectives of the National Energy Program is Canadianization, and the tax in itself is hurting the companies which were supposed to be helped. This clearly points out the inconsistency between the objectives of the program and its actual impact. We have said time and again that we accept the objectives of the program. We think they are laudible and we support them, but they are totally undermined by the taxation policies. I will illustrate another element in this regard later on when we deal with the production tax.
This tax is a very important factor in the deadlock between the two levels of government in terms of reaching an over-all pricing agreement for oil and natural gas. If we do not achieve an early resolution of the deadlock, the megaprojects, the Alsands and the Cold Lake project, will be scrapped; the Syncrude expansion will be deferred for a number of years or possibly scrapped; our reliance upon imported oil from countries such as Mexico and the more unstable ones of the Middle East will increase; our over-all objective of self-sufficiency in energy will be set back. I will return to that area in the debate on the production tax.
It is critically important that this government rethink and withdraw this tax on natural gas and gas liquids if we are to move ahead and achieve some rational approach, some understanding within the country as to the over-all objectives which can be accepted by all parts of the country, not just here on Booth Street in Ottawa. It is important during these negotiations between the two levels of government that consideration be given to that point.
I understand that a letter or telegram was sent by the Alberta government to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) asking for the natural gas tax and the production tax to be withdrawn until the negotiations are completed. I ask the minister of state why that request was not honoured when we are right in the most sensitive part of the negotiations, particularly when the Supreme Court was considering yesterday whether that tax was legal. I question whether this House should be debating and voting on a tax which has
Excise Tax
been declared illegal, but that is the position in which the government has put us.
I will complete my remarks here, Mr. Speaker. What I have said clearly sets out why we are opposed to this tax. There will be others in my party who will be discussing certain other elements of this issue. I urge the government to seriously consider the amendment which we have put forward to delete the tax entirely.


Mr. Cullen:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) is rising on a point of order with respect to the other motions which have been grouped for debate, is that right?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: I will try to dispose of that and an additional problem which has arisen, particularly with respect to the hon. member's motion No. 38 and the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), who is not in the chamber at the moment. Perhaps one of his colleagues will take note of what I have to say.
To begin with, when I indicated to the House that we were dealing with motions Nos. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 I did not think it was necessary for me to indicate in whose name each one of those motions stands. For procedural purposes, if hon. members prefer I will do that. I understood that each and every one of those motions is up for debate, including that of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton.
I have a second problem, that is, that Madam Speaker's ruling relating to motions Nos. 38 and 39 does not leave me completely clear in my own mind as to whether or not, should the House defer the vote on motion No. 36, the result is that I should put the question to the House on motions Nos. 37 and 38. I do not think, whether or not the question is put, that will have any adverse effect on the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap or on the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton since, in my view, they would have to come forward again this evening for consideration on yeas and nays following the House order put forward yesterday.
If either of those two members makes it clear to the Chair that for some reason they have some concern with the ruling I am making now, I would rather assure them of their right to have their motions brought immediately to yeas and nays, and regardless of the outcome with respect to motion No. 36 I would, following that, put motions Nos. 37 and 38 to the House on nays and yeas, if those hon. members feel that their rights are better protected in that fashion.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in my discussion with the Chair my one concern was that I thought these motions were all grouped together and that it was necessary to put them, we could debate them and the votes could come in due course. If motions Nos. 36 and 37 were not in fact carried, then the Chair would move immediately to motion No. 38. If they were


Excise Tax
carried then obviously my motion would have no authority because there would not be a section there to amend. I thought that the Chair would have to put the motions first, naming the mover and seconder, in order to have them before the House for discussion, and then the votes would follow in the normal course. But I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker, as long as I can speak on my motion during this particular stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is satisfied that there is no question of the hon. member having lost his right to speak as a result of the way in which I introduced the motions. Lest there be any problem we will dispose of that issue immediately. I will deal with each of the motions and put them before the House. I referred to them by group and by numbers. Now I will deal with them individually.
Pursuant to the order of Madam Speaker motion No. 36 standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) is now before the House. Also before the House is motion No. 37 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) (for Mr. Waddell), seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae); motion No. 38 standing in the name of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), seconded by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Demers); motion No. 39 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (for Mr. Riis), seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood; motion No. 40 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (for Mr. Waddell), seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood; motion No. 41 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (for Mr. Waddell), seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood; motion No. 42 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (for Mr. Waddell), seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood; and motion No. 43 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (for Mr. Waddell), seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.
To assure the rights of hon. members the Chair will undertake to put yeas and nays on motions Nos. 38 and 39 regardless of the outcome on motions Nos. 36 and 37.


Mark Willson Rose: Motion No. 37.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting clause 43.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Motion No. 38.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 43
(a)	by striking out lines 42 and 43 at page 50 and substituting the following
therefor:
"or the remaining marketable pipeline gas are not further processed, and
includes an installation in Canada at which natural gas liquids are separated into their individual components and are not further processed;"
(b)	by striking out lines 21 to 24 at page 54 and substituting the following
therefor:
"liquids;"
(c)	by striking out lines 34 to 38 at page 55 and substituting the following
therefor:
"able pipeline gas or natural gas liquids; or".


Mark Willson Rose: Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 43
(a)	by striking out line 26 at page 59 and substituting the following therefor: "for the month three months previous, which return"
(b)	by striking out line 33 at page 59 and substituting the following therefor: "month three months previous, make a return as"
(c)	by striking out line 3 at page 60 and substituting the following therefor: "third month succeeding that in which the".


Mark Willson Rose: Motion No. 40.
May 14, 1981-That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting clause 44.


Mark Willson Rose: Motion No. 41.
May 14, 1981-That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting clause 45.


Mark Willson Rose: Motion No. 42.
May 14, 1981-That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting clause 46.


Mark Willson Rose: Motion No. 43.
May 14, 1981-That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting clause 47.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who preceded me, I am sorry that we do not have more time to debate this particular issue. I do not think it is because the government brought in time allocation on this particular part of the bill; it is because of the fact that we have something in excess of 130 amendments to consider. Of course, using up the time of the House for this piece of legislation and suggesting that we have a long debate on each section would be impractical, so the government has taken the only approach it could take by bringing in time allocation. Thus, we are required to debate the motions in which we are particularly interested. Had the opposition moved a more reasonable number of amendments, which is the normal course at report stage, I think we could have had a better debate.
My remarks deal primarily with my motion No. 38. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) presented his budget last October, it included a notice of a ways and means motion which established a natural gas and gas liquids tax. That motion exempted from tax the fuel gas used to fraction-


ate natural gas liquids, as long as the fractionation took place in a "gas reprocessing plant"-I am reading from the notice. In the notice a gas reprocessing plant was defined as "an installation in Canada at which natural gas liquids are removed from marketable pipeline gas".
Only two plants in Canada, including Dome's Sarnia plant and Chevron's Fort Saskatchewan plant, limit their operations to fractionating natural gas liquids, and as such the exemption provided for in the October motion missed these two plants.
On January 22, 1981 the minister tabled a second notice of ways and means motion which amended the definition of gas reprocessing plant, as the department's news release suggested, to clarify that the exemption "will be available only in respect of fuels used in producing marketable pipeline gas or removing natural gas liquids from gas".
If that in fact was the case, I would not be presenting the amendment today. The fact is that the fractionation of natural gas liquids is a necessary part of producing marketable pipeline gas. Furthermore, those plants that remove the liquids from the gas and then fractionate them are not only capable of but are in fact allocating part or all of the waste heat generated from the removal process to the fractionation process, thus substantially reducing, and in some cases totally eliminating, the need for fuel gas to carry out the fractionation process; and hence, substantially reducing, if not eliminating altogether, the incidence of the fuel gas tax.
This opportunity to allocate the waste heat to the taxable fractionation process does not exist for Dome's plant in Sarnia or Chevron's plant in Fort Saskatchewan, because distance has intervened, making it impossible to recover waste heat from the removal process. In Sarnia's case, 2,000 miles separate the fractionation of the liquids from their removal from the gas stream in plants out west. The net result of both motions is that Dome's Sarnia plant and Chevron's Fort Saskatchewan plant will bear the brunt of the tax on the fuel gas used to fractionate natural gas liquids.
Here, then, lies the discrimination. The amendment that is presently before Your Honour in my name will cure the discrimination without in any way extending the exemption. Singling out Dome's Sarnia plant, a highly fuel-efficient operation accounting for 40 per cent of Canada's production of natural gas liquids, and Chevron's Fort Saskatchewan plant, for imposition of the fuel gas tax, will be viewed by the industry as a disincentive to locate such facilities in eastern Canada, or for that matter anywhere away from where the liquids are removed from the gas stream. Firms that look to Sarnia to build or expand their fractionation facilities should not be faced with the disincentive that Bill C-57's definition of "gas reprocessing plant" would create.
Indeed, as I speak to you today, those plants in western Canada which carry out the dual processing and fractionation function, together with Dome's Sarnia plant, accounting for over 90 per cent of Canada's production of natural gas liquids, are in fact allocating secondary heat recovery to the fractiona-
Excise Tax
tion function and are apparently doing so with the knowledge and tacit approval of the Department of Finance.
For example, Petro-Canada's gas reprocessing plant at Empress allocates 100 per cent of its secondary heat to the fractionation part of its operation, thus entirely eliminating the impact of the fuel gas tax on fractionation of the natural gas liquids. Neither Dome's Sarnia operation nor Chevron's Fort Saskatchewan operation have had that opportunity.
I have raised this issue with the department. I am not certain about Chevron, but I know that Dome has raised it with the department. It seems to me that when they recognize the flaw, if you will, in the first notice of ways and means motion, that was the reason for bringing in the second notice of ways and means motion; but it, in effect, is as discriminatory as the first one.
I am not suggesting that any plant dealing in this particular way with the fractionation of material would not locate in Sarnia, eastern Canada or away from the original plant simply because of this tax; but certainly, it is a disincentive. Plants move to areas like Sarnia because there is a market in the immediate environs, and particularly in the United States. There is a better market for them there, and they can work hand in glove with other petrochemical industries in the Sarnia-Lambton area. However, this is a disincentive which impacts solely on two plants in Canada at the present time-as I said, Dome in Sarnia and Chevron in Fort Saskatchewan.
For that reason, we have suggested an amendment, and I have put it on the books, which would eliminate this discrimination, would not in any way extend the exemption which is granted, and would be fair to all plants concerned. They would be able to move or to locate either at the site of the original plant or would be able to move, as in the case of Chevron and Dome, several miles away from the original source. Therefore, I commend this for the House's attention.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to raise a matter of correction as to what the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) has said. He is usually an honest, straightforward member of Parliament.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Usually?


Thomas Gordon Towers: However, this time he seems to be just completely off the rails. The reason there are so many amendments to this piece of legislation is simply because it is such an obnoxious piece of legislation. I have never seen anything like this in the House in nine years. Never before has a government implemented a piece of legislation which is as inflationary as Bill C-57 which is before us. The multiplying effect on the cost of living which will result will be tremendous in the next few years. I hope that the backbenchers opposite will see the error of their ways and stop supporting the minister in what he is trying to do, not only to the service industries which we are talking about, but to the Canadian people as well.
The very basic requirement of life, that of heating our homes, will be taxed. Everyone must heat their homes in one


Excise Tax
form or another. If one does not use gas, one uses oil. It is a requirement; and yet this government sees fit to tax it.
My colleague, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), referred to people from Alberta who came down and pleaded with our committee, with the minister and with the cabinet not to tax natural gas, but that if the government was bound to go ahead with it, to please give them at least 90 days to collect the tax rather than force them to borrow money at the bank to pay the tax to government before they even had an opportunity to collect it. Your Honour is a fair-minded person and I am sure that you would agree with me that it is deliberately dishonest for a government to do that to a segment of our population.
The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton just said that it was discriminatory. I would ask the minister what other piece of legislation has this government or any government ever put in place which forced the people involved to pay the tax before it was collected? I am sure it has never happened before. It is wrong. I am simply amazed that the government would not give some consideration to that aspect of the bill.
Further, as I said, the tax in the bill itself is inflationary. At this particular time we hear cries for help. I see the chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in the House this afternoon. He knows the situation of farmers. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture made a presentation to us. They explained the serious condition which farmers are in financially. What does this government do? It puts a tax on natural gas so that the price of chemicals will go higher. Does that make sense? How can the government go back and face its farm friends when it is doing that? It was stated earlier today that as far as costs are concerned, fertilizer is just going through the roof. Fertilizers use natural gas as a base and so do chemicals. The deputy minister of one department in this government, the Department of Agriculture, has stated that the farmers will have to increase production 50 per cent in the next ten years. I have news for Your Honour. 1 will wager that the farmers will not be in a position to do that if the government continues to allow these costs to escalate as it is doing. It is not only allowing this to happen, but it is also causing and creating the problem. Farmers have enough problems with weather, climatic conditions, high cost of machinery, repairs and labour. However, when the government puts an excessive load on, it changes what it is doing. It changes its plans. Everyone will suffer as a consequence.
I do not plan to take too much time this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, as I know my colleague from Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) wants to speak along the same lines. I wanted to bring to your attention and that of hon. members opposite what is happening to the agricultural industry in the province of Alberta. Not only will Albertans suffer, but farmers across Canada will suffer. The Alberta Gas Co-operative is the group that will be hurt by the imposition of this tax when it turns out that they have to give it to the Department of National Revenue prior to having collected it.
At this late date, I hope that the minister will change his policy and give a little bit of relief to those who are going to be hurt the most.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a loud "hear, hear" to the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). I also want to indicate to the House why this party is opposed to the export tax on natural gas, why it is opposed to the government's general taxing policy on natural gas, and in particular I want to deal with the problem of the co-operatives.
As has been indicated, this party has moved an amendment which would require the government to give an extra 90 days to the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops Ltd. and to other co-operative enterprises, so that they will not have to borrow from the banks at 23 per cent or 24 per cent, or from the credit unions at a little less, in order to pay their taxes.
With respect to the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), we are concerned that the government is, in a sense, doing two things. First of all, it is relying for a substantial amount of revenue on a commodity which, in our view, should not be exported in such amounts.
Second, in an incoherent, a selective and discriminatory way, it has chosen to levy a tax against the export of natural gas but not against the export of anything else. I want to correct that statement, Mr. Speaker; there is a tax on the export of oil. At this time in our history, when the tensions between producing provinces and consuming provinces are as great as they are, to say that we are going to single out a commodity which is of value and importance to producing provinces and tax it, but that we are not going to tax the export of hydro-electricity, for example, is unwise. Imagine the consequences in the province of Quebec if the federal government decided to export hydro-electricity! Imagine the consequences in the province of Ontario if the government decided to tax the export of hydro-electricity!
What makes it so clearly discriminatory is that in that part of the country where the government has no support, no political base, no constituency that it is afraid of alienating, that is where it decided to go after the tax on exports. If the government had decided that all exports of energy would be taxed, I would have thought it would do it in a way that is fair. But the government is responding to its own immediate, short-term political interests, its own immediate, short-term political constituency.
I do not challenge the legal or constitutional right of the government to tax an export. Of course it has the legal right to do that. But if it taxes things in a way that is discriminatory and that is bound to increase the feelings of tension and hardship that exist between and among Canadians, then it should be condemned. The government deserves a chance to change its mind, which we are attempting to do this afternoon in this vain exercise of trying to get it to move.
I do not want to deal in any detail with the National Energy Program or to the taxation PGRT problem and its effect on


provincial revenues and on federal-provincial economic relations. We will deal with that when those motions are before us.
I want to agree profoundly with what the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) said about the effect of the natural gas tax on agricultural costs, on the problem of inflation, and in particular the impact on one group of producers, the co-operative producers.
The illusion of government policy, both with respect to interest rates and higher prices for natural gas, is that somehow these policies will combat inflation. How often have we heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) say that high interest rates are necessary in order to combat inflation? If we look at what is going on in the agricultural industry in Canada today and if we speak to farmers, no matter what commodity they produce, we can see that policies which force them to cut back production because they cannot afford to continue will reduce supplies. Any policy that reduces supply will have a disastrous effect on the price of fuel in Canada. The writing is on the wall, Mr. Speaker.
Recently I talked to beef producers in the province of Ontario and to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. When they are asked what will happen to beef supplies in this country as a result of interest rates and the pricing policies of the government, they have plenty to say. In the years to come we will find out what is going to happen. It will not take long for that cycle to come home to the government. We should take note of this, Mr. Speaker-the matter was raised today in the House, as it has been raised in the past. If policies are introduced which have the effect of restricting production, that is a recipe for inflation out of control. The writing is on the wall, clear as day. We can see the effect on concentration; we can see the effect on the destruction of the family farm; we can see the effect on reducing competition and income security in agriculture because of the interest rate policy. It will have an effect on inflation as sure as the sun comes up in the morning, Mr. Speaker.
Try as it might, there is no way that the government can convince the farmers to continue production flat out, and to continue investment flat out, when they are paying 23 per cent, 24 per cent or 25 per cent for the money invested in their operation. For the government to claim that that kind of policy is anti-inflationary is a bogus argument, it is nonsensical and it is discouraging to the forces of commonsense in this House.
Quite apart from the interest rate policy, Mr. Speaker, we have the additional fact that the increases in the price of natural gas, which are a result of the government's taxation, are having a dramatic effect on the cost of fertilizer. The hon. member for Red Deer questioned the logic of this. The cost to the farmer is increased across the board; the cost of financing of fertilizer and items absolutely essential to his production is increased. As a result, the farmer either buys less, in which case he produces less, or his productivity increases less, he goes out of business or he passes the increased costs on to the consumer; otherwise he cannot survive. I do not see the logic of this, Mr. Speaker.
Excise Tax
I have never accepted the principle, nor has this party, that the price of natural gas should be arbitrarily tied to the price of oil. Nor have we accepted the principle, which I will come to later when I talk about the PGRT, that it necessarily makes economic sense for the federal government to increase its take at the expense of the consumer or at the expense of the producer, simply in order to gain revenues. When you come to the items of principle, the items of grand policy, such as the PGRT and the export tax, there are basic divisions of opinion in this House over that policy. One does not always expect the government to move. We have had a number of these items going through.
There was a very detailed, practical presentation from the Alberta Federation of Gas Co-ops. They made a very specific presentation. They came in with their bills and showed us how much it cost. They showed what the revenue was and what their collection pattern was. They came to the government with a very simple, basic request.
They do not like the tax and do not want to pay the tax. However, they are law-abiding citizens and as long as the tax is legal, they will pay it. All they are asking for is a little bit of time, in this case 90 days, so they will not have to borrow from the bank in order to pay the government. This is co-operative enterprise. They are making a simple request for time. Just as with the artists, to all the requests, the ones that are reasonable, the ones of principle, which cause a division in the House of Commons and on which one does not always expect the government to move, items big and small, the government has one response, no.
I hope the minister has an explanation for the gas co-ops in Alberta that makes a little more sense than the explanation he has given us at this time. The convenience to the government is what is primarily and obviously fundamental. The concerns of a group of people who are not trying to make a few bucks but simply trying to face the problem of being asked to pay money they have not yet collected are not important to this government. They are being asked to pay revenues for the use of gas which they have yet to collect themselves. It is a sales tax on sales which have not yet been collected. It is the equivalent of that. It is like asking a manufacturer in the province of Ontario to pay a tax on goods which he has not yet produced. That is the illogicality of what the government is asking the gas co-ops to do. I would have thought it more reasonable for the government to say it will give them time to collect this money and then they can pay after it is collected. They are not asking for unlimited time; they are asking for 90 days.
I thought the government would see the wisdom of not causing undue and unnecessary hardship to taxpayers who are prepared to pay a tax even when they object to it strenuously. They are prepared to be law-abiding citizens. All they want is a little understanding of what goes into making their industry. As is so often the case with this government, it does not care what goes on in the working of any particular industry. All it is


Excise Tax
interested in is collecting the money and devil take the hindmost.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very short intervention on motion No. 36 which deletes clause 43 providing for the natural gas and gas liquids tax. I will raise just two points, the impact of this gas on my home city of Medicine Hat, and some comments to add to what we have heard about the implications of this tax on rural Alberta, in fact the effect of the tax on every farmer who uses either natural gas or fertilizer. There is an incredible impact on that group.
This is one of the two natural gas taxes that is unfair and unreasonable to my home city of Medicine Hat. As a modern city of 40,000 today, it owes its very beginning of almost 100 years ago to the discovery, development and use of natural gas. Medicine Hat is probably the only city in Canada that had the good sense and farsightedness to develop its own public utilities, and that includes the development of electrical power.
1 remind the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) of the very reasonable brief presented to the committee by Mayor Ted Grimm and Alderman Dr. Ken Sauer of Medicine Hat on the implications of these two taxes, especially this one, on our city. They pointed out quite properly that there is no precedent for such a tax on a city-owned public utility.
This specific tax has amounted to approximately $3 million since being implemented. It has been paid monthly by the city, but under protest. The mayor and city council take the view that the city is not liable for this tax.
I want to refer very briefly to the government's appraisal of the city council's presentation to the committee. It reads:
Exempting the city of Medicine Hat would set a precedent for exempting all other public utilities such as B.C. Hydro and Saskatchewan Power Corporation. This would severely restrict the general application of the tax.
That was the government's appraisal on the city's presentation. I submit it would not set a precedent since B.C. Hydro and Saskatchewan Power are not a separately owned city utility or anything like it. That is a rather ridiculous comment to make about a reasonable presentation that came before the committee.
I want to make a few comments on the impact of this tax on rural Alberta or, essentially, on the farmers there. I remind the House, especially the minister, of the appearance before the committee of the members of the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops and their concern about the immediate and very severe increase in fertilizer costs since the manufacture of most fertilizers involves natural gas. They pointed out quite properly that the end result of this is to add significantly to food cost production, which is so important these days. They also made a very reasonable request for an extra 60 days to pay the tax. I again refer to the government's appraisal comments on this request which was referred to by two other members. It reads:
While it is easy to sympathize with this request, other taxpayers could also make similar claims. For example, gas distributors often receive gas during the summer on which tax is paid and then store it for later distribution to consumers. To extend the time of payment for the tax for all taxpayers would be costly in terms of lost revenue.
I suggest with the greatest respect that no revenue would be lost by extending the time. It would extend the time for the beginning. After that, the regular income would come to the government. It is as simple as that. Again I quote from the appraisal as follows:
Given that the federal tax is not imposed at the retail level, it is not possible to match the timing of the tax remittance with the actual receipt from the final consumer. The average 45 day lag in remittance has generally been found acceptable by the business community for federal sales tax purposes.
I should add that rural gas co-operatives and rural gas users do not store gas before they use it. It comes in through an enormous gas distribution system where it is flowing all the time. They use it constantly. The appraisal comments of the government on this request, which is very reasonable, entirely miss the boat. I urge the Minister of State for Finance to reconsider this.
Finally, I want to make a brief additional comment about the Federation of Gas Co-ops presentation. They pointed out that this particular tax and the PGRT work against the National Energy Program and the gas conversion proposal which is now being implemented, if only because the government is increasing the price of gas at the very beginning. Surely this is not the way to go about promoting an otherwise commendable part of that program to convert to natural gas. If you are going to boost the gas by two taxes before it ever gets into the pipeline, I think you are making this all the more difficult to begin with, and that is not the way to promote an otherwise commendable policy.
I should like to close by reminding the House of the very generous offer made by the Federal Gas Co-ops in Alberta to assist other provinces in the conversion, in the rural areas especially, as a result of their experience in providing gas to over 80 per cent of farm users in Alberta. They made a very generous offer and I think they should be commended for that very worthy gesture.
While I appreciate the fact that the Minister of State for Finance is in his place participating, I would ask where the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is. His absence is conspicuous. This is the time of the debate, when we are down to the final stages, when he of all people should be in the House to hear the debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I too take a great deal of pleasure in rising to speak to this collection of motions and once again register for our party virtually the rage we are feeling when discussing these kinds of problems. What motivates that, Mr. Speaker, is that I recall very vividly the two groups that appeared before the finance committee, chaired by a most able chairman who stood out in my mind as being serious and having spent a great deal of time and effort preparing thoughtful briefs. They presented briefs in a very positive and, I would say, somewhat optimistic way. Those representatives were from the city of Medicine Hat, referred to by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), and the natural gas co-ops from Alberta.


The co-ops were before us again to protest against having to pay this particular tax, but recognizing that it was likely to be inevitable, they asked for some consideration in terms of the frequency of payment. They asked for 90 days within which to pay this tax in order to avoid going to the chartered banks of Canada to borrow the money. How on earth could anyone, let alone the government, say no, knowing it would collect the tax in the end and force the co-ops to go to the banks to borrow at excessive interest rates to make the payments? How could anyone say in all seriousness that that is an appropriate step? We will be waiting with some anxiety for the Minister of State for Finance to respond to that particular concern.
The municipality of Medicine Hat appeared before us. That is a city whose council a number of years ago had the foresight to recognize a valuable resource and develop it to advantage. That was a city council which had the vision to utilize a resource at hand, and as a result was able to provide a very attractive feature to industry for consideration in their decision-making process as to where they would or would not locate. They were attracted to the area of Medicine Hat because of the relatively low cost of energy, and also because of the fact the municipality used natural gas to generate power and light the street lights of the community and so on.
I cannot for the life of me understand why a government would say it was going to tax a municipality that is unique in Canada; it does not care, it is going to tax that municipality anyway. This is a small municipality relative to the rest of urban Canada, but the government says it does not have any particular compassion, it does not recognize the efforts of the municipality over the decades to develop this resource, it is going to impose the tax. I do not know why we do not have a government which could show a little more compassion, a government which says it appreciates and recognizes the wise decision that city has taken in developing the resource over the years to the benefit of its citizens and, indeed, the residents of Southern Alberta and indirectly the citizens of Canada.
My colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) spoke eloquently at some length about the multiplier effect of this tax and how it is going to touch the lives of so many Canadians; one could almost say all Canadians because it will result in higher food costs.
Just the other day we witnessed a demonstration in front of the Parliament buildings by a group of women protesting rising prices. They told story after story of personal incidents of which they were aware of families having difficulty putting food on their tables. This is occurring in what is probably the richest country in the world. Families are having difficulty in many cases in many parts of Canada putting food on their tables. This particular tax on natural gas will result in even higher food prices.
In the last number of weeks I have had the opportunity of visiting with a number of cattlemen, dairymen, orchardists and market gardeners in my riding, and every single one of those individuals is extremely concerned about the viability of their venture in the next number of years. Right now they are simply making payments and they are certainly not consider-
Excise Tax
ing expansion in the food business. They are cutting back almost to the last individual, selling off land and reducing production simply because the interest rates are killing them. Now we are going to hit them with this tax which will make their costs even greater.
As the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood stated, this is going to come back to haunt us in a few months just as certainly as the sun is going to rise tomorrow. This is the beginning of a process and we will see the impact of this on Canadian families in the next number of days and weeks.
As a western member let me ask why it is that the government is taxing these particular resources, natural gas and oil? Why is the government not putting a tax on water and why is it not putting a tax on electricity? I suggest it is because this would have implications which would raise the ire of certain provinces of Canada. Why is it the government is essentially choosing two, or three provinces in Canada in this particular legislation, saying it is going to levy a tax on the people living in those three provinces? Why does the government not tax electricity?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We did.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why don't you place a tax on hydro resources?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We did.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Well, we do not any longer. In my own province of British Columbia hydro resources are not taxed, and hydro resources in Ontario and Quebec are not taxed, but natural gas and oil are. What about coal, do we levy a tax on it as an energy form? We do not. We just levy a tax on very selective energy resources. Can anybody explain why that is not discriminatory, identifying two resources out of many and saying those two are to be taxed but not others? Coal and hydroelectricity are resources which are not taxed in this country. They are energy sources which are found across the country, but we have selected out essentially one province-at the most, three-and are taxing it. Is that fair? How on earth can anyone suggest we are treating the regions of Canada equally? As a western member of the House of Commons I feel extremely bitter about what I see as a very discriminatory act.
During the constitutional discussions our party wanted to make the case very strongly that we felt that resources should come under provincial control. We moved an appropriate motion to see that that would occur in the ultimate statement of Canadian law. Yet we see here an obvious infringement in that area. It has been taken to the courts, and the courts have ruled. As the hon. member who spoke previously this afternoon said, even now it is before the Supreme Court of Canada. Here we are during these very delicate and sensitive times of negotiation ramming this through and obviously not caring particularly about this infringement into this provincial area of jurisdiction.
I could go on and on just on this matter, let alone discussing what Bill C-57 would do to the artists of Canada, the disabled


Excise Tax
and many others. Quite frankly, it is difficult to understand the motivation across the aisle. I read with interest the justification presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) as to why the government ignored all the briefs presented. On page after page the justification was that one proposal was silly and another inappropriate. It was suggested that a certain group had obviously not done its homework. The justification amounts to a very arrogant set of statements. It is a reflection of that attitude when we hear hon. members opposite shout "nay" to motions which any rational and sensible person would have to agree are certainly credible.
With that I will allow other colleagues to comment on this very crucial part of Bill C-57. We will have more to say about other motions when they come up after dinner.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, briefly with respect to the natural gas tax, this tax of 30 cents an Mcf now, another 15 cents to come due on July 1, another 15 cents on January 1 and another the following January 1, to run to a total of 75 cents per Mcf, is unrealistic and wrong.
First let me deal with the export tax feature. It was intended when the budget was introduced in October that we as Canadians would be able to raise our export price of natural gas by 30 cents an Mcf very quickly after the imposition of the tax and that by February we could do that so that in effect the foreign purchaser would be paying that 30 cents. What in fact has happened is that it has not been possible, and consequently the tax has come back on the producer of the gas.
With respect to the tax against the producers of the product, what we are really doing is taxing the producer, and taxing him almost on a royalty basis. Surely any royalty which is attributable to a natural product should be collected by a province. I am not saying for one moment that the federal government has no right to levy taxes, but the federal government's basic right to levy taxes on products is at the manufacturer's level. This tax is levied on virtually a raw product or an input, so it winds up being passed on and on.
For example, we do not charge tax on wood cut for pulp. We charge a sales tax on paper. The reason we do not charge a tax on the input is that we want to bring about further production and further improvement in the product. We do not want our tax at the initial level passed on and on in higher prices so that people must obtain markups on products, so we charge tax at the manufacturer's level.
This tax is bad because it attempts to tax natural gas and natural gas liquids. It does not tax on a separate basis the end product from the manufacturing use of natural gas. For example, if we are going to use natural gas for the manufacture of fertilizer, it is perfectly proper, if this government wants to tax fertilizer, to tax fertilizer by the pound or tonne or however it wants to tax it. If the government wants to do that, it can do so, but when it taxes fertilizer by taxing the input into a fertilizer plant, then it is doing it very indirectly. What it is doing is increasing the cost of the fertilizer to the consumer far beyond what it should really be. What we are really saying is that we are not concerned that the government levies taxes,
because government must levy taxes. We are not concerned that governments levy taxes on manufactured products, but surely this government should not levy taxes on the inputs into manufacturing. That is what the government is doing here.


Mr. Evans:: How about labour?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The government levies taxes on labour all the time. Every person who pays income tax is being taxed on his labour.


John Leslie Evans: Is that not an input?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What we should be doing is levying a tax on the product of the manufacturer so that if a person buys butane, for example, and makes something with it, the tax should be levied on that. That would be a proper tax. The government can raise the sales tax if it wants to do so on that type of product, but what we have here is a tax at the input level. Then there is a further tax at a later date. The trouble is that that tax becomes built into the system, and overhead, profit, and transportation costs are added to the tax levied on the raw product.
The tax is not just a tax of 30 cents an mcf or eventually 75 cents an mcf; it is a tax which has to be reflected in price, in interest costs and other costs, and those costs have to be passed on. This tax is on input; that will cause the end product to be much more expensive.
Certainly governments must obtain revenues, but surely this is not the way to levy a tax because this is the most inflationary way to do so. It is very damaging to our manufacturing industry to levy tax this way. It is not in the industrial interest of Canada.
If the government wants to tax consumers on the gas they use to heat their homes, then the government should deliberately say it is going to tax consumers on their heat. I suppose the government has a right to do that. I do not think that is the right thing to do in a cold climate, but that is the way it should be imposed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have the impression the hon. member will want to use the remainder of the time available to him. If he does not mind, perhaps I should interrupt him, in view of the time, and he can continue his remarks later.
I must leave matters clear for the House at eight o'clock. The hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) have received a ruling from the Chair that they are entitled to yeas and nays on their respective motions Nos. 38 and 39.
If the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) wishes to continue his remarks at eight o'clock, he will, of course, be recognized.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the House rose at six o'clock, the House was considering motions Nos. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 which are grouped for debate. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is being put on motion No. 36-the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson).


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) is going to respond to a number of questions that have been put to him on these particular amendments. They are important questions which are of great concern to people in western Canada and across the country in terms of the impact this tax has on food. I would like very much to hear the comments of the Minister of State for Finance.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member-and I hope he is listening-will have an opportunity to rise later on. He will take ten minutes to criticize the government because he does not have the time to speak. When we speak, he is not satisfied, but when we do not, he is not satisfied either. He is never satisfied. It is my duty, and his too, to co-operate and see to it that the House can function.
One of the questions raised by the hon. member is why there is no exception for fertilizers or for other sectors. Obviously, in certain spheres of activity or for certain goods, we have to consider input factors, production costs, as well as the possible effects on other sectors of trade, and in this case, the sector to be considered is that of food production. Several industries have asked to be exempted from the tax on natural gas and, of course, the industrial sectors that are major consumers of natural gas would also have liked to be exempted. However, we have to consider the purpose of this tax, which is to yield revenues to the federal government by other means than by increasing the well-head price, and if we were to justify an exemption for one sector, we could also find justification to exempt another one and finally, we would have a very great number of exempted sectors, and there would be no reason to maintain the tax.
However, because the tax must be maintained and is fully justified within the framework of the National Energy Program, we are maintaining it and we are not granting any exemptions. The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) has made some interesting comments, and I would like him to remember that Revenue Canada is still investigating to ensure that liquid gas substitutes in the fractionating process are not used to avoid the tax. Obviously, at first glance, one might think that there is a certain kind of discrimination. If
Excise Tax
one goes deeper into the matter, it becomes clear that, if granted, the exemption asked by the hon. member would reverse the problem and create a distinct advantage in a very special case.
Taken as a whole, amendments Nos. 36 to 43 aim quite simply at removing completely the tax on natural gas liquids and deleting the sections which provide for the imposition of such a tax. As I have indicated, this tax is part of the National Energy Program. I do not want to go over the major elements of this energy program which, I am certain, has the support of most Canadians. We recognize that some parts of the energy program may cause certain problems to certain groups of individuals. For instance, I am certain that the New Democratic Party is 100 per cent in favour of the Canadianization program and certainly of the basic objectives of the National Energy Program, but it finds it hard to accept taxes on natural gas, in this case, Mr. Speaker, and on oil, which aim at redistributing the revenues generated by this production sector.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) says: Very well, you are taxing a resource involving three provinces. Let me ask him if he accepts the fact that in these circumstances, not only in Canada but all over the world, some natural resources cannot be a source of wealth, of much greater wealth than some other resources that certain provinces may develop in other parts of the country, and consequently, if we try to analyse- The hon. member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) asks if the price of gold has not increased. It has, and since then mine operating subsidies have ceased. Because the hon. member must remember that over a long period of time there have been gold mine operating subsidies in this country. Fortunately, with the increase in world gold prices, such subsidies are no longer needed.
I wanted to indicate that some natural resources may generate more wealth than other resources. It is normal, under the general sharing principle that is basic to the Canadian federation, that those revenues be used first to establish a better domestic price in Canada for Canada's oil products, second to use that surplus wealth to Canadianize oil research, exploration and development operations in Canada, and finally that we pursue the much broader goal of oil self-sufficiency, in keeping with our national energy program of oil self-sufficiency for Canadians, in the near future. This is why I propose to reject most amendments and maintain taxes on liquid substitutes for natural gas.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) that before the House rose for the dinner hour at least four or five members on this side of the House raised a very reasonable point about the extension of the time from 30 days to 90 days in the payment of the gas tax. It was a very genuine and sincere


Excise Tax
request. They did not request a reduction in the tax by even one cent. I hope the minister will at least respond to it.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the same point of order, 1 apologize to the hon. member. I had it in my notes. I wanted to speak of the request for an extension, from 30 to 90 days, of the time granted for payment of the natural gas tax in the case of co-operatives. However, as one can see, in all cases, we have a 30-day period. It could always be argued that an exception could be made in the case of co-operatives. However, should we have an exception? Is it warranted? Or else should the period in all cases be extended from 30 to 90 days? Finally, it should be noted that this extension could appeal to other groups, either individuals or manufacturers, who must comply with the 30-day period.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. minister takes into account the fact that on the average it takes the post office ten days to deliver bills and even with all the good will it will take another ten days to send the cheque in for payment. Therefore, that only leaves a margin of ten days. Moreover, the co-ops would in fact be able to pay the outstanding tax, within the 30-day period, long before their customers have even received their bills and had the opportunity to pay them. Is the minister aware of that?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's questions seem to imply that neither I, as an individual, nor the government are concerned about the needs of the people. The problem is not concern about people's needs but the respective merits of universality versus individual cases. The hon. member is asking about the time lag between sending and receiving a bill. As he is well versed in accounting, he is certainly aware that there exists a billing procedure which eliminates everything, which eliminates-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Even in rural areas?


Pierre Bussières: Surely I know more about rural areas than the hon. member who lives in the city of Edmonton. Bell Canada uses the same billing system whether its customers live in Normandin, Charlesbourg or Edmonton. Equal billing means setting a monthly average with adjustments at the end of the year which permit tax refunds and regular revenues on all sorts of consumer goods, such as fuel oil, gas, telephone or electricity.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is a pretty poor show when the minister rationalizes a simple request about simply delaying the payment. Because of that the co-ops must go to the banks, borrow money and put more debts on the backs of the producers. Who is this government working for, the banks or the people?


John Leslie Evans: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there is a very fundamental point here which hon. members opposite seem to be missing. Let us consider the manufacturers' excise tax which is very similar-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We are talking about natural gas.


John Leslie Evans: Let us talk about the principle which underlies this matter. I know the hon. member does not talk about principles very often. Let us use an automobile dealer as an example. He buys cars, and built into the price of those cars is a 9 per cent manufacturers' excise tax. The automobile dealer must go out and borrow the money to carry his inventory. Should we say that it is not necessary for him to go out and borrow the money and therefore we should extend payment on the tax until the dealer sells the car?
What about the gas distributor in Sarnia who must bring in the gas and hold it for six months before it is distributed? It is not distributed but the tax is paid. Should that distributor also have up to six or seven months to pay? Why does the hon. member think that since it happens to be a co-op it should receive special treatment?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is not the point.


John Leslie Evans: The principle is that the tax is paid at the time the product is transferred to the distributor. That is the principle which has been followed in all other cases and there is no reason why it should not be followed in this case.


Gordon Edward Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, the Chair has recognized hon. members on more than one occasion. This is not Committee of the Whole. We are at report stage.
Is the House ready for the question?


Gordon Edward Taylor: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bow River on a point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I do not pay income tax until after I make the money. Why-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is on a point of argument, not a point of order.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the agreement made earlier the vote stands deferred.
Motion No. 44 will be debated separately and voted on separately.


Bob Rae: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was an earlier ruling by Mr. Speaker this afternoon that although we would have a voice vote on motion No. 36 we would also be entitled to a voice vote on motions Nos. 38 and 39 as well. Therefore, I would ask that we be allowed to have that vote now, prior to moving on to motion No. 44.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that the * voice vote be put now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is a deviation from Madam Speaker's earlier proposal.


Bob Rae: We agreed on the deviation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 37. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Bob Rae: No, motions Nos. 38 and 39.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 38. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division
Motion negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 39. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
Excise Tax


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to an agreement made earlier the motion stands deferred.
Now we will go to motion No. 44.


Pierre Bussières: Motion No. 44.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 55 by striking out line 34 at page 66 and substituting the following therefor:
"section (1).
(6) Any regulation made pursuant to subsection (5) may be made effective
with reference to any period commencing on or after March 31, 1981.''


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 44. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 45 and 54 are to be grouped for debate. They will be voted on as follows: questions will be put on motions Nos. 45, 46, 48, 49 and 54 separately.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 45.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 76 by substituting the words "a special licence" for the words "a special temporary licence" wherever the latter words occur.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this group of amendments is a package approach which our party has taken toward the extension of the use of fuel alcohol and the production of fuel alcohol in Canada from the experimental stage which had been set out in the bill by the government to a limited production. My hon. friend for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) will be speaking more extensively on this measure. I will simply say at this time that we are extremely disappointed that the government has not found itself in a position to have really considered these amendments that we have put forward. I spoke to the staff of the minister earlier today, and they claim that they need further study. I think that this is further evidence of the fact that this legislation is being pushed through far too quickly, without sufficient consideration of the
10766


Excise Tax
amendments which have been put forward, and have been well thought out.
We have had a great deal of support from the various interest groups which have an interest in the production of fuel alcohol. 1 believe that if the minister would sit back and consider the context of these amendments within the context of the energy policy and within the context of the task force on alternate energy, there would be very little hesitation in his acceptance of these amendments. 1 believe it would be done very quickly. However, we are being rushed here because of the odious closure motion which has been laid on us here. We have simply not had the time to consider these amendments which will move us from the very tentative experimental stage, as put forward in the bill, to the production stage that we are urging upon the government.
Therefore, I do not propose to speak further on this matter. I will yield the floor to my friend, the hon. member for Bruce-Grey. However, 1 will just comment very briefly that these amendments will move us closer to self-sufficiency in our total energy picture, reduce our reliance on imported oil, and we will be moving in a very consistent way with the national energy policy as put forward by the government.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to start off by trying to put this bill into context in light of the comments which the minister has just made regarding the whole issue on energy, the tax on natural gas, and government policy in general. The tax on natural gas is a very good example-as is the grouping of recommendations which have been made in Sections 75 and 76 in Bill C-57-of the narrowness of vision which really amounts to tunnel vision and the focus which the government takes on one aspect of the problem when the problem really includes a number of different aspects, taking the energy picture, economics and the country at large into consideration.
1 think the natural gas example is a good one when one looks at the impact it has on fertilizer. It has been well pointed out that this will run through the system adding to fertilizer costs and increasing costs which are being borne particularly by farmers. In the end, they are bearing not only increased costs of production, energy and fertilizer, but also the costs of other government programs. Those economic costs are reaching a crisis point, and our agricultural community is really very vulnerable. Indeed, many farmers will go out of production because of the combination of these costs and the fact that they cannot continue to bear them. This, in the end, will leave us vulnerable in terms of food costs which will again increase our dependence on imports. The whole inflationary spiral will continue and feed itself.
This is where I have a great deal of trouble in accepting the comments of the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Bussieres) because he seems to segment this, taking it as one aspect when it must be a combined, total picture. This is not unusual for the government to do. Indeed, this whole bill is a measure which is designed to increase the revenue to the government at
a time when it is feeding off our natural resources and when we are without an economic policy to give the business world any sense of confidence to invest in Canada. We have to prop our dollar up. We have to do unusual, extraordinary things to improve revenue. We have to keep the interest rates up, the government says, because of inflation. We know it is because the dollar is weak. If the government does not continue to keep it up there, the dollar will weaken further and will, in fact, fall precipitously. That is because of a lack of general understanding of the integration of economics with agriculture and energy. If that is something which the minister does not understand, hopefully some of the people in the rest of his department might; but certainly they do not focus on it when they draw up these bills.
1 would like to spend my time mainly commenting on Sections 75 and 76 of Bill C-57. These are really designed to help promote the development of gasohol, denatured spirits or denatured alcohol, whatever one might call it. The bill has done one good thing. It has removed the excise tax so that gasohol or ethyl alcohol can be produced without the SI7.50 tax per gallon which is placed on spirits which are for human consumption. That is a good provision in the bill.
The other things which the bill does is to start to address the problems of the small producers who make alcohol for fuel purposes. This is done by providing what is called a temporary licence. The unfortunate fact is that as it is a temporary licence, it is really only good for one year. What has really been done is that, in combination with the money aspects of the bill, a system of regulatory control has been set up, including a temporary licence which must be renewed every year and including diagrams which must go to the department when a person wishes to make a still.
There are a whole set of regulations which would delight any bureaucrat but which would frustrate the heck out of anyone who was really serious about producing alcohol. Who can build and set up an economically viable still from spare parts, different pieces of equipment from different areas, when he must submit diagrams to someone sitting in Ottawa who will judge whether it is correct? Who will build a still if, at the end of the year, he must have another review and face the fact that his licence will either be withheld or not renewed? Who will do it when he knows he has only a temporary licence when, indeed, what he needs in a sense of confidence that the whole issue will be dealt with in a reasonable and realistic way?
What we have really done with this measure and the amendments which the government has brought forward so far is to go back to the position in which the Americans were during 1978 or 1979. In the several years since that time, the Americans have moved forward. They have what is almost a deregulation of the whole issue in the United States. An individual or a small producer, defined according to certain quantities, can go ahead and start producing ethyl alcohol for fuel consumption simply by making a telephone call. There are many arguments as to whether this is something we should promote in a grand way in Canada.


1 think that there are arguments for being able to use a renewable source for the feedstock and arguments regarding the environmental effects. We know that the products of combustion of ethynol are much safer for the environment than are the products of gasoline. There are arguments that we can use the waste products. Indeed, in Prince Edward Island there is a program right now which is using waste potatoes, and ethyl alcohol is developed from that. There are many different aspects to this argument.
1 think that the essence of it, though, is that we can look to this for an extension of the transportation fuels which are so desperately needed in this country. 1 say that there is a desperate need. We know that as a direct consequence of the National Energy Program, in some ways, and as a direct consequence of the dwindling resources of conventional oils in Alberta, we are indeed facing a real shortfall, a critical crunch, sometime in 1983 or 1984. In fact, one of the most recent publications has shown that we might be facing up to a shortfall of about 30 per cent in the reasonably near future if we continue with the same kind of programs in the same focused way under the National Energy Program.
We can look to the production of ethyl alcohol, by individual farmers or individual groups of farmers, in small quantities for personal consumption; but when that production exceeds their consumption, particularly if it is in waste, they must also have the ability to dispose of the excess amount of alcohol. This is another critical aspect of the bill that has not been addressed in the amendments put forward by the government. There is no provision for an individual producer to dispose of excess production. This is a very limiting factor and will make economic production of ethyl alcohol very difficult.
There are many technical aspects to the production of ethyl alcohol and if people begin to produce in a big way we will see the development of technology. New organisms will be used for fermentation processes, new equipment will be developed to make use of the product more simple, and a host of other good things will happen.
The bottom line is that we are looking for an extension of our transportation fuel in order to provide security of supply to farmers and those people who really need the economies that can be gained from individual production. It is important that the energy that is required for food production be available.
The Special Committee on Alternative Energy and Oil Substitution which reported to the House recently, had an opportunity to compare this form of energy with others.
The comments I have just made roughly reflect the conclusions of the committee. The committee report recommended that people be permitted to sell their excess production to retailers. This bill, which I suppose will not be amended for a long time, imposes the constraint that people can only produce enough for their own needs. That is a severe constraint, Mr. Speaker, and one that needs to be and should be removed. The alternative is a limited number of people engaged in a limited
Excise Tax
production and the potential of this source of fuel will not be achieved.
The amendment offered by this party would do several things. First of all, it calls for the temporary licence to be replaced by a special licence. We suggest a five year licence that could be renewed or even removed by the minister at his discretion. A one-year licence is very confining and restricts development.
We also recommend that the individual producer be allowed to sell his surplus production to other farmers or people off the production site.
No member of the House should have any difficulty at all in supporting our amendments, Mr. Speaker. The only money aspects that are involved were dealt with by the government. The provision concerning the bonding issue has been changed from the $200,000 level to $4,000 to $10,000 and perhaps it could even be removed altogether. We do not argue about this and have not included it in our amendment. The excise tax has been removed so that is not a consideration either. There is nothing here that would be a cost to the government.
We have an opportunity here, Mr. Speaker, to allow production of this fuel to expand if we adopt the amendments put forward by this party. Opportunities abound, Mr. Speaker. We have the opportunity to provide Canada with an additional source of energy that will complement existing systems and can be integrated into the use of gasoline. It can extend gasoline and allow us to achieve many advances in agricultural production, the use of marginal lands, improving the environment and all the things that the National Energy Program aspires to and that Canadians would like to see come about. There is no reason why any member of this House cannot support those amendments, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP lend our support to these particular motions. They are good motions and the movers have obviously done a great deal of work in preparing the precise and thoughtful wording of them. We endorse the motions 100 per cent.
The previous speaker made it clear that there is an opportunity for Canada and the government to take a leadership role in the drive toward self-sufficiency. We can join with New Zealand, with the United States, with Brazil to develop technologies that will promote the use of ethyl alcohol and offset the increasing and tremendous costs of transportation fuels.
We can visualize a still on every farm, Mr. Speaker. We have an opportunity to open up marginal farmland. Anything that rots can be turned into an alcohol that will prolong the life of an automobile engine. Many people already add alcohol in one form or another to their gas tanks, with the result that the lifespan of the engine is not 40,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 but
200,000	or 300,000 miles, this, by the simple addition of alcohol to gasoline. We should be working toward this goal in Canada.


Excise Tax
Many jobs would be created through the manufacture of stills. Presumably the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) would be pleased to initiate a whole new set of manufacturing opportunities and job-creation programs across Canada.
Hundreds of thousands of farmers, using marginal agricultural land could take advantage of the opportunity to produce this fuel. It would give them an alternate source of income, would lead to the development of marginal farmland, and would be another step towards energy self-sufficiency for the country.
In the United States, one of the few programs that was successful for President Carter, was the move to the production of gasohol. It can be purchased in various States today. Within a few years Brazil plans to use gasohol for the major portion of its transportation fuel. What is Canada, a major agricultural producer, doing to show leadership in the development of this industry? I think we would have to admit that we are doing very little in this direction. There is an opportunity today, through these motions, to show the leadership that is required, and to say that we are prepared to move into this area. A still on every farm could be used as a theme.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 shall not speak long on this matter but I do want to make some very short and pertinent remarks.
1 believe the government has put restrictions on this legislation with the sole objective of preventing bootlegging. But 1 cannot think of any legislation more likely to promote bootlegging than this bill, Mr. Speaker. It would partially legislate the use and production of ethyl alcohol as a fuel by means of the one-year licence. To me that suggests minimization of capital investment; the lowest amount of money that can possibly be put in the system. It would also promote the use of the illegal still as against legal ones. People could hide them.
If 1 were to promote the use of ethyl alcohol as a fuel, I would seriously look to a process that would promote larger capital investment and a longer licence, thus reducing the risk to the investor. It could be done on an area basis with special licences so that farmers and others growing certain stuffs could sell to a central point where alcohol could be produced. It could be policed and controlled and even watched, if desired, by the fewest number of civil servants possible. However, that is not what the government is doing. It brings in a piece of legislation saying "you shall minimize your capital investment because you may lose it next year as you will only get a one-year licence."
That is the worst of all worlds. Indeed, it could promote bootlegging in a major way. If one person gets a licence for a small still, and begins to put the product in his car, the farmer down the way, even though he does not have a licence, will put in a still and do the same. Soon there will not be enough inspectors to look after the stills.
The government has gone in the opposite direction from rational movement, that is an installation with a large degree of capital investment in one plant producing under proper control denatured alcohol and so forth. This opens the door to all sorts of illegal stills which will crop up all over the place.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to point out that the objections raised against the amendments moved by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson, which 1 had an opportunity to discuss at length with the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) and which have to do with gasohol production, are not basic objections because they are prompted by the economic situation or the circumstances.
Should one consider the intent of the legislation, one would realize that the measures adopted were only transitory. They are aimed at promoting the existence of a situation similar to the one just described by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) in his remarks, namely to make it possible to continue the development of experimentation in the fields of production and use, while making sure that the production control mechanisms are operational. Indeed, it is an open secret that alcohol control in Canada has always been rather well structured and tight enough, so that before liberalizing our alcohol production potential and diverting it to fuel uses, as the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre would have it, the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources, National Revenue, Finance and even Agriculture should jointly draft a policy and continue to follow the evolution of research and use of gasohol as an energy source for automotive vehicles, and then we will be in a position under the Excise Tax Act to come up with measures which will be better adapted to the evolution, the application and the use of gasohol. I would therefore urge hon. members to reject the amendments, not because they are not worth while, but because the existing transitory measures we now have will do nicely until we reach the degree of expertise which will enable us to opt for greater liberalization. [English]


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to be brief on this amendment. It seems strange to those of us from the farm communities that, although there is an opportunity here for the producing farmer to conserve energy and lower production costs, two things very important to the national economy of this country, the government says no. When we point to examples in the United States, the minister says yes, for one year at a time. No one will make an investment in the necessary size still for one year. Experience in the United States shows that a $25,000 investment is needed to make it economical.
What we see in this amendment is something that is seen throughout the bill. Any bill that goes before a committee with over 130 amendments must be a poor bill. Mistakes must have been made in drafting the bill. Even the government has presented amendments, so there must have been mistakes.


Why is it that only the government can have amendments accepted when we all know there are other mistakes in the bill?
Look at what the National Energy Program, the tax and the PGRT are doing to the province of Saskatchewan. Sixty per cent of the Saskatchewan producing wells have been rendered uneconomic. Fully one third of the wells in Saskatchewan are now shut in, not because the producers want that, but because of the insidious 8 per cent tax.
In 1980 the tax on Saskatchewan heavy crude alone gave to the federal government $600 million. That is $600 per man, woman and child in the province of Saskatchewan. It is more money than the province and the producers combined received. Even if the federal government took half from the producing province, it would not be overreaching. However, as I said, it is taking more than the province and the producers received in total.
In southwestern Saskatchewan, a 100 barrel a day well loses 13 cents a barrel, a 45 barrel well loses 13 cents a barrel and a 10 barrel a day makes $1.46. This government thinks we should have all ten-barrel-a-day wells, which are strippers, virtually worthless. The minute there is a problem well, the producer refuses to bring in an overworked rig, which runs around $1,400 to $1,500 a day. That is why the wells are shut in. No company wants to continue to lose money.
This government says this province should remove its tax and bring it in a better perspective, but the oil resources belong to the provinces. We received that right in Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1931 and, I may say, under a Progressive Conservative government. This government has decided to remove that by taking an additional 8 per cent after the producers and the province had jointly reached an agreement on how to share the wealth of the resource of that province.
If this continues, we will not reach energy self-sufficiency by 1990. This is the second time in the last ten years that a Liberal government has made a commitment to self-sufficiency. The last time was in 1973 when the then government brought in another energy program. At that time the prime objective was "to reach before the end of the decade self-sufficiency in oil and oil products". That was in 1973, so it meant self-sufficiency in 1980.
Now we have another National Energy Program brought in by a Liberal government. It now says we will reach energy self-sufficiency by 1990. With the present program and the grab by the federal government of the resources which belong to Saskatchewan, Alberta and other producing provinces, we will not reach energy self-sufficiency by 1990, and, in all likelihood, not by the year 2000. I do not see any reason that the people of Canada should expect this government to honour its agreement to have energy self-sufficiency by 1990, any more than it was able to reach energy self-sufficiency through the last energy program by 1980.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Excise Tax


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I see that everyone is looking at the clock, Mr. Speaker. I believe the time is nine o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being nine o'clock p.m., pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, June 17, 1981, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and call for the yeas and nays on all questions necessary to dispose of Bill C-57 at the report stage. The first question is on motion No. 45. All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to agreement made earlier the vote stands deferred.
The next question is on motion No. 46.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 46.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause 76 by striking out lines 18 and 19 at page 72 and substituting the following therefor:
"any person or group of persons or corporation who have complied with this
act, where".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 47.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 47.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause 76 by striking out lines 19 to 27 at page 72 and substituting the following therefor:
"Act where denatured spirits manufactured under the licence arc used for the
development of a fuel and are produced in quantities which do not exceed
1,500 litres per day or 350,000 litres per year."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Excise Tax


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to agreement reached earlier this question stands deferred.
The next question is on motion No. 48.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 48.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause 76 by striking out lines 24 to 27 at page 72 and substituting the following therefor:
"(/>) the denatured spirits and fuel referred to in paragraph (<?) are for the licensee's own use and may be sold to such persons as the minister may on application designate."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Vea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motion No.
49.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 49.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause 76 by striking out lines 33 to 35 at page 72 and substituting the following therefor:
"by the minister that is not more than five thousand dollars and not less than one thousand dollars."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motion No.
50.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 50.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause 76 by striking out lines 24 to 29 at page 73 and substituting the following therefor:
"under this section shall be valid for five years and shall be automatically
renewed for successive periods of five years unless the minister can show cause
that the said special temporary licence should not be further renewed".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The negative vote on motion No. 50 disposes of motions Nos. 40 and 51. The question will have to be put on motion No. 52.
The question is on motion No. 52.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 52.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause 76 by striking out lines 28 and 29 at page 73 and substituting the following therefor:
"the licence may be renewed by the minister for I year periods or such lesser
periods as the minister may determine."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 54.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 54.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause 76 by striking out lines 16 to 31 at page 74.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motion No.
55.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Motion No. 55.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in Clause 77
(a)	by striking out lines I to 19 at page 75
(b)	by striking out lines 14 and 15 at page 76 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) Part IV of the schedule to the said act is repealed and the following sub-"
(c)	by striking out lines 17 to 27 at page 76
(d)	by striking out lines 6 to 8 at page 77 and substituting the following therefor:
"(7) Part IV of the schedule to the said act, as amended by subsection 77(6) of this act, is repealed and the following sub-"
(e)	by striking out lines 10 to 23 at page 77.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motions Nos. 60 to 135 inclusive.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 60.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 78.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 61.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 78.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 62.
Excise Tax
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 79.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 63.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 79.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 64.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 80.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 65.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 80.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 66.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 81.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 67.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 81.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 68.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 82.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 69.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 82.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 70.
That Bill C-57 an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 83.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 71.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 83.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 72.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting clause 84.


Excise Tax


Bob Rae: Motion No. 73.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 84.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 74.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 85.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 75.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 85.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 76.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 86.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 77.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 86.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 78.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 87.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 79.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 87.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 80.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 88.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 81.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 88.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 82.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 89.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 83.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 89.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 84.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 90.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 85.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 90.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 86.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 91.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 87.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 91.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 88.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 92.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 89.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 92.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 90.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 93.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 91.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 93.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 92.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 94.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 93.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 94.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 94.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 95.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 95.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 95.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 96.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 96.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 97.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 96.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 98.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas be amended by deleting Clause 97.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 99.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 97.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 100.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 98.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 101.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 98.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 102.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 99.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 103.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 99.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 104.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 100.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 105.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 100.
Excise Tax


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 106.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 101.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 107.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 101.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 108.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 102.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 109.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 102.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 110.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 103.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 111.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 103.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 112.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 104.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 113.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 104.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 114.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 105.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 115.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended be deleting Clause 105.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Excise Tax
Motion No. 116.
Thai Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 106.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 117.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 106.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 118.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 107.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 119.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 107.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 120.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 108.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 121.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 108.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 122.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect to petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 109.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 123.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 109.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 124.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 110.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 125.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 110.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 126.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 111.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 127.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 111.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 128.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas. be amended by deleting Clause 112.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 129.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 112.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Motion No. 130.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 113.


Bob Rae: Motion No. 131.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 113.
Motion No. 132.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 114.
Motion No. 133.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 115.
Motion No. 134.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 116.
Motion No. 135.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended by deleting Clause 117.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motions will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than Jive members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on motion No. 1 (Mr. Wilson). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Excise Tax
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Riis) which was negatived on the following division:


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
(Division No. 66)


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 3 (Mr. Wilson).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 4 (Mr. Blenkarn).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.
Andre	YEAS Messrs. Greenaway	MitchellAnguish	Gurbin	(Mrs.)Baker	Halliday	Mitgcs(Nepcan-Carleton)	Hamilton	MunroBeatty	(Qu'Appellc-Moose	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Benjamin	Mountain)	MurtaBlaikic	Hargrave	NeilBlenkarn	Hawkcs	NickersonBosley	Hnatyshyn	NielsenBradley	Hovdcbo	NowlanCardiff	Howie	Ny stromCarney (Miss)	Huntington	OrlikowClark	lltinuar	Pa proski(Yellowhcad)	Jarvis	ParkerClarke	Jelinck	Patterson(Vancouver Quadra)	Jewett (Miss)	RacCoates	Keeper	ReidCook	Kcmpling	(St. Catharines)Cooper	Kilgour	RiisCorbett	King	RobinsonCossitt	Knowles	(Burnaby)Crombic	Korchinski	RocheCrosbie	Kristiansen	Rose(St. John's West)	Kushner	SargcantCrosby	Lambert	Schcllenbcrgcr(Halifax West)	Lawrence	ShieldsDantzcr	Lewis	SiddonDarling	Lcwycky	SkcllyDeans	MacDonald	Speyerde Jong	(Miss)	StevensDinsdalc	MacKay	StewartDomm	Malone	TaylorEllis	Mayer	ThackerElzinga	Mazankowski	ThomsonEpp	McCain	TowersFennell	McCuish	VankoughnctFraser	McDcrmid	WaddellFretz	McGrath	WcnmanFriesen	McKenzie	WilsonFulton	McKinnon	WiseGamble	McKnighl	WrightGass	McLean	YoungGilchrist	McMillan	Yurko-117.NAYS Messrs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 6 (Mr. Riis).
An affirmative vote on this motion will also dispose of motion No. 7; a negative vote will necessitate the question having to be put on motion No. 7. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
Allmand	Chretien	DuprasAppolloni	Coilcnctte	Duquet(Mrs.)	Comtois	Erola (Mrs.)Axworthy	Corbin	EthicrBachand	Corriveau	EvansBaker	Cote (Mrs.)	Ferguson(Gander-Twillingatc)	Cousineau	FisherBcauchamp-Niqucl	Cullen	Fleming(Mrs.)	Cyr	FlisBerger	Dawson	FosterBloomfield	Dc Bane	FoxBockstael	dc Corneille	FrancisBossy	Demers	FrithBreau	Dcniger	GarantBujold	Dcsmarais	GauthierBurghardt	Dingwall	GendronBussicrcs	Dion	GimaiclCaccia	Dionne	GingrasCampbell	(Chicoutimi)	Gourd(Miss)	Dionne	(Argentcui(South West Nova)	(Northumbcrland-	GourdeCampbell	Miramichi)	(Levis)(LaSalle)	Dubois	GrayCampbell	Duclos	Guilbault(Cardigan)	Dupont	Harquail
Excise Tax
Messrs.
Messrs.
Herbert
Hcrvieux-Payctte
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Lalondc Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce) Lefebvre
Loiselle
Lonsdale
MacBain
Mackasey
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson
(Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Parent
Pelletier
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakcshorc) Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Stollery Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhcad Yanakis-126.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 7 (Mr. Blenkarn). is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 8.
All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The House divided on motion No. 8 (Mr. MacEachen) which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 67)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy	Baker
Bachand	(Gander-Twillingatc)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Berger
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Burghardi
Bussiercs
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chretien
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau Cullen Cyr Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Denigcr Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumbcrland-
Miramichi)
Dubois Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethicr
Andre
Anguish
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton) Beatty Benjamin Blaikic Blenkarn Bosley Bradley Cardiff Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt Crombic Crosbic
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Darling Deans de Jong Dinsdale Domm Ellis Elzinga
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
FI is
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudccki
Irwin
Isabelle
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
Lefebvre
Loiselle
++NAYS
Messrs.
Epp
Fennell
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Gass
Gilchrist
Greenaway
Gurbin
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Hnatyshyn Hovdcbo Howie Huntington Ittinuar Jarvis Jclinek Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Korchinski
Kristiansen
Kushner
Lambert
Lonsdale
MacBain
Mackasey
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson
(Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Parent
Pelletier
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakcshorc) Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Stollery Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhcad Yanakis-125.
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald
(Miss)
MacKay
Malone
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Orlikow
Pa proski
Parker
Patterson
Rae


Excise Tax
Messrs.
(Division No. 68)
Reid	Shields	Towers	(St. Catharines)	Siddon	Vankoughnet	Riis	Skclly	Waddell	Robinson	Speyer	Wenman	Allmand(Burnaby)	Stevens	Wilson	AppolloniRoche	Stewart	Wise	(Mrs.)Rose	Taylor	Wright	AxworthySargeant	Thacker	Young	BachandSchellenberger	Thomson	Yurko-117.	Baker


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to.
(Gander-Twillingate)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Berger
Bloomfield


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 9 (Mr. Lambert). Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 1 1 (Mr. Blenkarn). An affirmative vote on this motion disposes of motions Nos. 12 and 13 and a negative vote disposes of motion No. 12 with the question having to be put on motion No. 13.
All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussiercs
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chretien
Collcnette
Comtois
Corbin
Corrivcau
Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau Cullen Cyr Dawson Dc Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Dubois


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.
Dupont
++YEAS
Messrs.
Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killcns (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoic
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Lanicl
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Bcauce)
Lefebvrc
Loisellc
Lonsdale
MacBain
Mackascy
MacLcllan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson
(Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Parent
Pelletier
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'hommc
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- La kcshorc) Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Stollery Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weathcrhead Yanakis-125.
++NAYS


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Messrs.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 13.
All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The House divided on motion No. 13 (Mr. MacEachen) which was agreed to on the following division:
Andre	Darling	HowieAnguish	Deans	HuntingtonBaker	de Jong	Ittinuar(Nepean-Carleton)	Dick	JarvisBeatty	Dinsdalc	JclinekBenjamin	Domm	Jewett (Miss)Blaikie	Ellis	KeeperBlenkarn	Elzinga	KcmplingBosley	Epp	KilgourBradley	Fennell	KingCardiff	Fraser	KnowlesCarney (Miss)	Fretz	KorchinskiClark	Friesen	Kristiansen(Yellowhead)	Fulton	KushnerClarke	Gamble	Lambert(Vancouver Quadra)	Gass	LawrenceCoates	Gilchrist	LewisCook	Greenaway	LewyckyCooper	Gurbin	MacDonaldCorbett	Halliday	(Miss)Cossitt	Hamilton	MacKayCrombic	(Qu'Appellc-Moosc	MaloneCrosbie	Mountain)	Mayer(St. John's West)	Hargrave	MazankowskiCrosby	Hawkes	McCain(Halifax West)	Hnatyshyn	McCuishDantzer	Hovdebo	McDermid
Excise Tax
Messrs.
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
N ickerson Nielsen Nowlan Nystrom
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Rac
Reid
(St. Catharines) Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
Rose
Sargeant
Schcllcnberger
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Speyer
Stevens
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Thomson
Towers
Vankoughnct
Waddell
Wcnman
Wilson
Wise
Wright
Young
Yurko-118.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 14 (Mr. Riis).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 15 (Mr. Riis). An affirmative vote on this motion disposes motion No. 16. A negative vote requires the question be put on No 16.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: The
next question is on motion No. 17
(Mr. Riis). An affirmative vote on this motion disposes of motion No. 18. A negative vote requires the question to be put on motion No. 18.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 18 (Mr. Blenkarn). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 19 (Mr. Riis). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 16 (Mr. Blenkarn). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 20 (Mr. Riis). An affirmative motion on this motion disposes of motion No. 22. A negative vote necessitates the question having to be put on motion No. 22.
All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. And more than five members having risen:


Excise Tax
The House divided on motion No. 20 (Mr. Riis) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 69)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Andre	Gilchrist	McMillanAnguish	Greenaway	MitchellBaker	Gurbin	(Mrs.)(Nepean-Carleton)	Halliday	MitgesBeatty	Hamilton	MunroBenjamin	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Blaikie	Mountain)	MurtaBlenkarn	Hargrave	NeilBosley	Hawkes	N ickersonBradley	Hnatyshyn	NielsenCardiff	Hovdebo	NowlanCarney (Miss)	Howie	NystromClark	Huntington	Orlikow(Yellowhead)	Ittinuar	PaproskiClarke	Jarvis	Parker(Vancouver Quadra)	Jclinek	PattersonCoates	Jewett (Miss)	RaeCook	Keeper	ReidCooper	Kempling	(St. Catharines)Corbett	Kilgour	RiisCossitt	King	RobinsonCrombie	Knowles	(Burnaby)Crosbie	Korchinski	Roche(St. John's West)	Kristiansen	RoseCrosby	Kushner	Sargeant(Halifax West)	Lambert	SchellenbcrgerDantzer	Lawrence	ShieldsDarling	Lewis	SiddonDeans	Lewycky	Skellyde Jong	MacDonald	SpeyerDick	(Miss)	StevensDinsdale	MacKay	StewartDomm	Malone	TaylorEllis	Mayer	ThackerElzinga	Mazankowski	ThomsonEpp	McCain	TowersFennell	McCuish	VankoughnetFraser	McDermid	WaddellFretz	McGrath	WenmanFriesen	McKenzie	WilsonFulton	McKinnon	WiseGamble	McKnight	WrightGass	McLean
NAYS Messrs.	Young Yurko-118.Alima nd	Campbell	DuboisAppolloni	(Cardigan)	Dupont(Mrs.)	Chretien	DuprasAxworthy	Collenette	DuquetBachand	Comtois	Erola (Mrs.)Baker	Corbin	Ethier(Gander-Twillingate)	Corriveau	EvansBeauchamp-Niquet	Cote (Mrs.)	Ferguson(Mrs.)	Cousincau	FisherBerger	Cullen	FlemingBlaker	Cyr	FlisBloomfield	Dawson	FosterBockstael	Dc Banc	FoxBossy	dc Corneille	FrancisBrcau	Demers	FrithBujold	Dcniger	GarantBurghardt	Desmarais	GauthierBussieres	Dingwall	GendronCaccia	Dion	GimaielCampbell	Dionne	Gingras(Miss)	(Chicoutimi)	Gourd(South West Nova)	Dionne	(Argenteuil-Papineau)Campbell	(Northumberland-	Gourde(LaSalle)	Miramichi)	(Levis)
Messrs.
Gray	Lapointe	PetersonGuilbault	(Beauce)	PinardHarquail	Lefebvre	PortclanccHerbert	Loisellc	Prud'hommeHcrvieux-Payctlc	Lonsdale	Reid(Mrs.)	MacBain	(Kenora-RainyHopkins	Mackasey	RobertsHudecki	MacLellan	RobinsonIrwin	Malepart	(Etobicoke-La kIsabelle	Maltais	RooneyJoyal	Marceau	RossiKaplan	Masse	RoyKelly	Masters	SavardKillens (Mrs.)	McCauley	SchroderLachance	McRae	SimmonsLajoie	Munro	SmithLalonde	(Hamilton East)	StollcryLamontagne	Nicholson	TessierLanders	(Miss)	TousignantLang	Olivier	TrudeauLaniel	Ostiguy	TurnerLapierre	Parent	VeillctteLapointe	Pelletier	Watson(Charlevoix)	Pepin	Wealhcrhead Yanakis-126.


Madam Speaker:: l declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.


Mr. Turner:: Madam Speaker, I voted but 1 was not recorded.


Madam Speaker:: The vote will be so recorded.
The next question is on motion No. 21 (Mr. Blenkarn).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 22 (Mr. Blenkarn).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 23 (Mr. MacEachen):
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Excise Tax


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


Madam Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 24 (Mr. Riis). An affirmative vote on this motion disposes of motions Nos. 25 and 26. A negative vote requires the question to be put on motions Nos. 25 and 26 separately.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 25 (Mr. Blenkarn).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 26 (Mr. Blenkarn).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 27 (Mr. Blenkarn). The vote on this motion also disposes of motion No.
28.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The House divided on motion No. 27 (Mr. Blenkarn) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 70)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Andre
Anguish
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton) Beatty Benjamin Blaikie Blenkarn Bosley Bradley Cardiff Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt Crombie Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Darling Deans de Jong Dick Dinsdale Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Gass
Allmand
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Berger
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussiercs
Caccia
Gilchrist
Greenaway
Gurbin
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Hnatyshyn Hovdebo Howie Huntington Ittinuar Jarvis Jelinek Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Korchinski
Kristiansen
Kushner
Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald
(Miss)
MacKay
Malone
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
++NAYS
Messrs.
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chretien
Collenettc
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cdt6 (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Dawson De Bane de Corneille
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Orlikow
Pa proski
Parker
Patterson
Rae
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
Rose
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Speyer
Stevens
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Thomson
Towers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Wright
Young
Yurko-119.
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-Miramichi) Dubois Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher


Excise Tax
Messrs.
Messrs.
Fleming	Lajoie
Flis	Lalonde
Foster	Lamontagne
Fox	Landers
Francis	Lang
Frith	Laniel
Garant	Lapierre
Gauthier	Lapointe
Gendron	(Charlevoi
Gimaiel	Lapointe
Gingras	(Beauce)
Gourd	Lefebvre
(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Loiselle
Gourde	Lonsdale
(L6vis)	MacBain
Gray	Mackasey
Guilbault	MacLellan
Harquail	Malepart
Herbert	Maltais
Hervieux-Payette	Marceau
(Mrs.)	Masse
Hopkins	Masters
Hudecki	McCauley
Irwin	McRae
Isabelle	Munro
Joyal	(Hamilton
Kaplan	Nicholson
Kelly	(Miss)
Killens (Mrs.)	Olivier
Lachance	Ostiguy
Parent
Pelletier
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Stollery Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Vanakis-126.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motion negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 29 (Mr. Riis).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The House divided on motion No. 29 (Mr. Riis) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 71)
++YEAS
Andre
Anguish
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton) Beatty Benjamin Blaikie Blenkarn Bosley Bradley Cardiff Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellow head)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Cook
Messrs.
Cooper
Corbett
Cossitt
Crombie
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Darling Deans de Jong Dick Dinsdale Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp
Fennell
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gamble
Gass
Gilchrist
Greenaway
Gurbin
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo Howie Huntington Ittinuar Jarvis Jelinek Jewett (Miss) Keeper Kempling Kilgour King Knowles Korchinski Kristiansen Kushner Lambert Lawrence Lewis Lewycky MacDonald (Miss) MacKay Malone Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
Allmand
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Berger
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
. Chretien I Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau C6te (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Rae
Reid
(St. Catharines)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dubois Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Riis
Robinson (Burnaby) Roche Rose Sargeant Schellenberger Shields Siddon Skelly Speyer Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young Yurko-119.
Lapointe
(Beauce)
Lefebvre
Loiselle
Lonsdale
MacBain
Mackasey
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson
(Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Parent
Pelletier
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Stollery Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Yanakis-126.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 30 (Mr. Lambert).


Excise Tax
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Messrs.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The House divided on motion No. 30 (Mr. Lambert) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 72)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Andre
Anguish
Baker
(Ncpean-Carlcton) Beatty Benjamin Blaikic Blenkarn Bosley Bradley Cardiff Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt Crombic Crosbic
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzcr Darling Deans dc Jong Dick Dinsdalc Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrcstall Fraser Fretz Fricsen Fulton Gamble Gass
Gilchrist
Greenaway
Gurbin
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Hnatyshyn Hovdcbo Howie Huntington Ittinuar Jarvis Jelinek Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Korchinski
Kristiansen
Kushncr
Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald
(Miss)
MacKay
Malone
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Rac
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
Rose
Sargcant
Schcllenberger
Shields
Siddon
Skelly
Speyer
Stevens
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Thomson
Towers
Vankoughnct
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Wright
Young
Yurko-119.
Collenette	Gimaiel	MarceauComtois	Gingras	MasseCorbin	Gourd	MastersCorriveau	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	McCauleyCote (Mrs.)	Gourde	McRaeCousineau	(Levis)	MunroCullen	Gray	(Hamilton East)Cyr	Guilbault	NicholsonDawson	Harquail	(Miss)De Bane	Herbert	Olivierde Corneille	Hervieux-Payettc	OstiguyDemers	(Mrs.)	ParentDenigcr	Hopkins	PelletierDesmarais	Hudecki	PepinDingwall	Irwin	PetersonDion	Isabelle	PinardDionne	Joyal	Portelance(Chicoutimi)	Kaplan	Prud'hommcDionne	Kelly	Reid(Northumberland-	Killens (Mrs.)	(Kenora-Rainy River)Miramichi)	Lachance	RobertsDubois	Lajoie	RobinsonDupont	Lalonde	(Etobicokc-Lakcshorc)Dupras	Lamontagnc	RossiDuquct	Lang	RoyErola (Mrs.)	Lanicl	SavardEthicr	Lapierre	SchroderEvans	Lapointe	SimmonsFerguson	(Charlevoix)	SmithFisher	Lapointe	StolleryFleming	(Beaucc)	TessierFI is	Lcfebvre	TousignantFoster	Loiselle	TrudeauFox	Lonsdale	TurnerFrancis	MacBain	VeilletteFrith	Mackasey	WatsonGarant	MacLellan	WeathcrheadGauthier	Malepart	Yanakis-124.Gendron	Maltais


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 31 (Mr. Riis).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The House divided on motion No. 31 (Mr. Riis) which was negatived on the following division:
++NAYS
Messrs.
(Division No. 73)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand	Berger	Caccia	Andre	Bradley	CooperAppolloni	Blaker	Campbell	Anguish	Cardiff	Corbett(Mrs.)	Bloomfield	(Miss)	Baker	Carney (Miss)	CossittAxworthy	Bockstael	(South West Nova)	(Nepean-Carleton)	Clark	CrombicBachand	Bossy	Campbell	Beatty	(Yellowhead)	CrosbicBaker	Brcau	(LaSalle)	Benjamin	Clarke	(St. John's West)(Gandcr-Twillingatc)	Bujold	Campbell	Blaikie	(Vancouver Quadra)	CrosbyBcauchamp-Niquet	Burghardt	(Cardigan)	Blenkarn	Coates	(Halifax West)(Mrs.)	Bussicres	Chretien	Bosley	Cook	Dantzer
Messrs.	
Darling	Keeper	NickersonDeans	Kempling	Nielsende Jong	Kilgour	NowlanDick	King	NystromDinsdale	Knowles	OrlikowDomm	Korchinski	PaproskiEllis	Kristiansen	ParkerElzinga	Kushner	PattersonEpp	Lambert	RacFennell	Lawrence	ReidForrestall	Lewis	(St. CatharimFraser	Lewycky	RiisFretz	MacDonald	RobinsonFriesen	(Miss)	(Burnaby)Fulton	MacKay	RocheGamble	Malone	RoseGass	Mayer	SargeantGilchrist	Mazankowski	SchcllenbergerGreenaway	McCain	SiddonGurbin	McCuish	SkellyHalliday	McDermid	SpeyerHamilton	McGrath	Stevens(Qu'Appelle- Moose	McKenzie	StewartMountain)	McKinnon	TaylorHargrave	McKnight	ThackerHawkes	McLean	ThomsonHnatyshyn	McMillan	TowersHovdebo	Mitchell	VankoughnetHowie	(Mrs.)	WaddellHuntington	Mitges	WenmanIttinuar	Munro	WilsonJarvis	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	WiseJclinek	Murta	WrightJewett (Miss)	Neil	Young Yurko-118.
Excise Tax
Messrs.
Allmand
Appolioni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gandcr-Twillingatc)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Berger
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-Miramichi) Dubois Dupont Dupras Duquct Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoic Lalonde Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce) Lefebvre Loiscllc Lonsdale MacBain Mackasey MacLellan Malepart Maltais Marceau
Roberts
Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rossi Roy Savard
Schroder
Simmons
Smith
Stollery
Tessier
Tousignant
Trudeau
Turner
Vcillcttc
Watson
Weathcrhcad
Yanakis-125.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 34 (Mr. Lambert).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion No. 34 (Mr. Lambert) negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 36 (Mr. Wilson). An affirmative vote on this motion disposes of motions Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43. A negative vote also disposes of motions Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 43, with the question having to be put on motion No. 39.
All those in favour of motion No. 36 will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The House divided on motion No. 36 (Mr. Wilson) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 74)
++YEAS
Messrs.
(LaSalle)	Gendron	Masse	Campbell	Gimaiel	Masters	Andre	Cooper	Forrestall(Cardigan)	Gingras	McCauley	Anguish	Corbett	FraserChretien	Gourd	McRae	Baker	Crombie	FretzCollcnette	(Argenteuil-Papincau)	Munro	(Ncpcan-Carlcton)	Crosbic	FriesenComtois	Gourde	(Hamilton East)	Beatty	(St. John's West)	FultonCorbin	(Levis)	Nicholson	Benjamin	Crosby	GambleCorrivcau	Gray	(Miss)	Blaikic	(Halifax West)	GassCote (Mrs.)	Guilbault	Olivier	Blcnkarn	Dantzer	GilchristCousincau	Harquail	Ostiguy	Bosley	Darling	GreenawayCullen	Herbert	Parent	Bradley	Deans	GurbinCyr	Hervieux-Payettc	Pelletier	Cardiff	de Jong	HallidayDawson	(Mrs.)	Pepin	Carney (Miss)	Dick	HamiltonDe Bane	Hopkins	Peterson	Clark	Dinsdale	(Qu'Appell*de Corneille	Hudccki	Pinard	(Yellowhcad)	Domm	MountairDemers	Irwin	Portelance	Clarke	Ellis	HargraveDeniger	Isabelle	Prud'homme	(Vancouver Quadra)	Elzinga	HawkesDesmarais	Joyal	Reid	Coates	Epp	HnatyshynDingwall	Kaplan	(Kcnora-Rainv River)	Cook	Fennell	Hovdebo
Howie Huntington Ittinuar Jarvis Jelinek Jewett (Miss) Keeper Kempling Kilgour King Knowles Korchinski Kristiansen Kushncr Lambert Lawrence Lewis Lewycky MacDonald (Miss) MacKay Malone Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
dc Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Excise Tax
Messrs.
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Rae
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson (Burnaby) Roche Rose Sargeant Schellenberger Shields Siddon Skclly Speyer Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wcnman Wilson Wise Wright Young Yurko-118.
Andre
Anguish
Baker
(Ncpcan-Carleton)
Beatty
Benjamin
Blaikie
Greenaway
Gurbin
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appellc-Moose Mountain) Hargrave
Kelly
Killcns (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix)
Schroder
Simmons
Smith
Stollery
Tessier
Tousignant
Trudeau
Turner
Veillette
Watson
Wcathcrhead
Yanakis-124.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare motions Nos. 36, 40, 41,42 and 43 lost.
Motions negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 39 (Mr. Riis).
Allmand
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gandcr-Twillingatc)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Berger
Bloomfield
Bockstae!
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova)
Campbell (LaSalle) Campbell (Cardigan) Chretien Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cote (Mrs.) Cousincau Cullen Cyr Dawson De Banc de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murta Neil
Blenkarn	Hawkes	NickersonNAYS	Bosley	Hnatyshyn	NielsenBradley	Hovdcbo	NowlanMessrs.	Cardiff	Howie	NystromAllmand	Dubois	Lapointe	Carney (Miss)	Huntington	OrlikowAppolloni	Dupont	(Beauce)	Clark	Ittinuar	Paproski(Mrs.)	Dupras	Lefebvre	(Yellowhead)	Jarvis	ParkerAxworthy	Duquet	Loiselle	Clarke	Jelinek	PattersonBachand	Eroia (Mrs.)	Lonsdale	(Vancouver Quadra)	Jewett (Miss)	RaeBaker	Ethicr	MacBain	Coates	Keeper	Reid(Gander-Twillingate)	Evans	Mackasey	Cook	Kempling	(St. Catharines)Beauchamp-Niquet	Ferguson	MacLcllan	Cooper	Kilgour	Riis(Mrs.)	Fisher	Malepart	Corbett	King	RobinsonBerger	Fleming	Maltais	Crombie	Knowles	(Burnaby)Bloomfield	Flis	Marceau	Crosbic	Korchinski	RocheBockstacl	Foster	Masse	(St. John's West)	Kristiansen	RoseBossy	Fox	Masters	Crosby	Kushner	SargeantBreau	Francis	McCauley	(Halifax West)	Lambert	SchellenbergerBujold	Frith	McRae	Dantzer	Lawrence	ShieldsBurghardt	Garant	Munro	Darling	Lewis	SiddonBussieres	Gauthier	(Hamilton East)	Deans	Lewycky	SkcllyCaccia	Gendron	Nicholson	dc Jong	MacDonald	SpeyerCampbell	Gimaiel	(Miss)	Dick	(Miss)	Stevens(Miss)	Gingras	Olivier	Dinsdale	MacKay	Stewart(South West Nova)	Gourd	Ostiguy	Domm	Malone	TaylorCampbell	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Parent	Ellis	Mayer	Thacker(LaSalle)	Gourde	Pelletier	Elzinga	Mazankowski	ThomsonCampbell	(Levis)	Pepin	Epp	McCain	Towers(Cardigan)	Gray	Peterson	Fennell	McCuish	VankoughnetChretien	Guilbault	Pinard	Forrestall	McDermid	WaddellCollenette	Harquail	Portelance	Fraser	McGrath	WenmanComtois	Herbert	Prud'homme	Fretz	McKenzie	WilsonCorbin	Hervicux-Payette	Reid	Friesen	McKinnon	WiseCorriveau	(Mrs.)	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Fulton	McKnight	WrightCote (Mrs.)	Hopkins	Roberts	Gamble	McLean	YoungCousincau	Hudecki	Robinson	Gass	McMillan	Yurko-118.Cullen	Irwin	(Etobicoke-Lakcshorc)	Gilchrist	Cyr	Isabelle	Rossi	NAYS	Dawson	Joyal	Roy	De Bane	Kaplan	Savard	Messrs.	
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-Miramichi) Dubois Dupont Dupras Duquct Eroia (Mrs.)
Ethicr
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Garant
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The House divided on motion No. 39 (Mr. Riis) which was negatived on the following division:
(.Division No. 75)
++YEAS
Messrs.

m.
m.



Excise Tax
Messrs.
Gauthier	Lang	Pelletier	Howie	McCuish	RiisGendron	Laniel	Pepin	Huntington	McDermid	RobinsonGimaicl	Lapierre	Peterson	Ittinuar	McGrath	(Burnaby)Gingras	Lapointe	Pinard	Jarvis	McKenzie	RocheGourd	(Charlevoix)	Portelance	Jclinek	McKinnon	Rose(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Lapointe	Prud'homme	Jewett (Miss)	McKnight	SargeantGourde	(Beauce)	Reid	Keeper	McLean	Schcllcnbcrgci(Levis)	Lefebvre	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Kcmpling	McMillan	ShieldsGray	Loisellc	Roberts	Kilgour	Mitchell	SiddonGuilbault	Lonsdale	Robinson	King	(Mrs.)	SkellyHarquail	MacBain	(Etobicoke-Lakcshore)	Knowles	Mitges	SpeyerHerbert	Mackasey	Rossi	Korchinski	Munro	StevensHervieux-Payette	MacLellan	Roy	Kristiansen	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Stewart(Mrs.)	Malepart	Savard	Kushncr	Murta	TaylorHopkins	Maltais	Schroder	Lambert	Neil	ThackerHudecki	Marceau	Simmons	Lawrence	Nickerson	ThomsonIrwin	Masse	Smith	Lewis	Nielsen	T owersIsabelle	Masters	Stollery	Lewycky	Nowlan	VankoughnetJoyal	McCauley	Tessier	MacDonald	Nystrom	WaddellKaplan	McRae	Tousignant	(Miss)	Orlikow	WenmanKelly	Munro	Trudeau	MacKay	Paproski	WilsonKillens (Mrs.)	(Hamilton East)	Turner	Malone	Parker	WiseLachance	Nicholson	Veillette	Mayer	Patterson	WrightLajoie	(Miss)	Watson	Mazankowski	Rae	YoungLalonde Lamontagne LandersOlivier Ostiguy Parent	Weatherhead Yanakis-124.	McCain	Reid (St. Catharines)
NAYS Messrs.	Yurko-118.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.		Allmand	Dubois	Lapointe
Motion negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 47 (Mr. Wilson). An affirmative vote on this motion requires the question to be put on motion No. 53, and a negative vote disposes of motion No. 53.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The House divided on motion No. 47 (Mr. Wilson) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 76)
Andre	Cooper	ForrcstallAnguish	Corbett	FraserBaker	Crombie	Fretz(Nepcan-Carleton)	Crosbic	FricsenBeatty	(St. John's West)	FultonBenjamin	Crosby	GambleBlaikie	(Halifax West)	GassBlenkarn	Dantzer	GilchristBosley	Darling	GreenawayBradley	Deans	GurbinCardiff	de Jong	HallidayCarney (Miss)	Dick	HamiltonClark	Dinsdalc	(Qu'Appelh(Yellowhead)	Domm	MountairClarke	Ellis	Hargrave(Vancouver Quadra)	Elzinga	HawkesCoates	Epp	HnatyshynCook	Fennell	Hovdcbo
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-T willingatc) Bcauchamp-Niquet (Mrs.)
Berger
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussicrcs
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chretien
Collenctte
Comtois
Corbin
Corrivcau
Cdte (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Dcniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Dupont Dupras Duquct Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gcndron
Gimaicl
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbaull
Harquail
Herbert
Hcrvieux-Payelte
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Joy a I
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
(Beauce)
Lefcbvre
Loisellc
Lonsdale
MacBain
Mackasey
MacLcllan
Malcpart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson
(Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Parent
Pelletier
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Por tela nee
Prud'hommc
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- La kcshorc) Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Stollery Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Vcillettc Watson Wcathcrhcad Yanakis-123.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motion negatived.


Excise Tax


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 56 (Mr. Riis). An affirmative vote on this motion disposes of motions Nos. 57, 58 and 59. A negative vote on this motion disposes of motions Nos. 57 and 59 with the question having to be put on motion No. 58.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion negatived on division.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 58 (Mr. MacEachen).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motions Nos. 60 to 135 inclusive.
The House divided on motions Nos. 60 to 135 inclusive (Messrs. Wilson and Waddell) which were negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 77)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Andre
Anguish
Baker
(Ncpcan-Carlcton) Beam Benjamin Blaikic Blcnkarn Bosley Bradley Cardiff Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellow head)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coalcs Cook Cooper Corbel i Crombic
Crosbic
(Si. John's Wcsl) Crosby
(Halifax Wcsl) Dantzcr Darling Deans de Jong Dick Dinsdalc Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Frciz Fricscn Fullon Gamble
Gass
Gilchrist
Greenaway
Gurbin
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu' Appcllc- Moose Mountain) Hargrave Hawkes Hnatyshyn Hovdebo Howie Huntington Ittinuar Jarvis Jclinek Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kcmpling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Korchinski
Kristiansen
Kushner
Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
Lewycky
MacDonald
(Miss)
MacKay
Malone
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLt-.t
Allmand
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate) Beauchamp-Niquet (Mrs.)
Berger
Bloomfield
Bocksiacl
Bossy
Brcau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussicres
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chretien
Collcnette
Comtois
Corbin
Corrivcau
Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Dawson Dc Banc dc Corneille Demers Dcnigcr Dcsmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumbcrland-
Miramichi)
Dubois
Messrs.
McMillan
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Orlikow
Pa proski
Parker
Patterson
Rae
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethicr
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papincau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudccki
Irwin
Isabelle
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Lanicl
Lapicrrc
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Roche
Rose
Sargcant
Schcllenbcrgcr
Shields
Siddon
Skclly
Speyer
Stevens
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Thomson
T owers
Vankoughnet
Waddell
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Wright
Young
Yurko-118.
Lapointe
(Beauce)
Lefebvre
Loiscllc
Lonsdale
MacBain
Mackascy
MacLellan
Malcpart
Maltais
Marccau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson
(Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Parent
Pelletier
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portclancc
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kcnora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicokc-Lakcshorc) Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Stollcry Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillettc Watson Wcatherhead Yanakis-124.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motions lost. Motions negatived.


Pierre Bussières: that Bill C-57, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act


and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time, at the next sitting of the House?
Excise Tax


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It shall be read the third time at the next sitting of the House, pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 9, 1981.
It being after ten o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 11.11 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 19, 1981