Mahoney,
J:—This
is
an
application
made
pursuant
to
section
28
of
the
Federal
Court
Act
RSC
1970
(2nd
Supp)
c
10,
and
subsection
44(7.3)
of
the
Excise
Tax
Act,
RSC
1970,
c
E-13
as
amended
by
SC
1980-81,
c
68,
to
review
and
set
aside
the
respondents
decision
rejecting
the
appellant’s
application
for
a
refund
of
the
natural
gas
and
gas
liquids
tax
imposed
pursuant
to
subsection
28.13(1)
of
the
Excise
Tax
Act
and
the
Canadian
ownership
surcharge
imposed
under
subsection
65.22
of
the
Energy
Administration
Act,
SC
1974-75-76,
c
47
as
amended
by
1980-81-82,
c
114.
The
Canadian
ownership
surcharge
need
not
be
dealt
with
separately
as
it
stands
or
falls
with
the
natural
gas
and
gas
liquids
tax.
The
sole
issue
is
whether
the
respondent
erred
in
law
in
holding
that
the
natural
gas
in
respect
of
which
the
tax
in
issue
was
imposed
was
not
within
the
exception
provided
by
paragraph
25.13(3)(a).
(3)
Notwithstanding
subsections
(1)
and
(2),
no
tax
is
payable
under
this
section
in
respect
of
(a)
marketable
pipeline
gas
consumed
at
a
gas
processing
plant
in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
or
natural
gas
liquids,
other
than
marketable
pipeline
gas
consumed
after
January
31,
1981
in
the
separation
of
natural
gas
liquids
into
their
individual
components;
The
exception
to
the
exception
is
not
directly
in
play.
None
of
the
gas
in
respect
of
which
the
tax
was
levied
was
consumed
in
the
separation
of
natural
gas
liquids
into
their
individual
components.
It
is
not
disputed
that
the
gas,
on
the
deemed
receipt
of
which
by
the
appellant
the
tax
was
levied,
was
“marketable
pipeline
gas”
nor
that
it
was
“consumed
at
a
gas
processing
plant”.
The
only
dispute
is
whether
it
was
consumed
‘‘in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas”.
The
appellant
says
it
was;
the
respondent
says
it
was
not.
Again,
the
manner
and
purpose
of
its
consumption
is
not
disputed.
Natural
gas,
as
it
emerges
from
the
ground,
is
commonly
called
“raw
gas”.
It
is
a
mixture
of
components.
The
function
of
a
gas
processing
plant
is
to
separate
and
remove
certain
of
those
components
to
produce
marketable
pipeline
gas.
Some
of
the
components
removed
are
themselves
merchantable
commodities,
eg,
natural
gas
liquids,
such
as
propane.
Others,
eg,
water,
must
be
wasted.
If
the
raw
gas
is
“sour
gas”,
among
the
components
that
must
be
removed
to
produce
marketable
pipeline
gas
is
hydrogen
sulphide,
an
acid
gas.
The
hydrogen
sulphide,
once
separated,
is
processed
to
produce
elemental
sulphur.
The
hydrogen
sulphide
that
does
not
react
to
form
sulphur
is
incinerated
to
produce
sulphur
dioxide
which
is
vented
to
the
atmosphere
(Case,
Tab
8,
Ex.
B).
It
is
tax
levied
in
respect
of
the
marketable
pipeline
gas
consumed
in
the
incineration
of
hydrogen
sulphide
that
is
in
issue.
The
respondent’s
position
is
that,
since
no
marketable
pipeline
gas
is
produced
by
or
consequent
upon
the
incineration
of
the
hydrogen
sulphide,
the
gas
consumed
in
the
incinerator
is
not
consumed
in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas.
The
appellant’s
position
is
that
a
gas
processing
plant
is
a
system
and
that
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
necessarily
entails
the
lawful
disposal
of
the
components
of
raw
gas
separated
in
its
production.
The
gas
in
issue
is
all
consumed
in
Alberta.
It
is
illegal
to
release
hydrogen
sulphide
into
the
atmosphere.*
The
method
of
disposal
described
is
legal
and
subject
of
permits
issued
under
the
provincial
statute.
Unless
the
components
of
raw
gas
separated
in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
can
somehow
be
disposed
of,
be
it
by
sale,
storage
or
as
waste,
the
plant
cannot
be
operated.
Unless
the
disposal
of
each
is
legal,
the
plant
cannot
be
operated
legally.
If
the
hydrogen
sulphide
cannot,
in
fact,
be
disposed
of,
the
gas
processing
plant
must
be
shut
down
and
no
marketable
pipeline
gas
will
be
produced
at
it.
If
the
hydrogen
sulphide
cannot
be
disposed
of
legally,
marketable
pipeline
gas
cannot
be
legally
produced
at
the
plant.
In
his
submission,
the
respondent
questions
the
Court’s
jurisdiction
to
review
the
decision
under
section
28
of
the
Federal
Court
Act.
He
says
it
is
a
finding
of
fact
which
is
not
alleged
to
have
been
made
in
a
perverse
or
capricious
manner
or
without
regard
to
the
material
before
him
and
is
not,
therefore,
subject
to
review
under
paragraph
28(1)(c).
The
question,
as
put
by
the
appellant,
is
whether
the
respondent
erred
in
applying
the
law
to
undisputed
facts.
The
impugned
decision,
as
evidenced
by
the
letter
of
January
4,
1983,
communicating
it
(Case,
Tab
10),
is
not
founded
on
an
express
determination
that,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
the
incinerator
is
not
an
integral
part
of
the
system,
nor
incineration
an
essential
element
of
the
process,
whereby
marketable
pipeline
gas
is
produced
at
a
gas
processing
plant.
The
respondent
was
invited
more
than
once
by
the
appellant
to
express
the
findings
of
fact
on
which
he
based
his
decision.
He
did
not
do
so.
Rather,
the
decision
appears
clearly
to
be
founded
on
an
interpretation
of
paragraph25.13(3)(a)
based
on
the
facts
alleged
in
the
appellant’s
rebate
claim,
particularly
Exhibit
B.
The
decision
is
subject
to
review
under
paragraph
28(1
)(b)
on
the
principle
enunciated
in
Canadian
Lift
Truck
Co
Ltd
v
Deputy
Minister
of
National
Revenue,
[1956],
1
DLR
(2d)
497.
While
the
construction
of
a
statutory
enactment
in
a
question
of
law,
and
the
question
as
to
whether
a
particular
matter
or
thing
is
of
such
a
nature
or
kind
as
to
fall
within
the
legal
definition
is
a
question
of
fact,
nevertheless
if
it
appears
to
the
appellate
Court
that
the
tribunal
of
fact
had
acted
either
without
any
evidence
or
that
no
person,
properly
instructed
as
to
the
law
and
acting
judicially,
could
have
reached
the
particular
determination,
the
Court
may
proceed
on
the
assumption
that
a
misconception
of
law
has
been
responsible
for
the
determination;
Edwards
v
Bairstow,
[1955]
3
All
ER
48.
The
comment
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
on
the
word
“produced”
as
used
in
the
Excise
Tax
Act
is
apt
with
reference
to
“production”.!
.
.
.
The
words
“produced”
and
“manufactured”
are
not
words
of
any
very
precise
meaning
and,
consequently,
we
must
look
to
the
context
for
the
purpose
of
ascertaining
their
meaning
and
application
in
the
provisions
we
have
to
construe.
Likewise
apt
are
its
observations
with
respect
to
the
term
“manufacturers
or
producers”
in
the
same
Act.;t
There
can
be
no
doubt
in
my
mind
that
the
appellant
is
manufacturing
electricity
when
its
generators
are
in
operation.
Indeed,
this
was
scarcely
contested.
I
find
it
impossible
to
apply
any
restrictive
definition
to
the
term
“manufacturing”
since
the
Act
itself
does
not
do
so.
I
conclude
that
the
appellant
is
performing
the
act
of
manufacturing
electricity
by
the
use
of
the
generators
and,
being
unable
to
find
anything
in
the
Act
to
dictate
otherwise,
I
conclude
that
the
appellant
becomes
a
manufacturer
by
producing
electric
current
by
the
operation
of
the
generators.
In
the
absence
of
a
restrictive
definition,
I
conclude
that
the
term
“production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas”
does
not
exclude
the
disposal
of
the
waste
components
of
the
raw
gas
from
which
the
marketable
pipeline
gas
is
produced.
That
disposal
is
essential
to
the
continued
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
and
may
reasonably
be
regarded
as
an
integral
element
of
its
production.
The
inclusion
of
the
exception
to
the
exception,
which
is
not
directly
in
play,
does,
in
my
view,
make
Parliament’s
intention
clear.
The
separation
of
the
natural
gas
liquids
into
their
individual
components,
as
does
the
incineration
of
the
hydrogen
sulphide,
occurs
after
they
and
the
marketable
pipeline
gas
have
been
separated.
No
marketable
pipeline
gas
is
produced
by
or
consequent
upon
the
separation
of
the
natural
gas
liquids.
It
is,
therefore,
clear
that
Parliament
intended
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
at
a
gas
processing
plant
to
comprehend
a
complete
system
and
process
involving
not
only
the
receipt
of
the
raw
gas
and
the
separation
of
its
components
up
to
the
point
where
the
marketable
pipeline
gas
is
itself
isolated
but,
as
well,
involving
the
further
processing
of
the
other
components.
If
it
has
not
had
that
intention,
the
exception
to
the
exception
would
have
been
unnecessary.
It
is
entirely
reasonable
that
Parliament
have
intended
to
impose
the
tax
at
the
processing
plant
in
respect
of
gas
consumed
to
produce
merchantable
commodities,
such
as
propane,
not
themselves
subject
of
the
same
tax
on
a
later
transaction,
while
exempting
gas
consumed
at
the
plant
to
dispose
of
waste
and
to
isolate
marketable
pipeline
gas
which,
if
not
itself
consumed
at
the
plant,
is
subject
of
the
same
tax
on
a
later
transaction.
The
interpretation
urged
by
the
respondent
is
not
inconsistent
with
a
strict
literal
interpretation
of
the
exception
which
is
directly
in
issue.
It
does,
however,
entail
accepting
as
redundant
the
exception
to
the
exception
within
the
same
provision.
Neither,
in
my
view,
is
the
interpretation
urged
by
the
appellant
inconsistent
with
a
strict
literal
interpretation
of
the
exception
if
the
disposition
of
waste
necessarily
generated
in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
is
included
in
production.
If
one
accepts
the
appellant’s
interpretation,
the
exception
to
the
exception
is
not
redundant.
That
is
clearly
the
interpretation
to
be
preferred.
I,
therefore,
conclude
that
had
the
respondent
been
properly
instructed
as
to
the
law,
he
could
not,
acting
judicially,
have
reached
the
conclusion
he
did.
I
would
set
aside
the
respondent’s
determination
and
refer
the
appellant’s
refund
claim,
No
0805,
dated
March
28,
1983,
back
to
the
respondent
for
reconsideration
and
redetermination
on
the
basis
that,
on
the
uncontroverted
evidence
before
him,
the
marketable
pipeline
gas
consumed
in
the
incinerators
at
the
six
gas
processing
plants
in
issue
was
consumed
in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
25.13(3)(a)
of
the
Excise
Tax
Act.
Stone,
J:—The
principal
issue
in
this
matter
concerns
the
application
of
paragraph
25.13(3)(a)
of
the
Excise
Tax
Act,
RSC
1970,
c
E-13
as
amended
by
SC
1980-81-82,
C
68,
in
the
circumstances
described
in
the
Reasons
for
Judgment
of
Mr
Justice
Mahoney.
A
further
point
was
raised
by
the
respondent
in
limine
that
the
Court
is
without
jurisdiction
to
hear
and
determine
this
application
on
the
ground
that
it
involves
a
question
of
fact
and
not
of
law.
I
fully
agree
with
Mr
Justice
Mahoney
that
this
point
should
be
rejected
for
the
reasons
given
by
him.
It
seems
to
me
that
in
construing
the
statutory
provisions
in
question
we
are
to
have
reasonable
regard
to
the
object
and
purpose
of
the
Act.
This
approach
to
statutory
construction
was
discussed
by
Dickson,
J
in
Covert
et
al
v
Minister
of
Finance
(NS),
[1980]
2
SCR
774;
[1980]
CTC
437,
where
he
stated
in
his
dissenting
opinion
(at
807):
Fiscal
legislation
does
not
stand
in
a
category
by
itself.
Persons
whose
conduct
a
statute
seeks
to
regulate
should
know
in
advance
what
it
is
that
the
statute
prescribes.
A
court
should
ask
—
what
would
the
words
of
the
statute
be
reasonably
understood
to
mean
by
those
governed
by
the
statute?
Unnatural
or
artificial
construction
are
to
be
avoided.
The
correct
approach,
applicable
to
statutory
construction
generally,
is
to
construe
the
legislation
with
reasonable
regard
to
its
object
and
purpose
and
to
give
it
such
interpretation
as
best
ensures
the
attainment
of
such
object
and
purpose.
The
primary
object
of
a
succession
duty
statute,
such
as
the
legislation
under
consideration,
is
to
capture
such
amounts
for
the
fiscal
coffers
as
the
words
of
the
statutory
net
can
catch.
No
legislative
intention
can
be
assumed
other
than
to
collect
such
tax
as
the
statute
imposes,
no
more
and
no
less.
Although
a
court
is
entitled,
in
the
case
of
fiscal
legislation
as
with
other
enactments,
to
look
to
the
purpose
of
the
Act
as
a
whole,
as
well
as
the
particular
purpose
of
a
given
section,
it
must
still
respect
the
actual
words
which
express
the
legislative
intention.
This
approach
was
not
discussed
in
the
reasons
for
judgment
of
the
majority
in
that
case.
With
respect,
I
would
adopt
it.
It
was
the
approach
taken
by
the
English
Court
of
Appeal
in
Attorney-General
v
Carlton
Bank,
[1899]
2QB
158,
where
Lord
Russell
of
Killowen,
CJ
said
(at
164):
.
.
.
I
see
no
reason
why
special
canons
of
construction
should
be
applied
to
any
Act
of
Parliament,
and
I
know
of
no
authority
for
saying
that
a
taxing
Act
is
to
be
construed
differently
from
any
other
Act.
The
duty
of
the
Court
is,
in
my
opinion,
in
all
cases
the
same,
whether
the
Act
to
be
construed
relates
to
taxation
or
to
any
other
subject,
namely
to
give
effect
to
the
intention
of
the
Legislature
as
that
intention
is
to
be
gathered
from
the
language
employed
having
regard
to
the
context
in
connection
with
which
it
is
employed.
The
Court
must
no
doubt
ascertain
the
subject
matter
to
which
the
particular
tax
is
by
the
statute
intended
to
be
applied,
but
when
once
that
is
ascertained,
it
is
not
open
to
the
Court
to
narrow
or
whittle
down
the
operation
of
the
Act
by
seeming
considerations
of
hardship
or
of
business
convenience
or
the
like.
Accordingly,
in
my
view,
it
can
be
taken
that
the
primary
object
of
the
Excise
Tax
Act
is
“to
capture
such
amounts
for
the
fiscal
coffers
as
the
words
of
the
statutory
net
can
catch”.
We
are
thus
required
to
examine
the
language
that
was
used
by
Parliament
in
casting
that
net
and
to
see
whether
that
language
is
reasonably
clear.
If
it
1s,
it
must
be
given
effect.
I
turn
to
consider
the
provisions
with
which
we
are
concerned.
Of
primary
interest,
of
course,
are
the
provisions
of
paragraph
25.13(3)(a).
They
appear
in
Part
IV.
1
of
the
statute
and
are
to
be
read
together
with
the
provisions
of
the
Act
expressly
referred
to
in
it
as
well
as
with
related
definitions
contained
in
subsection
25.1(1).
These
definitions
read
as
follows:
25.1(1)
In
this
part,
“gas”
means
any
hydrocarbon
or
mixture
of
hydrocarbons
that,
at
a
temperature
of
15°C
and
a
pressure
of
101.325
kPa,
is
in
a
gaseous
state
and
that
is
taken
or
removed
from
a
natural
reservoir
in
Canada;
“gas
processing
plant”
means
an
installation
in
Canada
at
which
natural
gas
liquids
or
other
components
are
removed
from
gas
by
means
of
field
scrubbers,
field
separators
or
other
field
extraction
facilities
or
at
which
natural
gas
liquids
are
removed
from
oil
by
such
means;
“gas
reprocessing
plant”
means
an
installation
in
Canada
at
which
natural
gas
liquids
are
removed
from
marketable
pipeline
gas
at
which
such
liquids
and
the
remaining
marketable
pipeline
gas
are
not
further
processed;
“marketable
pipeline
gas”
means
gas,
other
than
(a)
natural
gas
liquids,
and
(b)
gas
injected
into
a
natural
reservoir
for
any
purpose,
other
than
storage;
“natural
gas
liquids”
means
ethane,
propane
and
butanes,
and
any
mixture
of
two
or
more
thereof,
that
are
produced
at
a
gas
processing
plant
or
a
gas
reprocessing
plant;
The
above-quoted
definitions
are
followed
in
Part
IV.
1
by
a
number
of
other
provisions,
including
subsections
25.13(1),
(2)
and
paragraph
(3)(a)
which
read:
25.13(1)
There
shall
be
imposed,
levied
and
collected
on
the
receipt
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
by
a
distributor
in
Canada
a
tax
at
the
rate
specified
in
subsection
(5).
(2)
There
shall
be
imposed,
levied
and
collected
on
the
receipt
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
by
a
consumer
in
Canada
from
a
gas
producer
or
a
broker,
or
from
any
person
acting
for
or
on
behalf
of
a
gas
producer
or
broker,
a
tax
at
the
rate
specified
in
subsection
(5).
(3)
Notwithstanding
subsections
(1)
and
(2),
no
tax
is
payable
under
this
section
in
respect
of
a
receipt
of
(a)
marketable
pipeline
gas
consumed
at
a
gas
processing
plant
or
a
gas
reprocessing
plant
in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
or
natural
gas
liquids,
other
than
marketable
pipeline
gas
consumed
after
January
31,
1981
in
the
separation
of
natural
gas
liquids
into
their
individual
components;
By
virtue
of
subsection
25.13(6)
the
appellant
is
deemed
for
purposes
of
Part
IV.
1
“to
be
the
distributor”
of
the
gas
in
respect
of
which
the
amounts
of
tax
were
collected
and
for
which
a
refund
is
sought
by
the
appellant.
The
appellant
contends
that
it
is
entitled
to
be
refunded
the
amounts
collected
by
the
respondent
on
marketable
pipeline
gas
consumed
by
it
in
the
incinerators
of
its
gas
processing
plants
in
Alberta
in
the
process
of
converting
hydrogen
sulphide
to
sulphur
dioxide
for
venting
into
the
atmosphere.
It
contends
that
the
respondent
erred
in
collecting
the
tax
because
it
is
not
authorized
by
the
language
of
the
statute,
read
in
a
fair
and
reasonable
manner.
The
respondent
takes
the
position
that
the
tax
has
been
properly
collected
on
the
basis
that
the
gas
was
not
consumed
“in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas”.
It
argues
that
the
gas
was
consumed
in
the
disposal
of
a
waste
known
as
hydrogen
sulphide.
That
waste
is
removed
in
the
course
of
processing
raw
gas
originating
in
underground
reservoirs.
The
respondent
further
asserts
that
the
reason
hydrogen
sulphide
is
converted
to
sulphur
dioxide
in
the
incinerators
and
disposed
of
into
the
atmosphere
lay
in
a
requirement
of
Alberta
laws
aimed
at
environmental
protection
and
not
at
gas
production.
It
argues
that
this
treatment
of
waste
gas
“is
merely
a
condition
of
operation
of
the
plant,
not
of
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas”.
Put
another
way,
it
contends
that
the
consumption
of
gas
in
the
treatment
of
waste
is
but
a
“dealing
with
a
result
of
production”
as
a
method
of
controlling
pollution
and
is
not
a
consumption
in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas.
The
appellant
quarrels
with
this
interpretation
on
the
basis
that
it
draws
a
distinction
between
gas
consumed
in
converting
raw
gas
into
marketable
pipeline
gas
and
gas
consumed
in
disposing
of
hydrogen
sulphide
removed
from
that
gas.
In
its
view
these
are
but
two
steps
in
a
single
and
integrated
process
of
producing
marketable
pipeline
gas.
Upon
that
premise
it
argues
that,
with
the
exception
discussed
below,
all
gas
consumed
at
a
gas
processing
plant
in
Alberta
including
gas
consumed
in
the
incinerator
for
the
purpose
of
disposing
of
hydrogen
sulphide
is
consumed
“in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas”.
It
argues
that,
given
the
mandatory
nature
of
Alberta
laws
requiring
conversion
and
disposal
of
hydrogen
sulphide,
no
gas
processing
plant
could
operate
and
hence
no
marketable
pipeline
gas
could
be
produced
unless
the
hydrogen
sulphide
is
also
disposed
of.
I
am
not
persuaded
by
these
arguments.
They
concede
as
an
element
that
marketable
pipeline
gas
is
produced
before
there
can
be
any
hydrogen
sulphide
to
convert
and
dispose
of
in
the
manner
described.
The
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
at
a
gas
processing
plant
involves
the
removal
of
natural
gas
liquids
or
other
“components”
from
the
raw
gas
stream.
It
was
common
ground
that
hydrogen
sulphide
is
a
“component”
of
raw
gas.
The
removal
of
these
components
result
in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas.
Nothing
further
is
required
to
be
done
to
raw
gas
in
order
to
bring
that
about.
While
Alberta
laws
require
that
the
waste
gas
be
disposed
of
as
a
pollution
control
measure,
that
step
is
not
necessary
in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas.
I
can
find
nothing
in
the
nature
of
the
entire
process
by
which
marketable
pipeline
gas
is
produced
that
requires
such
disposal.
Only
provincial
laws
require
it
and,
apparently,
they
rest
upon
a
public
policy
that
there
be
some
measure
of
environmental
protection
at
gas
processing
plants
in
Alberta.
The
consumption
of
gas
in
a
gas
plant
incinerator
does
not
result
in
the
production
of
anything.
It
only
results
in
the
disposal
of
an
unwanted
by-product
of
gas
production.
Failure
to
dispose
of
the
waste
as
required
by
Alberta
laws
is
not
a
bar
to
continued
gas
plant
operation.
The
plant
may
continue
to
operate
but
a
tax
cost
is
incurred.
The
disposal
method
utilized
carries
with
it
the
obligation
to
pay
tax
on
gas
consumed
in
the
course
of
giving
effect
to
that
method.
Finally,
the
appellant
argues
that
a
clear
indication
of
legislative
intention
in
its
favour
is
to
be
found
in
the
provisions
of
paragraph
25.13(3)(a)
itself.
The
first
part
of
these
provisions
exempts
from
the
statutory
net
gas
consumed
in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
or
of
natural
gas
liquids.
They
are
followed
by
words
of
exception
reading
as
follows:
.
.
.
other
than
marketable
pipeline
gas
consumed
after
January
31,1981
in
the
separation
of
natural
gas
liquids
into
their
individual
components.
The
appellant
contends
that
the
inclusion
of
these
words
in
paragraph
25.13(3)(a)
indicates
an
intention
on
the
part
of
Parliament
not
to
tax
the
gas
in
question.
In
this
connection
it
relies
upon
the
well-known
maxim
of
statutory
interpretation
expressio
unius
est
exclusio
alterius.
That
maxim
has
been
frequently
applied
by
courts
in
interpreting
statutes
and
documents,
but
it
has
its
limitations.*
The
appellant
points
out
that
the
separation
of
natural
gas
liquids,
like
the
disposal
of
hydrogen
sulphide,
occurs
after
the
emergence
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
from
the
raw
gas
stream.
It
contends
that
the
express
taxing
of
gas
consumed
in
this
separation
process
without
the
express
taxing
of
gas
consumed
in
the
incinerator
in
disposing
of
hydrogen
sulphide,
indicates
that
it
was
never
the
intention
of
Parliament
that
the
latter
be
taxed.
I
find
difficulty
in
accepting
this
contention.
As
already
indicated,
paragraph
25.13(3)(a)
is
not
concerned
exclusively
with
exempting
from
tax
gas
consumed
in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas.
It
is
also
concerned
with
exempting
from
tax
gas
consumed
“in
the
production
of
.
.
.
natural
gas
liquids”.
A
reading
of
the
relevant
definitions
in
Part
IV.
1
makes
it
clear
that
one
method
of
producing
natural
gas
liquids
at
a
gas
processing
plant
is
by
“removing”
them
in
an
unseparated
form
from
the
raw
gas
stream.
Another
is
by
similarly
removing
them
from
marketable
pipeline
gas
at
a
gas
reprocessing
plant.
Their
individual
components
consist
of
ethane,
propane
and
butanes.
A
separate
process
is
then
required
in
order
to
separate
these
components
from
each
other.
As
the
appellant
put
it,
they
must
be
“broken
down”
or
“fractionated”
into
their
individual
components.
These
components
are
expressly
made
subject
to
tax
under
section
25.14
of
the
Act.
When,
therefore,
the
excepting
words
quoted
above
are
read
in
the
context
of
Part
IV.
1
their
purpose
becomes
apparent.
Their
absence
would,
I
think,
have
left
open
a
serious
argument
that
gas
consumed
in
this
separation
process
must
fall
within
the
words
“in
the
production
...
of
natural
gas
liquids”
and
be
exempt
from
tax.
Their
inclusion
provides
an
answer
to
that
argument.
I
cannot
see
that
these
words
disclose
any
intention
on
the
part
of
Parliament
to
leave
untaxed
gas
consumed
in
the
incinerator
in
disposing
of
hydrogen
sulphide.
The
language
of
paragraph
25.13(3)(a)
is
reasonably
clear.
It
provides
for
the
exemption
from
tax
of
gas
consumed
in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas
as
well
as
in
the
production
of
natural
gas
liquids.
It
leaves
subject
to
tax
gas
consumed
in
the
separation
of
such
liquids
into
their
individual
components
which
are
taxed
separately.
I
have
concluded
that
gas
consumed
in
the
gas
plant
incinerator
to
dispose
of
the
unwanted
waste
is
not
consumed
in
the
production
of
marketable
pipeline
gas.
I
would
therefore
dismiss
this
application
but,
following
established
practice,
I
would
do
so
without
costs.
Appeal
dismissed.