1974-12-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek leave of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of a letter made public this morning in Alberta from the federal Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) to the Alberta government in which she states there is the likelihood of major environmental damage as a result of the Syncrude Tar Sands project, I move seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Minister of the Environment table in this House all relevant correspondence and environmental studies on the impact of the Syncrude project on the environment.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated.
[DOT] (mo)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour arising from his statement that he had returned the contribution made by the SIU toward his campaign because, and I think I am quoting him, he was aware generally that the union was the subject of controversy. I should like to ask him whether by that phrase "the subject of controversy" he had in mind the charges of violence and intimidation-the complaints made to his predecessor in 1972 to which reference was made in the House yesterday, and other charges?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: No, it was
not because of any reference to that matter. It was as the result of being involved in mediation efforts on the Great Lakes during the summer, although the SIU was not itself connected with that particular dispute. I became aware that there were internal disputes within the union-I had been aware of it for some time. There were law suits going on, contested elections and so on. I was aware that there was internal union strife of one kind and another in connection with the leadership.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister said yesterday that his officials had made him aware of complaints submitted to his predecessor in 1972 accompanied by affidavits. Is he now saying that he was definitely not aware of these complaints about intimidation and violence at the time he returned the contribution?


John Carr Munro: No, I am not saying that. I am saying it was some time during the summer when I became aware that prior to my being minister there had been a complaint or complaints with respect to the SIU. I have checked this out since the hon. gentleman's question yesterday and apparently it was one complaint backed up by several affidavits. Someone alleged he had been beaten. That is the matter to which I referred when I said the officials had recommended that, first, the complaint be taken to the police, and, second, to the watchdog committee of the CLC. There was one complaint, action had been taken some time ago, nothing further came of it and I thought the action taken by the officials in my department was appropriate. So that matter was not prominent in my mind at the time. I cannot tell the Leader of the Opposition the precise moment at which this information was conveyed to me but it was some time during the summer or the fall.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I gather the minister is saying that his officials had informed him of this prior to the decision being taken to return the cheque.


John Carr Munro: Might I clarify the matter? I thought this had happened a long time ago; appropriate action had been taken, so it did not appear to me there was anything improper about the SIU. The reason I came to the decision I did was that I felt the union was involved in controversy and if someone wished to do so he might say, at a later stage, that I was compromised by reason of the acceptance of a contribution, even though such a charge would not be valid. So I returned it. Obviously, from that point of view I might as well not

December 6, 1974
Oral Questions
have done so because people are still trying to attribute improper motives to me.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-POSSIBLE WARNING TO PRIME MINISTER, CABINET MINISTERS NOT ACCEPT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM UNION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, granted that the minister felt that the action taken regarding the complaint in 1972 was appropriate at the time, but did it not occur to the minister that his department might have to deal with this matter of alleged violence and intimidation in the SIU, and that consequently this would involve a potential conflict of interest, with the possibility of the government having to deal with it? In view of the minister's knowledge of this complaint and, presumably, his awareness that the government might have to deal with it eventually, did the minister inform the Prime Minister of his decision and his position, with a view to warning other cabinet colleagues that it might be important for the government to have to deal with this whole question at arm's length, so that they would be warned against accepting contributions from the SIU in the event that the matter did develop further?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Leader of the Official Opposition yesterday, no, I did not take it up with the Prime Minister. The position I have always taken is that I have assumed, and I think correctly, that members of parliament on both sides of the House at election time do receive contributions, and that this does not constitute a conflict of interest. The contributions come from various sources. I am sure that the Leader of the Official Opposition's own party receives contributions from corporations and goodness knows who else during the course of an election which may involve positions on policy that are going to be taken later. I have yet to hear any member of the House suggest to the Leader of the Official Opposition or to the Conservative party that the positions they take on policy matters once the election is over are in any way affected by the contributions they have received. We give them sufficient credit, which they are not apparently prepared to give me, for basic integrity in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, without the minister thinking that I am attacking his integrity, I should like to ask him whether he considers it appropriate for a Minister of Labour to accept a contribution from a union about which complaints have been made in the department, as the minister knows, concerning violence and intimidation. Does the minister feel it is wrong for me to question him as to whether he did not feel that there was a potential conflict of interest there, and as to whether, in view of that, he did not take the matter to the Prime Minister so as to warn other colleagues who might find themselves in an embarrassing position?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, at that time there were no outstanding complaints against this particular union. There had been one in a previous administration which had been dealt with, I think in a proper fashion. I

am not going to be one of those who condemns a union, a corporation or an individual or in any way impugns them on the basis of no evidence. If during the course of an election I am going to accept contributions from companies and unions, I will do so in the same way as everybody else does so, namely on the assumption that they are valid and legal corporations or individuals. If it turns out differently later on, then I will take the appropriate action against them, just as anybody else would, and just, I trust, as the Leader of the Official Opposition would.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of five charges having been laid to date by the police against SIU members for offences ranging from the dangerous use of firearms to assault occasioning bodily harm, all charges having arisen from waterfront violence, and in view of further allegations of violence and intimidation within the union, will the Acting Prime Minister indicate what further evidence he feels is necessary before an independent inquiry can be commissioned to look into these matters, bearing in mind that we are dealing with a federally chartered union that has a similar record of violence as set out more fully in the Norris Commission Report of some 10 years ago?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the evidence we have received so far does not seem to us to justify an inquiry of this kind.


An hon. Member:: Let us see it.


Mitchell William Sharp: This is one of the reasons my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has been in touch with the authorities in Ontario who would have the evidence of violence and the kind of information to which the hon. member has alluded. So far we have not received evidence of the kind that would justify us launching such an inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before permitting the hon. member to ask a final supplementary question on the subject, and I might say that I do not want to interfere with his right to pose questions, I should indicate that the question has been taken in this sense: Has the government or the Acting Prime Minister sufficient evidence now to warrant an inquiry? That would be a proper question, and it was that kind of question to which the answer was given. However, a question which went on to ask what further evidence or what specific evidence would be required in the future to constitute that kind of an inquiry would be hypothetical to begin with, if not the subject of some other disability. However, I will permit the hon. member a supplementary.
December 6, 1974


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General I will direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Come on in Warren.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, with the presence of the Solicitor General now perhaps I can direct my question to him. In view of the minister's statement that he knew of "no suggestion of wrongdoing by SIU officials in recent years", and in view of the fact that SIU activities have been under investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police since April, will the minister indicate whether he was in fact aware that the OPP was investigating SIU activities since April and, in particular, will he indicate why the RCMP chose not to gain any knowledge concerning the OPP investigation until last Wednesday?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I had no knowledge of an OPP or any other investigation until the request was made to me by the Minister of Labour to investigate the allegations of Mr. Shulman. In respect of the question of why the RCMP chose not to investigate, again I think that is a serious accusation. The RCMP investigate if they see evidence of something wrong taking place, or if somebody requests that they investigate. There is no evidence that the RCMP chose to ignore certain wrongdoing, and not to investigate.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the issues surrounding the SIU in respect of its activities on the waterfront and its involvement in the controversies that have been discussed this week are not being resolved by ex parte statements by Cabinet ministers, and in view of the right of the public and of this parliament to an independent examination of the whole matter, will the Acting Prime Minister get in touch with the Prime Minister and recommend the early establishment of a public inquiry under either the Canada Labour Code or the Inquiries Act?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of what has been discussed in this House of Commons I see no reason to make such a recommendation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that nothing has been made known to us as a result of the government's own investigations, do we not have the right to a public inquiry?
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a public inquiry is a very serious matter-


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Mitchell William Sharp: -and could not be undertaken on the basis of wiretaps or the statements of a member of the Ontario Legislature. If there are charges to be made there are plenty of people on the other side of the House who can lay those charges and can investigate before they pass on gossip and the kind of half truths that have been-


An hon. Member:: There is something you are trying to hide, Mitch.


Mitchell William Sharp: -put forward here without anyone taking any responsibility whatever. All that has happened in this House in the last two days has been the repetition of what Mr. Morton Shulman said.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a final supplementary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, does the acting Prime Minister not realize that he has just confirmed my statement that all we are getting from Cabinet ministers are ex parte statements?


Mitchell William Sharp: It certainly confirms that we are not getting any information from the other side of the House upon which we could take action. All that is happening here is repetition of Morton Shulman's statements, most of which have been proved to be false.
[DOT] * *


AIRPORTS
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
In view of the fact that since 9 p.m. last night, over 500 persons have been occupying the offices of the CAIM at Sainte-Scholastique to protest against the policy of the federal government, can the minister tell us whether he intends to visit those people with a view to finding a solution to the problem?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in the case of Mirabel, we are in the process of rounding up a conciliation committee. I, in no way, want to resort to acts of intimidation against the government.

December 6, 1974

Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-MATTERS BEING INVESTIGATED BY RCMP AND ACTION TO BE TAKEN FOLLOWING REPORT
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Would the Solicitor General advise the House whether the investigation by the RCMP is an investigation into strict matters of illegality or whether there is also consideration being given in their inquiry to questions of propriety or conduct of ministers.


William Warren Allmand: Well, Mr. Speaker, their investigation is into the impropriety of ministers as it would relate to charges of a criminal nature relating to corruption, bribery or anything of that nature. They would not be investigating something that would not be illegal. In their investigation I presume there will be charges, counter-charges and statements by different witnesses, and then they will have to decide whether there is enough evidence to lay charges under the Criminal Code or any other statute.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Just so that we might understand this completely, then it is the situation that any judgment as to a question of propriety by a minister is at this stage, according to the minister's testimony, to be left exclusively to the determination of the RCMP. Is that the understanding?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP may check their evidence with the Crown prosecutor or other prosecutor who would lay charges in the case, although they could also lay charges directly if it were very clear that charges should be laid, but this judgment would be with them and the prosecutors and not with me.


Charles Joseph Clark: They will deal simply with matters which might lead to criminal charges and it is only on a question which might lead to criminal charges that they would make the recommendation. This is my question. Is it only on matters relating to criminal charges that they would make a recommendation to the minister or that they would cause action to be taken in the courts? If that is so, what provision is there in the extremely limited investigation under way now for evidence to be brought forward that would allow this parliament and the country to come to conclusions as to whether or not there had been acts of impropriety on the part of ministers which did not involve a strict violation of the law?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the police are investigating matters that would give rise to charges before the courts. If no charges are made before the courts, then it will be up to parliament to proceed in another way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Show us the testimony.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-REQUEST BY PROVINCIAL AUTHORITIES FOR FEDERAL INQUIRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Given the fact that the government are appearing to fob this off on the provincial authorities and forces of law, and having in mind that it now appears on record, at least the public statements I have heard made over the radio, that the provincial attorney general and other provincial authorities suggest that there should be a federal inquiry, will the government not accept that as being an adequate reason for holding this judicial inquiry?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion about the two types of inquiries and I think it is important that they should be distinguished. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain has been talking about possible improprieties of officials or ministers. I gather that the House leader of the Progressive Conservative party is talking about an inquiry into the allegations of violence on the waterfront. In that particular case-because that is what I understand to be his question-we are awaiting information from the Ontario government about the facts-what is the evidence of violence-and if there is sufficient evidence I think there would be a case for an inquiry. But we are awaiting the facts. We do not have them and we have seen nothing as yet that would justify such a serious investigation as is proposed either under the Inquiries Act or under other legislation.


Gerald William Baldwin: On the basis of that statement, given the fact that the provincial law enforcement officers will have knowledge of these allegations, will the government accept the request of the provincial authorities, in the face of the knowledge they have, as being an adequate reason for instituting a public inquiry?


Mitchell William Sharp: My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has put just such inquiries to the Ontario government. As yet they have not provided the evidence.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-LACK OF INDEPENDENCE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL AS JUSTIFICATION FOR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: My supplementary is for the Acting Prime Minister. Putting aside for the moment the evidence which he has or does not have which may prompt an independent inquiry, may I suggest that in view of the fact that the Solicitor General yesterday or the day before has characterized a particular member of the Ontario legislature as one who has no respect for the truth, a liar or muckraker, whatever his words were, and in view of the fact that the RCMP expressly by statute are responsible for this inquiry, is it not the government's position that the lack of independence of the Solicitor General, who is directly responsible for the RCMP. is sufficient in itself to warrant an inquiry that is independent of the Solicitor General?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member just
December 6, 1974

now accused me of not being independent and he has made other insinuations against me. I ask him, as did the Minister of Labour yesterday, if he has charges against me, to lay them before the House and we will go before the Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That is all bluster.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: No guts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Perth-Wilmot has a question for the Acting Prime Minister.


William Herbert Jarvis: I rise on the question of privilege raised by the Solicitor General. I made absolutely no insinuations yesterday or today. I simply said, in a question to the Acting Prime Minister, that the Solicitor General had called Mr. Shulman a muckraker, someone who has no respect for the truth. I also prefaced my question yesterday by saying if the Solicitor General had been quoted accurately. My whole purpose in putting my question was not to make insinuations about the Solicitor General but to simply say he cannot remain independent when the RCMP by statute is directly responsible to the minister and the minister, rightly or wrongly, is the subject matter of part of this interim report. How can any reasonable person expect the Solicitor General to be independent in judging a report the very nature of which is to be independent? For the Solicitor General's own sake, would it not be far better that this investigation be conducted independently of him?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this question was addressed to me, although it got a little mixed up in the process. I have confidence in the Solicitor General, in his independence, and I do not think the fact that he has characterized certain statements made by Mr. Shulman as being lies does in any way interfere with his independence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Spurious argument.


Walter David Baker: The worst one you put
up yet.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: In light of the fact that the Solicitor General and the Minister of Labour asked for an investigation, and in light of the fact that the Prime Minister said they will weigh the evidence, they will decide, in light of the fact that they are the interested parties, there is a conflict of interest if they are to weigh their own evidence and act as judge and jury. I hope the minister will answer me. Does the Acting Prime Minister not see in that situation an inherent danger in not appointing an independent judicial body under the Inquiries Act, as was suggested this morning, so as to clear the air for the government, if nothing more?


Mitchell William Sharp: It seems to me that we are still getting confused about the inquiries that are being proposed. Two
Oral Questions
types of inquiries have been proposed: one by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, another by the House leader of the Conservative party. So far as the investigation of the charges by Mr. Shulman are concerned, involving the possibility of impropriety on the part of ministers or public servants, that has been turned over to one of the most independent bodies in this country, which is the RCMP.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree with the Acting Prime Minister that the RCMP are respectable and independent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But we have continually heard from the Acting Prime Minister, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Labour and any other minister who is involved in making decisions that there is no evidence now. They are weighing their own evidence resulting from their own investigation. Does the Acting Prime Minister not see some inherent danger in allowing them to weigh their own evidence and coming to a decision as would a judge and jury investigating themselves. Would he not relieve them of this responsibility and clear the situation? Surely, he can see that it is time to have an independent inquiry, as suggested by several responsible members this morning.


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer is in the negative. If there are any charges of impropriety against a minister, it is the House that should decide. I suggest to members opposite, if they have evidence of this kind, surely they should not depend on a member of the NDP in the Ontario legislature to prove the basis of their charges. Let them make them, and this House can have a full and complete inquiry to satisfy everyone.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-REASON FOR SHOWING MINISTER OF LABOUR INTERIM REPORT FROM RCMP-STATEMENTS IN TORONTO &quot;SUN&quot;
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Wednesday in the House he said that if the investigation had been into the Minister of Labour he would not have received the report. In light of the fact that RCMP sources were reported in yesterday's Toronto Sun to have said that the Minister of Labour was actively under investigation and in light of the fact that the Sun reported that Gordon McCaffrey, executive assistant to the Minister of Labour, confirmed that fact, can the minister explain why the Minister of Labour was allowed to see the report when he had said earlier that had the Minister of Labour been investigated he would not have seen the report?


William Warren Allmand: As soon as-


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question about the Toronto Sun article. I would not pretend for a moment that I would personally accept anything necessarily as authentic merely because it appears in the Toronto Sun, but I would say this: It should be clear to this House that I asked, when these allegations were made by Mr. Shulman, for the

December 6, 1974
Oral Questions
Solicitor General to have the RCMP investigate those allegations. Mr. Shulman made allegations against various officials. I am not aboslutely certain at this time whether he mentioned labour officials or not. As I felt that that is what he might be implying, I wanted the names of the officials cleared, irrespective of whether they were public servants or politicians; and the Solicitor General did that. If that is to imply that I am under investigation, O.K. I want that clearly understood. But, if the hon. member is suggesting something else, I should like him to have the courage to stand up in the House and say so.


Mr. Speaker:: We had arrived at the point at which the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo had put a question to the Solicitor General.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, on a further question of privilege-


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question about an article in the Sun. As soon as that article was brought to my attention-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is another question of privilege before the House, on which the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo wishes to make a contribution.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour was questioning the accuracy of the Sun's article as to whether he was under investigation. Since the report referred to quoted the minister's executive assistant, Gordon McCaffrey, as saying that the minister was under investigation, and as my only source of information on this is that which is available to him as well, perhaps the executive assistant took the Toronto Sun down the garden path on this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Solicitor General can resume his answer.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the article in the Toronto Sun was brought to my attention yesterday, I called the deputy commissioner of the RCMP who is in charge of criminal investigation and asked him which RCMP officials had said that the Minister of Labour was under investigation and, if this had happened, to give me information on that. The deputy commissioner telephoned the office in Toronto and checked with every source there. He was told that a reporter from the Toronto Sun had spoken with one officer of the RCMP, but the RCMP officer had never told him any such thing. He was surprised and did not know the Sun had ever printed such an article as a result of their conversation.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question, to get this clear once and for all. Will the Solicitor General state categorically that at no time has the Minister of Labour been investigated about this matter by the RCMP.


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. The RCMP were asked to investigate allegations made by Mr. Shulman. While investigating those allegations by Mr. Shulman, they were given a tape on which there is a conversation between the Minister of Labour and the union official offering a con-

tribution toward election expenses. That is about it. If that is construed as an investigation into the Minister of Labour, that is a real distortion of the meaning of investigation.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the conclusion of the Minister of the Environment in a letter dated October 11, 1974 and released today, in Edmonton, that the Syncrude tar sands project as now planned will very likely cause major environmental damage, what action does the government plan to ensure that the development plans of Syncrude will conform to environmental standards.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will refer that question to the minister, who will reply when she returns.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Since the Acting Prime Minister seems to ignore all the requests of uninformed Tories on my side of the House, perhaps he might consider what the Leader of the Opposition in the Ontario provincial legislature, the leader of the provincial Liberal party, said yesterday. He said "The allegations are extremely serious, and in my opinion these can only be cleared up by a royal commission. In my opinion this should be at the federal level." Will the Acting Prime Minister take this representation into consideration and ask for an inquiry?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so that the record remains clear, let me say that the kind of inquiry which Mr. Nixon was supporting was an inquiry into violence on the waterfront. We have not said that we will not have such an inquiry. What we have said is that we will not have an inquiry except on the basis of facts which will justify such a serious action. That remains our position. We have not yet received the evidence.
December 6, 1974


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Having sat here for two or three days and listened to what has been going on, it has become abundantly clear to me that the political morality of this government is about as deep as a dishpan full of dirty water. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Labour in this House and the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare broadcast by the CBC today, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government has any policy with respect to cabinet ministers receiving political donations during campaigns? I mean, for example, situations in which the Minister of National Health and Welfare would receive a donation from pharmaceutical companies, or the Minister of Supply and Services would receive contributions from suppliers under contract to the federal government.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the morality required of cabinet ministers is any greater than the morality required of members of this House as a whole. I think we all share the same responsibilities. We must act with integrity and refuse to be bought and never be under the influence of money or anything else. I attribute no such motives to my hon. friend. I hope he does not attribute them to any of the rest of us.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the minister's perception of political morality and his view on political science, which is that the duties and responsibilities of a minister of the Crown are the same as those of an ordinary member of the House of Commons. Would the minister answer my question? Does the cabinet have any policy on the receipt of political contributions by ministers of the Crown who have taken oaths of office to administer departments of the Crown during an election campaign.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that the same standards apply to all members of parliament, as well as to candidates for this House as apply to us. After all, the hon. gentleman seemed to assume, in the last election campaign, that we would continue to be the government.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point is simple, I hope not too simple for the narrow confines of the gray matter of the Acting Prime Minister. Under the constitution of this country, as the Acting Prime Minister knows, the government continues and ministers of the Crown continue in their offices even when the House of Commons is dissolved, until a new government is sworn in. If the Acting Prime Minister does not know that elementary fact of political science, it is no wonder that we see this most improvident government, which has been established since the last election campaign.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to clarify something right away, as a result of information I have received. I believe that the hon. member for Well-ington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo referred to certain
Oral Questions
remarks which appeared in the Toronto Sun, which referred to Gordon McCaffrey. I should like to clear this up immediately. Mr. McCaffrey is not my executive assistant. He is my special assistant. To be precise about what he said to the Sun, he copied down his statement. This is a direct quote: "I said to the Sun, the minister asked for an investigation into the allegations by Morton Shulman, but the minister is not in a position to tell-the RCMP whom they should investigate."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Athabasca.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister and relates to the subject matter raised by the hon. member for Calgary North. As there is some question of impropriety involved in the investigation which the RCMP is carrying out, and as it appears that the only people who will decide whether there is evidence of impropriety to warrant a public inquiry will be the ministers themselves, will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House what steps he intends to take to convince Canadians, or at least make it appear, that an impartial decision, without bias, will be made on the basis of evidence presented by the RCMP on whether or not an inquiry should be held.
[DOT] (U50)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, several times that very same question or one slightly different has been put. It seems it has been answered every time it has been put. There is a rule which states that the same question cannot be put more than once in the same question period.


FINANCE
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I hope it will be an interlude in these particular deliberations. It arises out of an announcement made yesterday by the premier of Alberta in which he indicated that within two weeks measures will be announced whereby the provincial take from oil revenues will be reduced. Prior to making that announcement, did the premier of Alberta consult with the federal government?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, not with me.

December 6, 1974
Oral Questions


Mr. Blais:: A supplementary question. In view of that particular announcement, will the federal government now consider that the moment is right for the federal government to take initiatives to try to pour some oil over the troubled waters between the federal government and that province?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly use the occasion of the meeting on Monday and Tuesday among provincial treasurers, provincial ministers of finance and myself to explore that. Perhaps the occasion will arise in private conversations with the Alberta minister.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. During the course of his conversation with Mr. Gralewicz, were any conditions attached to the offer for campaign funds?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley James Korchinski: Will the minister indicate the nature of his reply at that time? Can he comment on his reply at that time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am trying to elicit certain facts. My question is within the ambit of questions that are allowed. I am trying to elicit information from the minister which I believe is fundamental to the argument that has been presented here in the past few days. I simply wish to ask the minister the nature of his comment after the contribution offer was made by Mr. Gralewicz.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister may want to reply. The hon. member asked if there were any conditions attached to the offer. The minister said no. The minister earlier indicated he had accepted the offer. The question was put, what was the nature of the minister's reply, can he comment on that? Asking a minister to comment on a situation like this is a very general type of question which does not seem to be suited to the question period.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, can I change my question and ask the minister to indicate what the reply was without making any comment.


John Carr Munro: I accepted the offer, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and
Immigration.
Considering the continuing layoffs, particularly in the sawmills, could he say whether the expects to announce soon the provision of supplementary funds for the approval of more local initiative projects during the next season?

Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken to supplement the funding for the Local Initiatives Program. Along with many of my colleagues, including the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, we are aware of that situation. We are working together to see what can be done.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Is Canada reconsidering its contribution to UNESCO in view of that organization's what might be called ugly politicization and discrimination against one of its members, namely the state of Israel?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should more properly be addressed to my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. It arises out of the comment in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo. On several occasions the Solicitor General has insisted that the RCMP will be conducting an independent investigation. In reply to the hon. member's question, the Solicitor General stated that when he learned of the report in the Toronto Sun in connection with comments made by the special assistant to the Minister of Labour, he telephoned the RCMP to find out the name of the officer who had made those statements. Clearly, that is not an independent investigation. Will the Solicitor General now turn this investigation over to another minister?
December 6, 1974


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it was not the statement of the special assistant that caught my attention. It was a statement in the Toronto Sun that a senior officer of the RCMP-


Charles Joseph Clark: But you interfered.


William Warren Allmand: I did not interfere. Listen to the answer for a change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: There was a statement in the Toronto Sun to the effect that a senior officer of the RCMP said that the Minister of Labour was under investigation. I found that a matter on which I should advise myself in case questions were asked in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: I did not direct the investigation. There is quite a difference between directing an investigation and asking the RCMP what they are doing for the purpose of giving answers in this House. If you do not know the difference, you are not very intelligent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: In answer to the inquiry, the deputy commissioner in charge of criminal operations said he was surprised. He knew of no senior officer who said that the Minister of Labour was under investigation. He telephoned Toronto. He found that in Toronto there was an officer who had been interviewed by the Toronto Sun. The officer said he had told the interviewer no such thing as was printed in the Toronto Sun. I in no way interfered with the investigation. The RCMP are free to carry it out. However, from time to time I ask them questions in order to give answers in this House.


Harvie Andre: In his reply to the House, the Solicitor General indicated he had telephoned the deputy commissioner of the RCMP and asked for the name of the officer. Are officers of the RCMP to conclude that should interviews they might have with persons concerfted with this investigation become public, they would be subject to personal attention and investigation by the Solicitor General?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I said I asked for the name of the officer in Toronto.


An hon. Member:: Yes, you did.


William Warren Allmand: We will look at the blues and see what I said. If I did say that under fire, I was wrong. However, I do not think I said it. What I said was I approached the deputy commissioner of criminal operations and asked whether such a statement had been made. He said he did not know but that he would check with Toronto. He said an officer there did speak to the press. I did not ask the name. By the way, even though I did not ask, he told me the name but I forget it now.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT



POSSIBLE ELIMINATION OF FREEZE ON FREIGHT RATES AND BRANCH LINE ABANDONMENT-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I will switch topics and direct my question to the very knowledgeable Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the freeze on freight rates and the moratorium on rail line abandonment will cease at the end of this year, is consideration being given to continuing that freeze and not going ahead with abandoning rail lines on the prairies?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: First, I must confess I am insulted to be one of the very few members, if not the only member, in the House who did not receive contributions from the labour unions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: I made an announcement on the freeze. It was an announcement following a cabinet meeting. This, I think, is going to end at the end of December. I do not think this will have the impact which is suggested. As far as branch lines are concerned, we thought we could reach a decision this week but it will take another week before we can make a statement.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I might say the minister probably did not receive any contributions from unions because he deserted them years ago.
In view of the fact that the hon. gentleman has often criticized the railroads in this country for controlling too much of the economy, why is he not extending the freeze on freight rates when the freeze should clearly be extended having regard to the lack of a transportation policy?


Jean Marchand: I do not know whether the hon. member was here when this question was asked last week. The freeze covers only 22 per cent of the income of the railways. It does not cover, say, the transportation of coal or grain or a great many other products carried at agreed rates. It covers only certain categories of merchandise which do not affect the west at all. The impact on the cost of living will not be great. As I have said before, we intend to continue the review we began with western ministers hoping we can arrive at a better policy in the future. If ever we introduce some kind of freeze it will be more comprehensive and will have a better impact on the economy.



GOVERNMENT POSITION ON EXPORT OF ENRICHED URANIUM-SUGGESTED PUBLICATION OF COST OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN NEXT TEN YEARS

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: In view of the fact that the export of uranium comes within federal responsibility and in view of the statement by the Minister of Energy,

December 6, 1974
Oral Questions
Mines and Resources on September 5 of this year that the government's first priority must be to ensure a long term reserve of nuclear fuel for our domestic needs, can the minister tell us what is the position of the federal government in the on-going discussions for the establishment of an enriched uranium project in the James Bay area for export purposes, a project which would utilize 18,000 tons of uranium oxide annually although Canada's production is presently only 5,000 tons and is estimated by the minister to reach only 16,000 tons by 1980?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The government has taken no decision to issue export permits for enriched uranium.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: May I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister? Given that capital expenditures of at least $100 billion over the next ten years would be necessary to build all the major resource development projects under active consideration by private and government bodies at the present time, will the Acting Prime Minister undertake to make public the report of the task force on capital requirements recently completed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources so that the total economic impact of these massive expenditures proposed could be given adequate public scrutiny?


Mitchell William Sharp: I find myself in general agreement with the hon. lady; it is desirable that the public should know the implications of the enormous developments which will have to take place. I am a little uncertain as to whether that particular report should be revealed; it may contain information of another character which it would not be in the public interest to disclose. However, I will certainly recommend to my colleagues that the kind of information for which she has asked should be made available publicly.



AIR CANADA


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the House why it is that the capital budget of Air Canada for the current year has not so far been approved by cabinet, and when does he expect it will be?


Jean Marchand: I hope it will be approved soon. It is a very pertinent question, no doubt about that. It is because we asked for some information from Air Canada that we did not receive. Now, I think we have convinced the chairman and directors of Air Canada that they will have to supply this information so that we may know where Air Canada is going in the next five years.	.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-40, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for a number of significant amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. The proposed changes would implement important dimensions of the government's policies to deal with the two major problems confronting most western economies-inflation and slower growth.
The bill before us provides for sales tax reductions amounting to an estimated $940 million in a full year. These reductions will provide an important stimulus to the housing and general construction industries as well as to the transportation sector of the economy. The effects of these measures, combined with other policies proposed in the budget, will directly benefit consumers through their impact in moderating prices and encouraging the creation of new jobs. In addition, the bill provides for important new taxes on high energy consuming vehicles as well as for moderate increases in the levies on liquor, wine and tobacco products. I will have more to say about these measures during the committee stage. At this time I would like to restrict my comments to the general substance of the bill.
The amendments related to adult clothing and footwear proposed in the measure before us will formalize sales tax reductions for these goods provided under the Financial Administration Act on July 16, 1974. These are important measures affecting over $5 billion in annual retail sales of clothing and footwear. They will save consumers over $300 million in taxes over a full year. In the May 6 budget it was emphasized that adult clothing and footwear accounted for a significant proportion of the budgets of most families and that the proposed action would significantly reduce the prices of these products.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been monitoring prices in this area since action was taken to remove the tax on July 16, 1974. The final report of the price-monitoring exercise will be tabled early in the New Year. However, preliminary indications suggest that the reductions are being passed on and have had a significant impact on moderating price increases in this important sector of the economy.

Dealing with the provisions of this bill concerning housing, the tax exemption on building materials and municipal water distribution systems as well as the reduction to 5 per cent of the federal sales tax on a wide variety of equipment and materials used in housing construction should act as an important incentive to housing construction and the building industry as a whole.
In that respect, some questions have been raised concerning the particular impact of government housing policies on housing costs. The government has put forward in the budget speech a number of policies directly relating to
December 6, 1974

the housing industry. Such provisions include the $500 grant to those who purchase middle priced houses, the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan, the new provisions concerning capital cost allowances, the proposal to disallow charging carrying costs on land awaiting development against other income as well as the sales tax reductions that amount to over half a million dollars as provided in the present bill.
Although the financial incidence of those measures on housing costs cannot possibly be figured out, I am assured that those reductions will stimulate new investments and create forces on the competition market which will benefit home purchasers through a significant moderation of prices for housing. The building materials sales tax reduction for one should account for about $650 in savings on the cost of houses currently priced at about $40,000.
My colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) will review the incidence of those measures on housing construction and report to the House in due course.
[English]	"
Turning to the proposals to remove federal sales tax from a comprehensive list of transportation equipment, the budget speech pointed out that cost pressures in the transportation industry were significantly undermining the vitality of that industry and that these cost pressures were being translated into price increases affecting virtually every other sector of the economy. The transportation measures proposed in this bill will affect approximately $1 billion in annual sales and will result in a reduction of an estimated $100 million in federal revenues over a full year. I am confident that the reductions will be reflected in increased investment in this industry as well as in a moderation of transportation costs.
Members will be aware of my intention, announced a few days ago on December 2, 1974, to request the government to provide relief for tax paid inventories of trucks and related transportation equipment. This action was necessary because of a combination of critical factors affecting the trucking industry and related transportation industries. Dealers were unable to sell tax-paid inventories because the sales tax already paid on larger trucks and other equipment often amounted to several thousands of dollars per unit. In addition, customers were refusing to accept shipment of many highly specialized custom built items which had been ordered but not delivered as of budget day. Many customers were prepared to wait for tax-free goods to become available or to transfer orders to dealers who already had tax-free inventories on hand.
It must be emphasized that the proposed action constitutes a marked departure from traditional practice. However, the combination and intensity of adverse circumstances affecting the transportation industry made immediate action necessary in order to avoid extreme hardship and a serious disruption of production and employment. Indeed, certain businesses risked the very health of themselves and the industry.
The bill also contains important amendments related to
the air transportation tax. The bill proposes that the governor in council be given authority to impose a ceiling on
Excise
the 5 per cent ad valorem tax. It is proposed that this ceiling will initially be set at $5. This will benefit all persons who travel long distances by air. In particular, this ceiling will assist persons living in the north and in other remote parts of Canada. My colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), or I wifi have more to say about these changes during the committee stage of the bill.
The bill also contains measures to deter wasteful energy consumption by imposing special excise taxes on high energy consuming vehicles. These measures, first referred to in the May 6 budget, have been modified to increase the effectiveness of the tax by providing for significant rate increases. For cars weighing more than 4,500 pounds and station wagons weighing over 5,100 pounds, the rate will be $20 for the first 100 pounds over the limit, $25 on the next 100 pounds and $30 for each subsequent 100 pounds. For motorcycles with big engines, the rate will be 5 per cent. The rate for privately owned aircraft, boat motors larger than 20 horsepower, and boats designed to be propelled by these motors, will be 10 per cent. These new taxes will increase federal revenues by an estimated $30 million in a full year.
As mentioned earlier, the bill also contains proposals to increase moderately federal levies on liquor, wine and tobacco products. These measures were first proposed in the May 6 budget and at the time the budget was defeated I stated that it was the government's intention to reintroduce these measures if the government were returned. These amendments will generate an additional $130 million in federal revenues in a full year.
The bill also contains important new sales tax exemptions for a number of articles purchased by handicapped persons. In addition, the provisions in the Excise Tax Act which permit certified institutions to purchase all goods exempt from federal sales tax have been broadened to include purchases made by day-care centres, physiotherapy units and other institutions.
In conclusion, the budget emphasized that through the taxation system and in other ways the government was encouraging the private sector to maintain a healthy level of activity for the present, and to build new capacity to increase the supply of goods and services for the future. And all this by reducing the cost factors, of which sales tax is an important component. The measures proposed in this bill, in particular those related to the housing industry and the transportation industry, constitute important steps in this direction.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons I am very pleased that we are able to get to this bill today, contrary to the government's stated intention in the middle of the week to postpone the budget bills to some time in January or February. I think that the determination of certain points in the bill following this debate-and I hope that today we can see the completion of our study and passage of the bill-will settle a lot of unresolved questions for business in this country. There are a number of points that I should like to put to the minister generally on second reading; more specific questions will be put by my colleagues and, I suspect, by members on all sides of the House to the minister and his advisers on matters of detail that have still to be resolved.

December 6, 1974
Excise
There is one matter that has consistently disappointed me in connection with excise taxes and the Excise Act. The minister's predecessor, the now departed Mr. Benson, and also the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), who was formerlytminister of national revenue and subsequently minister of consumer and corporate affairs, indicated that a study in depth would be made of all excise taxes. We had a study in depth of income tax by the Carter commission, which had a great number of things to say about sales taxes as well as the confusing situation arising out of federal and provincial jurisdictions and how the taxpayer was affected by such taxes. But ever since then there has been a deathly silence on the subject.
However, the problem of the impact of sales taxes, whether at the federal level or at the provincial level, still exists. To the person of low income they are certainly a heavy burden. Although taxes levied on an ad valorem basis strike at taxpayers evenly as to amount, as to impact this is not the case. In the province of Ontario a rebate is given income tax payers so that those of lower income are given some form of compensation for the impact of sales taxes both at the retail and federal level. This is part of the Ontario tax credits plan. This is one of the reasons that there is this form of compensation.
We have studied in the past tax credits for persons on lower income scales, rather than the elimination of taxable trusts, so as to compensate them for the impact of sales taxes. True enough, with the removal now of sales tax on clothing and footwear one can say that the impact of sales taxes on, say, senior citizens whose income is limited to pensions will be much lighter since they will not have to pay sales tax on those items, at least at the federal level.
I always felt this was one of the inequitable features of an excise tax. We are seeing these removed more and more. Excise taxes in this country have reached the level of 12 per cent and that is very high. There is a great difference between non-taxable items and taxable items in particular categories. I suppose the reduction to a 5 per cent tax on building materials will remove some of the difficulties that arose from the arbitrary nature of the classification of building materials because some were caught and others were not. With the 12 per cent on the one hand, and no tax on the other, it makes quite a difference. I would like the minister to tell us whether it is now the view of the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue that they should continue the study into the effect of sales tax and the general reforms that are required. Up to this moment we have not seen any reform of sales taxes but we have seen the removal of some.
We are now coming into a new era of transportation tax which in itself will cause a lot of grief to a lot of people who heretofore have had nothing to do with the collection and remission of sales tax. The travel agencies and airlines that sell tickets are going to step into a buzz-saw of which they have had no prior knowledge. There will be some extreme difficulties in this area and I shall refer in some detail to air transportation taxation and the general principle, as will some of my colleagues. Let me emphasize at the outset that the main burden of my point is that we should have a study without delay on the impact of sales

taxes. If one accepts the principle of justice in a progressive income tax system which is purportedly established on the basis of ability to pay, then in so far as excise taxes are concerned there is a total denial of justice because they are certainly not based on ability to pay.
One now has to pay excise tax generally, outside of footwear and clothing. Excise tax is certainly payable on the purchase of a chair, and whether that chair is bought by an old age pensioner or a person with an income of $40,000 or $50,000 a year matters little. Certainly, one must recognize that excise tax is not predicated upon ability to pay.. Some will argue that people with more money will buy the more expensive goods, but that is not the point. I would like to see some form of social justice within the whole framework of excise tax because in this way we would require fewer relieving features and there would be fewer complications for persons on lower incomes. The minister did indicate that it might cost some $300 million to drop the sales tax on clothing and footwear.
Having looked at the latest information from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the 1973 Canada Year Book and the 1973-74 Analysis of National Financing from the Canadian Tax Foundation, I must confess that the only reliable information is in respect of the fiscal year 1970-71. I am afraid that is a little out of date for the purposes of the remarks I should like to make at this time. The budgetary statistics tabled during the budget speech by the minister lump together sales taxes and other taxes and it is impossible to sort out precise excise taxes or sales taxes as we know them. I would like the minister to indicate what the annual yield is and what it was for 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, although I can understand that we cannot get anything for this particular year and that in respect of 1973-74 there is a complication because of the export tax on oil.
My objective is to determine what the progressive yield has been from excise or sales taxes on goods and commodities as we have known those taxes over the years. We want to see the effect of inflation upon this type of tax. I know that this will require some intensive effort, but it is something we would like to know about in respect of the general theory of federal sales tax. If the minister cannot provide that information today, perhaps he can do so at a later time as we would certainly like to have it.
I am sure the country welcomed the minister's announcement of a reduction in the tax on building materials to 5 per cent with a headshake and a smile, not necessarily all of joy. I wonder why this reduction was limited to 6 per cent rather than applied to the entire amount. I do not think that was necessarily related to cost but, as I have said, at the moment I do not know what the sales tax on building materials has yielded. It may have been in the nature of $500 million or $600 million. With the inflated prices we have known in the past couple of years, the yield might have been that high. I know it has been fairly substantial. On the other hand, when we consider the swollen coffers that have resulted from inflation, there is no question that a total abatement of this tax could have been made. There would have been much greater benefit, if this reduction was designed as an anti-inflationary item, an anti-recessionary item or an item to encourage the construction of homes in the hope that there would be a
December 6, 1974

reduction in price-perhaps to a limited degree-if the sales tax had been removed entirely, rather than reducing it to 5 per cent.
One of the greatest costs of the building materials merchant is the cost of administration involved in collecting the sales tax. If business generally could be relieved of the cost of tax collecting, whether it be the small country town lumber yard or the large discount operation on the outskirts of major cities in Canada, it would be of great benefit because this additional cost represents a large portion of the profit margin of the dealer in building materials. Of course, we must not forget that he will not take it out of his profits; it will go right to the consumer.
The consumer is always at the end of the line. The consumer pays every charge whether it be an increase in taxes, an increase in returns for government, an increase in unemployment insurance contributions or an increase in minimum wages. No matter what it is, John Citizen, the consumer at the end of the line, pays. I am amazed, at times, at some of the naivety that comes out of the mouths of certain people, or out of the pens of others, demanding that this or that be done or that this or that cost be saddled on to business, to the cost of commodities. It may be somewhat indefinite, but one thing that is not indefinite is the cost: it goes right on the back of the Canadian citizen generally, as a consumer.
Over the years this whole process has been one of the greatest exercises in self-delusion, in dissipation, unproductive labour and unproductive expenditure. This is part and parcel of the overgoverning that Canadians suffer not only at the federal level but at the provincial level because of the way some of the provinces behave. I cannot differentiate between the federal government and the provinces.


John Napier Turner: Like Edmonton.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There are some parts there that I could criticize. I do not believe the government of my home province is necessarily a paragon of virtue in its administration. I must say it inherited an awful structure, and everything cannot be changed overnight. In any event, I would say that on general principle my remarks should be remembered. That is the reason I would like to have seen the total removal of the sales tax on building materials. Certainly it has been shown to be a regressive step ever since it was introduced or extended primarily in 1963. It was then at a level where about one-third of the building materials bore sales tax liability, but the real impact came in 1963.
Now I come to the air transportation tax. This was the subject of a budget some three or four years ago. I remember at that time 1 moved an amendment which would have changed the impact of the tax and would not have disturbed ways and means. I will always remain unrepentant, unforgiving and unchanged in my opinion concerning the correctness of my motion. A citation from Erskine May was quoted against me in the ruling, but one must never take as absolute gospel what is written in any book. In this particular case, a little research into the references in Erskine May showed that the editors of that book had
Excise
erred and exactly the opposite had been the situation regarding two decisions taken by chairmen of committees in the British House of Commons during the time of World War I. This was the authority on which Mr. Speaker of the day based his decision that my motion was out of order. May I say, however, that I am satisfied it was in order.
At this time I do not intend to move for a change because, in effect, the minister has now come to the formula for which I was asking at that time although I must say the impost is slightly higher. Presumably he has been influenced by inflation and has almost doubled the impost I had in mind at the time of the previous presentation. There were two difficult points involved, but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has since cleared one up. I refer to the implication that the tax would apply to tickets sold at Canadian travel agencies for travel exclusively outside Canada. That point has been cleared up.
One point, however, has not been cleared up, and I would invite the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Transport to look at it under the regulatory powers. This tax is all-encompassing. It covers all carriage by air for reward. Under the previous proposal, air transportation below a minimum weight-in other words, what you would call the puddle-jumpers in the north, the two or four-seater aircraft in an area where people are completely dependent upon air transportation-was to be exempt. People in the frontier communities of the north who were most hard hit were being hit every time they wanted to move. It was proposed to exempt them from the effect of the air transportation tax.
Unless I am very wrong, the interpretation of the proposal at this time catches everybody: it would catch the person flying from Yellowknife to Fort Simpson, from Simpson to Norman Wells or anywhere down the Mackenzie, or anyone going to Frobisher or any of the northern communities. The reference is to all air carriers or commercial air services.


Walter David Baker: What about Ottawa to Carp?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My hon. friend asks, what about a little flight from Ottawa to Carp?
There would be a tax on that type of transport whether it involved a two-seater Cessna or an eight-seater plane that could use the Carp airport, unless exempted.


An hon. Member:: Are you sure there is an airport there?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I should like the minister to tell us what justification he will offer to these people for the heavy impact on this tax. Then I will ask him whether it will apply in the case of aircraft operated by mining and oil companies, as well as others, for the transportation of their employees in the case of a subsidiary company organized for transportation purposes and where the actual charge for the transportation is fixed on the basis of the amortization of the unpaid balance and depreciation schedules in respect of the aircraft.

Excise
This is a very simple and regularly used procedure. But will there be a tax payable? There is no ticket issue, but the air carrier is authorized by the Canadian Transport Commission to operate as an air carrier or as a commercial air service. I suggest that the privately-owned subsidiary company of which I have spoken has been licensee and authorized as an air carrier and will therefore be caught by this transportation tax.
I notice, also, that the collection will be made at the retail level and there must be monthly remittances to the Crown as in the case of all other taxes. These will add substantially to the costs of operating travel agencies and others handling the tickets. Who will pay the tax collector? The consumer, of course. On the one hand the government is giving encouragement to transportation, and on the other it is giving it a kick in the teeth. We could use all sorts of metaphors. We remove the sales tax from commercial aircraft, but we also impose a tax to satisfy some of the demands of the Department of Transport.
This tax is to be used even at airports not operated by the Department of Transport, and here is the switch in the thinking of that department, because when this tax was proposed initially it was to alleviate the losses and costs of operating MOT-operated airports. I say "nonsense," Mr. Speaker. This tax will apply in many instances when an MOT airport is not used but, rather, municipal airports which get nothing from MOT. All that is happening is that the Minister of Transport, through the Minister of Finance, is asking residents flying in Canada to pay a tax because he is going to splice some air space on the way through.
The government must come clean in this regard in that the tax, as I say, was proposed in order to alleviate the costs of operating MOT airports, and no more. I have letters that say it will now be used to defray most departmental expenses with regard to air. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance does not write letters to his colleagues but I have letters from the Minister of Transport indicating the purposes and how this tax will be used. In so far as the frontiers are concerned, that is where the impact of the tax is even more unjustifiable. I do not mind paying a user tax for Toronto international, Montreal international and, to a lesser degree, here in Ottawa, because this is more of a cattle station than are the others, as well as some other airports across the country. But when I see the facilities that the people in the frontier areas have to put up with, and know this is their only means of communication, I think the tax could be an absolute injustice.
I hope to hear the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) say what he thinks about this tax. I do not think it will be printable, even though he is a mild sort of man, because for people in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, northern Quebec and many frontier areas of Canada this tax should be known as "sock it to them" because it imposes a substantial increase in the cost of their essential transportation. I hope the minister can see his way clear to exempt the frontier areas from this tax.
One area in which I had hoped to see the minister move was a change in the definition of "small manufacturer" so as to raise the value of goods manufactured to be in excess of $3,000. Unless my memory serves me incorrectly, the

$3,000 limitation still exists for the exemption certificate of the small manufacturer. Of course, today he cannot turn around in a shop and produce less than $3,000 worth of goods. I do not see that there is any encouragement here. I do not see why the minister did not increase that sum to $5,000 or $6,000 is he really wants to assist small business to develop.
I was very pleased to see the minister act promptly on a good precedent with regard to the removal of the sales tax on heavy trucks and transportation equipment that is in inventory, but when he says "in inventory", is he also including "in transit"-vehicles discharged by the manufacturer and in transit on November 18? I do not know how much that would represent, but in many instances it might be something to consider. I say that because I am looking in particular at the distributor or dealer who is independent of the manufacturer. We know that some manufacturers of heavy trucks and transportation equipment have their own agencies with the employees of the parent company. I can cite some, if need be. There has been no passing of title and, in fact, no sales tax paid on inventory because there has not been a disposition of the vehicle, and the time limit within which the tax is paid after completion of production of the item has not elapsed.
However, on the other hand, with the majority of manufacturers' title in the commodity having passed to a financing company or maybe a related company, either a transport company or a dealer, the sales tax is levied on the unit in question as at the time of transfer of title. Naturally, this created some difficulties as between the type of dealership and I was very pleased to see the minister make this change. However, I hope that in his answer to us he will indicate the procedure that will be followed. Are the applications for rebate to be made through the manufacturer, as they were in 1961 in the case of the automobile rebate on inventories of the special excise tax that was then remitted? This may be the safest procedure to avoid the necessity of dealing with umpteen thousand dealers.
I have mentioned those matters which I felt I should draw to the attention of the House. We will consider other items in detail; my colleagues wish to make their contributions on particular points. I hope that we can consider the clauses of the bill this afternoon and, hopefully, pass the bill by four o'clock.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the minister, under Bill C-40, is to increase the tax on hard liquor and wine but not increase the tax on beer, the champagne of the working class. That is one of the progressive features of the bill and I am glad the minister has recognized a basic fact in our society. The bill will introduce a whole series of changes and create new taxes. There are to be amendments to the Excise Tax Act and to the Excise Act. In addition to increasing the tax on hard liquor, the government is to increase the tax on cigarettes, cigars, and certain items used for transportation.
The point made initially by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was a good one, namely, that we should consider looking at the impact of taxes on our
December 6, 1974

society and determine the effect of various taxes. Our income tax system is now among the most progressive in the world. It takes into account the needs of invididuals. We should do the same sort of thing with other taxes. For example, we have not yet looked closely at the effects of the excise tax and sales tax, the latter being imposed at the federal and provincial levels, or at the effects of the property tax which is imposed at the municipal level. It is our duty, as parliamentarians, to consider the effects of such taxes, many of which are regressive.
The sales tax, applied uniformly to every person in society, bears much more harshly on those at the low end of the income scale than it does on those higher up the income scale. I support wholeheartedly the call by the hon. member for Edmonton West for a serious study on the impact of sales taxes and excise taxes in this country. This ought to be done during the present session of parliament.
My party can support most of the measures proposed under this bill, although we question two or three items which can be dealt with in committee of the whole. I shall raise one or two questions now to which the minister perhaps will respond if he participates in the debate this afternoon. I refer particularly to the removal of sales tax from clothing and footwear and the removal of excise tax from other commodities which affect consumers. Too often in the past when such taxes have been removed, the consumer has not been given the benefit; the middleman has pocketed the extra money. If we remove the sales tax in order to help people fight inflation, it is incumbent on us to set up a monetary agency which will make sure that sales tax reductions are passed on to the consumer and not pocketed by the middlemen-advertisers, wholesalers, retailers or others in the chain.
We should also monitor closely building material sales to make sure that the tax reduction is passed on to the consumer. My party has always been in favour of refunding the money collected as a tax on building materials to those who are going to build homes, particularly those in the lower and middle income brackets. We are afraid that once the sales tax on building materials is reduced to 5 per cent, hundreds of millions of dollars which should be passed on to consumers will be siphoned off by people in the building industry-contractors, painters, real estate people, and so on, right down the line. This would not happen if the money collected were rebated to those building a home. Why did the minister not consider this, because I suggest that what we propose will be much easier to administer?
Reducing the sales tax to 5 per cent right across the board could be regressive. For example, the person building a home worth $30,000 or $35,000 will not benefit to nearly the same extent as the person building a home worth, say, $100,000. On the surface, both will benefit to the same extent by the reduction to 5 per cent.


John Napier Turner: You cannot have a sales tax which is regressive and make it progressive when you lower the rate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, that is why we suggest the tax credit approach. Perhaps it would be better to pay a lump sum to every home builder as a tax credit. Such credit might be worth, say, $500 to everybody. At least that
Excise
approach would be equitable. The greatest benefit would not go to those who build the most expensive houses; it would go to those who build average houses or houses which do not cost too much. I raise these matters as they concern me. Perhaps the minister will respond later in the debate.
The extra tax to be imposed on vehicles with powerful engines is a step in the right direction as such engines consume large quantities of energy. I am happy to see exemptions made in favour of farm tractors. My only concern is the limit on the size of boat engines. I think 20 horsepower is the limit on boat engines, above which extra tax must be paid. I suggest that a 20-horsepower boat engine is not very large; I do not think an engine so small consumes very much energy.
May I call it one o'clock and continue later?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, before the lunch hour I was saying that one section of the bill before us implements a tax pn high energy consuming engines and motors. I had made the point that it applies to boats with an engine of 20-horsepower. There is another point I want to mention at this time. Unfortunately, the minister is not here although his parliamentary secretary is in the chamber. I refer to clause 21, page 10. Section 10 refers to motorcycle engines to which the tax will apply. It provides that motorcycles with an engine displacement of greater than 250 cubic centimeters will be subject to a tax of 5 per cent. A motorcycle with a 250 c.c. engine is one of small or intermediate size. The tax should not apply to an engine of this size: it is not high energy consuming. If we are to try to save energy, which is the purpose of this tax measure, we should apply the tax to engines of much greater size.
In today's society, people who live in the suburbs travel to and from the city to work in a car that weighs several tons. More people are using motorbikes or motorcycles of one sort or another. If you put a tax on a motorcycle with an engine as small as 250 cubic centimeters, you defeat the whole purpose and philosophy of putting a tax on high energy consuming engines. This tax should be lifted from 250 c.c. engines and applied to those in the range of 600 or 750 cubic centimeters. I hope that when the minister returns to the chamber he will consider the possibility of an amendment with regard to motorcycles.
I wish to stress another point. Motorcycles are often not used for pleasure. People use them to go to and from work, to the corner grocery store, and so on. They are not used as much for pleasure as are boats. I have argued that the limit is too low for boats and my argument is even stronger with regard to motorcycles. After all, we are not dealing with a huge engine that consumes a lot of energy.
2022

December 6, 1974
Excise
There are two further points in this bill with which I wish to deal. The first is the point touched on by the hon. member for Edmonton West, namely, the airport tax which applies to all airplanes. This is unfair. In the Northwest Territories, the Yukon or northern Saskatchewan there are no roads: it is not like in the south where people can travel by car, truck, bus or rail. They must use aircraft. Fuel costs in the north are already excessive because it is necessary to fly in the fuel. An additional tax on aircraft will discriminate against the people of the north. The minister should consider amending this provision when we get to clause by clause study of the bill. There is one other point I wish the minister to take note of with regard to aircraft. Section 12 of clause 21 provides:
Aircraft but not including gliders or aircraft purchased or imported for use exclusively in the provision of such class or classes of air services as the governor in council may by regulation prescribe.. .
They would be subject to excise tax. Of course, it is left open under the regulations that are prescribed by the governor in council; in other words, the minister. If a person purchases an aircraft of more than a certain size, should it be other than a standard commercial or passenger aircraft the aircraft may be subject to extra tax. Again, there are people in northern Canada who use aircraft for personal reasons in the same way as we use cars, and if the section imposed an extra tax on these people I think it would be discriminatory.
I also ask whether the new tax would apply to motorized toboggans used in the north for hunting and trapping? Most of the measures here are measures which I believe all hon. members will support. I should like the minister to undertake a study of the impact of sales taxes to determine whether they are regressive, as I think they are. I think the object should be to distribute our wealth in order to create a more egalitarian society: we have the wealth to do it, and I think it would be a moral crime if we did not.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make some comments about this bill, the purpose of which is to implement the changes in sales tax proposed in the November 18 budget. The bill proposes that the sales tax on construction materials be reduced to 5 per cent. This reduction is not just for materials used for residential construction but for all construction. Yet the budget statement indicated that the primary aim of the proposal is to stimulate residential construction and to help moderate the price of housing. One could ask, therefore, why the approach could not have been to focus the impact of this cut more on residential construction, particularly for moderately priced housing.
One approach that could have been used would have involved an extension of the provisions the present tax law uses to grant relief from sales tax if the goods are to be used for certain purposes; in other words, an extension of the end-use provisions of the present law. This might well have been complex administratively. But there is another approach that could have been used if the principal objective was to reduce or eliminate that part of the cost element in the price of housing created by the sales tax. It would have involved sizably increasing the new

grants that are to be given to first-time purchasers of new, moderately priced homes. This would have put the benefit of the tax reduction directly into the hands of consumers. These grants could have been increased from $500 to some greater amount, with the program being further modified by making purchasers eligible for it even if the new home they were purchasing was not their first home and by widening the price ranges of eligible housing.
After all, when this $500 grant program was first announced during the election, it was put forward as being for the purpose of compensating the home buyer for the approximate amount of sales tax on the price of his home. The use of this latter approach would also have meant that the reduction of sales tax would not be available for luxury homes, apartments and office buildings, as will now be the case. In addition, it would have meant that there would be no question, as there now is, as to whether the reduction will ever actually benefit the consumer.
Of course, if you look at the proposal to cut the sales tax to 5 per cent as a means of generally encouraging the total construction sector of the economy and providing a basis for holding prices down throughout this sector, there is a strong argument for this kind of across the board reduction. But this still leaves the valid and very important question of whether the benefit of this reduction will in fact be passed on to the consumer either through lower prices or, at the very least, through the absorption of increased costs, or whether it will not, instead, be pocketed by others in the form of higher profits.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said he has asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) to monitor the sales tax cut to see that it is actually passed on to consumers. I think we need some further reassurance as to the capacity of that minister's department- which is, after all, a very small one-and that of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to carry out this task. We also need information as to exactly how it will be carried out. Will the monitoring cover the whole of the construction industry, or only residential construction? Whatever expertise Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has is likely to be concentrated in the residential area. But the monitoring should cover the entire construction area of the economy to which the new sales tax reduction is applicable.
The monitoring of sales tax and tariff cuts to attempt to determine the actual effect they have is a new kind of federal government activity. It was carried out for the first time by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on the effects of the tariff and sales tax cuts announced in the budget of February, 1973. The same department is carrying on another monitoring exercise at the present time on the effects of the elimination of sales tax on clothing and footwear, first announced in the May 6 budget. But as I have said, these programs are a new kind of federal government activity. Obviously, they are still of a somewhat experimental nature. As a result, consumers could well be given unrealistic expectations as to what this monitoring means and what it can actually do for them.
For example, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) announced that with regard to the current monitoring program on the effects of the elimina-
December 6, 1974

tion of sales tax on clothing and shoes, the names of any firms which have not passed on the benefit of the cuts to consumers would be disclosed to the public. However, what he failed to make clear at the time was that the department was going to monitor only some 120 firms which had already been informed they would be surveyed for this purpose. This means that the only "culprits" whose names the department would be in a position to reveal would be those found, if any, among this limited sample of 120 companies. A look at a sample of this size, if it is representative in terms of geography, various levels of trade and size of firms can, when checked against general statistics data, provide useful information of a kind the government never had before as to the actual effects of sales tax cuts on prices. But it could hardly be a way of helping keep the thousands of firms who are not in the sample, and who are therefore not being monitored, in line for the purpose of ensuring that they pass on the benefit of the sales tax reductions to consumers.
I think therefore, that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs should state as soon as possible exactly what is going to be done in a realistic way to monitor the cuts in sales tax on building including the names of firms to be checked for monitoring purposes materials, and what kind of information this monitoring will actually provide. The Minister of Finance should also be prepared to state what the government will do if it finds the benefits of these and other sales tax cuts are not in fact passed on to the consumer.
The Minister of Finance has also confirmed the removal of sales tax on construction equipment and on vehicles used for mass transportation. He has not yet announced who will monitor the effect of these cuts, but they involve sizeable amounts of government revenue and they should also be covered by a monitoring program. It appears that the government intends to rely mainly on competitive pressures to make certain that the benefits of all the new sales tax reductions are in fact passed on to the consumers. Therefore, it is essential that we have the legislative means of ensuring that these competitive pressures are working fully and effectively in the Canadian economy. This underscores the necessity of putting into law as quickly as possible both stages of a reformed and updated competition policy.
Also, the reduction of sales tax on building materials should remind us that when the legislation covering reform of the personal and corporate income tax became law two years ago, it was stated that the next stage of tax reform would deal with federal sales and excise taxes. Nothing has been heard about the status of that review since then, and I suggest it is time we had a report on what is happening with it. The fact is, however, that a major change was made, on what is essentially an ad hoc basis, in our sales tax system in the current budget. This is a strong argument for the completion of this review and the publication by the government of proposals for public discussion of the reform of our entire federal sales tax system at an early date.
It was announced on budget night that the reduction of sales tax on building materials would be in force immediately the following day, November 19. However, it should
Excise
be realized that the effect of this reduction of sales tax cannot be immediate with respect to all building materials across the board. This would, of course, lessen the degree of short-run impact the tax cut could have on the economy. The federal sales tax is imposed at the manufacturer's level. At the time the federal tax was announced, dealers already had on hand varying amounts of inventory, depending on the kind of material, on which tax had already been paid.
As is customary, neither the budget statement nor this bill make any provision for remission of sales tax which had already been paid. I am told that, depending on the kind of material, it could be up to four months before all this tax paid inventory could be disposed of through sale in the marketplace. For example, such tax paid inventories would be minimal or non-existent for products like concrete blocks or liquid cement for which there is a close relationship between manufacturing and ongoing demand and which go directly from manufacturer to user.
However, these inventories could be quite large for other materials like lumber and builders' hardware. I am told that most lumber yards turn over their inventories only four times a year. Therefore, it could be up to three months before the effect of the sales tax reduction could show up fully in lumber prices except, of course, in the rather unlikely event that the dealer could afford to cut his prices on materials on which tax had already been paid. The Minister of Finance announced on December 2 that there will be a remission of sales tax on tax-paid inventories of trucks and other transportation equipment affected by the sales tax exemptions proposed in the November 18 budget. However, he has indicated he will not do the same thing for building materials.
It could be argued, however, that the same considerations that led to his decision on transportation equipment could well apply to building materials. A prospective purchaser of building materials might defer his purchases for some months until he can buy goods free of tax. Or, he might switch his business from a dealer with a large tax-paid inventory to another one with little or no inventory, who could therefore offer him immediate delivery of stock which he had just purchased and on which sales tax had not been imposed. If builders deferred purchase of materials until they could buy them on a tax-free basis, it could slow down the effect desired by the budget of encouraging a greater supply of housing at lower cost in the near future. It could also slow down the achievement of the more general objective apparently hoped for from the reduction of sales tax-the stimulating of the entire construction sector of the economy. I would therefore suggest that further consideration be given by the Minister of Finance to this matter, now that a precedent has been established with his recent decision on transportation equipment.
In conclusion, while there are those who might consider my comments to be of a critically questioning nature, they are put forward in a constructive spirit in the context of my general support of the budget. Therefore, I believe that on balance this bill should have the support of this House and I look forward to its early approval by parliament.
28543 - 5914

December 6, 1974
Excise


Gérard Laprise: Madam Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to make a few comments.
When the budget bills are being considered, tax reductions are noted. I think that we must applaud such procedure, because we know that taxes are a heavy burden for the consumer, since at any level of tax collection, the burden always falls on the consumer. I have always felt that a government must only use a tax system to finance its expenditures and its administration. I think that a tax system should exist to cut financial surpluses, because it is possible and even probable at a given time, at some economic level, that too much money can give rise to a misuse of power.
This may create difficult situations where even the government may have administrative difficulties, when enterprises, companies or corporations become financially stronger than the government.
In this regard, a tax system must be set up to prevent the accumulation of riches in the ahnds of a happy few, but this is very far from the present principle where nearly the only purpose of the present tax system is to find financing sources for government activities,both at the federal and provincial levels.
When this is no longer enought, there exists a second means, that is to borrow from those who have savings they may lend.
Madam Speaker, I think we must rejoice whenever the government decides to lighten the burden of taxpayers through tax reductions since when we reduce taxes, we do in some way something which helps increase the consumer's purchasing power.
So far, we have observed labour disputes between workers and employers, between public servants and government, fought in order to get salary increases based on the price index and the cost of living increase. Each time the workers have got a salary increase, a tax revenue increase has followed, and each time the wages have got higher, expecially in industry, there have been as a consequence price increases and, consequently, tax revenue increases. For years I have told this House, as the Quebec Minister of Finance has also just stated, that it is no longer necessary to increase taxes, since inflation does the job. There is no use raising taxes for the purpose of refilling the governe-ment's treasury, inflation does the job.
In my opinion, the tax on building materials should have been completely removed. A cut of about 50 per cent is clearly not enough if it is really intended to encourage the building industry and the housing starts we knew in the last few years but which have dropped catastrophically in the last few months slowing down activity in other sectors of the Canadian industries, for instance in the lumber industry. I appreciated very much the speech the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has just made. He is now leaving the House. He wondered to what extent the tax cut could serve the consumer, the man who wants to build a house or buy a new one, the citizen who has repairs or maintenance to do.

How can we be sure the tax reduction will reach him? To some extent, we can bank on competition, but there was competition 15, 20 years ago; I wonder if it still exists today.
Commerce, principally for building materials, is now mainly in the hands of a few companies which can easily, maybe not directly and officially but indirectly, reach agreement to support prices, Now, as the hon. member for Windsor West pointed out earlier, when they are asked about the impact of that sales tax cut on building materials, they talk about inventory. And can the ordinary consumer check the veracity of such an affirmation? It is impossible for him to know whether the inventory is depleted or not.
Therefore, I think that in conceiving such measures, we should take action to ensure that this tax cut relieves precisely those we want to relieve, namely the consumers. A few years ago, we have had the suppressions of the sales tax on medical drugs, the effect of which we did not see at the consumer's level. We were told that it was the increase in costs which was responsible for the maintenance of high prices. But what are the true facts? The consumer is not in a position to know. It is not known exactly how far inquiry commissions or civil servants of certain departments who control that sort of things can go in such situations.
I suggest that we should make or have made sure that the benefits of the sales tax removal would in fact be passed on to consumer. If that tax had been removed, I think it would have been a lot easier to check whether the reduced cost of building materials has actually been passed on to the consumer and has therefore given a new impetus to the building industry.
I suggest this is very important because housing starts have decreased by about 50 per cent and possibility more. Not only lumber, cement, concerte, elecritical wiring or plumbing equipment are involved, but also all secondary materials used in home building. Everyone of those industries is affected when house building is stagnating. Indeed, there is a chain reaction that must be watched.
When we shall consider this bill clause by clause in a few minutes perhaps, we can then study it more in depth. The minister will be in a position to give us more details, more information on every clause. We shall then know what the minister and the government have in mind, and the ultimate purpose of his budget policy.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of saying a few words about a specific clause in this bill and of indicating that, while I am in agreement with many of the items in the budget which benefit the consuming public of this country, there is one item that concerns me particularly as a tobacco farmer and as a member representing a great number of tobacco farmers in Ontario. It is obvious that I itend to talk about the increased tax on cigarettes. I do not do this in a frivolous way, but with the hope, that when I am finished hon. members will realize I am deadly serious in my attempt to impress upon the minister the impact an increase in the tax on cigarettes has on the tobacco farmer, the primary producer, in Ontario.
December 6, 1974

The tax set out in the budget represents an increase of two cents per package of 20 cigarettes. Before I go any further, I should indicate that we appreciate the fact that budgets over the past number of years have not contained an increase in the tax on tobacco products. The minister has been kind enough to avoid such an increase in the recent past but I note that he has yielded to the temptation this time. I am not sure whether he is a smoker, but I am not speaking for the smokers; I am speaking for those individuals who produce tobacco.
The increase in taxes on alcohol and tobacco is a means of obtaining additional revenue. I hope the minister was not influenced by his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), to use this increase as a subtle way of cutting down on the consumption of tobacco. Unlike his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has more common sense and allows the public to decide, as individuals, whether they want to smoke. As I say, the real purpose of an increase in tax is to increase revenue, and tobacco and alcohol are fair game when considering fields for taxation.
I wonder whether the minister and his officials have considered that some time, somewhere the law of diminishing returns will begin to take effect. Once the tax forces up the price to the consumer to a certain point, the sale of the product will be reduced and thereby the amount of revenue produced likely will diminish. A number of years ago the Ontario Flue Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board made a serious representation to the Department of Finance on that topic. At that time they pointed out the critical point at which the revenue to the government would begin to decline.
Speaking in this vein, I wonder whether the departmental officials had any prior consultation with the tobacco growers of Canada to obtain their views, because they could present this aspect of the situation much more forcibly and logically than I could in these few remarks. I hope the minister will take note of what I have said and will appreciate the great value the production of tobacco has to the economy of the area from which I come and also to many parts of Ontario and Canada generally.
The tobacco industry is really the backbone of agriculture in my area: it pours a tremendous amount of revenue into the economy. I want the minister to be very much aware of this when he unduly increases the tax on a product which means, not just comfort and luxury to the smoker but bread and butter to the man producing the original product. If the minister should not listen to what I am saying and should continue with his intention to increase the tax, I would respectfully suggest that he make available for export promotion a certain portion of this tax. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been very helpful to the tobacco growers in assisting them in the marketing of their product in countries such as China, Japan, Europe, and so on. I respectfully suggest that he seriously consider making available for export promotion certain funds raised by the increase in the tax he is now levying on tobacco. That is all I have to say, Madam Speaker. I hope the minister will take due note of the fact that tobacco is not just a luxury item but
Excise
is really a very important industry in certain parts of this country.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Madam Speaker, I rise to enter the debate today on the Excise Tax Act because I should like to discuss a few things which I believe are of importance. Although the first item on which I should like to touch may be not too important to all of Canada, it certainly is important to British Columbia and to my riding in particular. It has to do with the use of the word "municipality". I see it is again used in this legislation in new subsection (3) of clause 18 where there is reference to sewerage and water distribution systems. This subsection provides:
Where any water distribution, sewerage or drainage system is transferred by a person to a municipality within two years after the completion thereof, pursuant to a bylaw of or agreement with that municipality under which that person is required to install such system and transfer it without charge to that municipality-
I am concerned about this because in British Columbia there are regional districts and fire districts which are constituted under the Water Act. I have had some experience in this regard since coming to Ottawa. The fact is that the excise tax is being charged in respect of these organizations because of the interpretation of what is a municipality. Although these are quasi-municipal bodies, they are not given the same treatment as a municipality under the Excise Tax Act, even though in their own right they are taxing authorities and can do on their own behalf exactly what a municipality can do. When I first came here I obtained some correspondence from my good friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), in respect of the taxing method being used. One letter states:
Various kinds of districts under the Water Act of British Columbia have been created for a variety of special purposes. Some have extensive powers while others have only a single purpose as street lighting or fire protection but since they are not classified as municipalities by the creating authority we have not regarded them, in general, as municipalities within the ordinary meaning of the term.
Then in a letter from the minister of national revenue in 1973 we find this statement:
As you suggest in your letter, the Excise Tax Act is considered as contemplating fully organized municipalities and it is in this spirit that we have been administering the statute. However, in keeping with the spirit of your representations and others which have been made recently on this subject we are currently reviewing our position in this respect. Our study will encompass the form of incorporation and the functions of the various local authorities in British Columbia. The object of our study is to determine whether a recommendation should be made to the governor in council to classify some or all of them as municipalities for the purposes of the Excise Tax Act.
This came about because of the fire districts in my area which are in the regional district but are not municipalities. They were classified as unorganized territory. In order that the people in these regions could set up a fire protection district, these areas were classified by the province of British Columbia and incorporated under the Water Act. At one time they purchased their equipment and were not bothered too much. Then suddenly someone in the department discovered what was going on and started to harass the seller of the equipment in respect of the tax and, of course, the seller could not do anything other than pass the tax on to these districts.
We started looking into this problem in 1973 because these organizations were being taxed. On October 1, 1974,

December 6, 1974
Excise
the Winfield fire protection district in my area was taxed an amount of $3,654.05 for a piece of fire protection equipment. I am very concerned about this situation because these districts cannot qualify as municipalities since no one on the government side seems to want to change the wording in the act in respect of municipality, which states "any water distribution, sewerage or drainage system".
Exactly the same thing will happen in these areas where we have regional districts which are not classified as municipalities as has happened with the fire protection districts. These regional districts are set up to perform this kind of function. If we have municipalities which do not cover all the people in total, then I would respectfully ask the minister to amend the interpretation to include all these types of people in Canada. I do not wish to accuse the minister or the government of not doing this because only a very small area of Canada is involved; nevertheless, I think this provision must be changed to avoid discrimination.
Over the years I have been intrigued by the excise tax. I first became interested in it when I was in the appliance business in Vancouver shortly after the war and we found the excise tax being put on one year and taken off the next on some of the appliances we sold. I could never really understand the philosophy behind the imposition of this tax. In my opinion, only the income tax is fair. I should like to know the reason for putting the excise tax this year on boats of over 20 horsepower. In my riding in the Okanagan Valley we have a flourishing industry in boats. Our greatest satisfaction is in the pleasure people take from these boats. There are some lovely lakes in the area which lend themselves to the use of boats built locally and used both by local people and tourists who visit the Okanagan Valley.
Now the excise tax is imposed on boats of over 20 horsepower. What is the thinking behind this measure? Does the minister believe that this is what he has to do to fight the energy crisis? The people who are manufacturing and selling the boats, and we have many of them in British Columbia, have already been hit by the full impact of the energy crisis. The number of boats over 20 horsepower that are sold and used in the area, and on which the excise tax is imposed, amounts to 80 per cent. The percentage is not nearly as high with regard to Cadillacs. The gas consumption in the motor boat industry in Canada is well below 1 per cent. I do not think that the excise tax will have very much bearing on gas consumption but, as I have said, the motor boat industry has already been hit by the energy crisis. For instance, resin, which is used in making fibreglass boats, has increased in cost in one year from 20 cents a pound to 56 cents a pound. The upholstery which is used in other boats, which I believe is mainly plastic, has gone up 27 per cent.
A popular model of a boat manufactured in my area which in 1973 sold for $5,847, in 1974 sells for $7,268. Now, with the increase in tax, it will go up to $7,915 because the tax increase is $647. I really wonder whether that will stop people buying boats. I certainly do not believe that people will stop buying Cadillacs because of the price increase. The percentage of sales of Cadillacs is not very great anyway, and I do not think the increase in cost will be a

deterrent because people who can afford that price can afford the increase also.
There has been a tremendous increase in the price of boats in Canada and in North America because of the cost of the input in boatmaking. We could also speak about the competition between imports and Canadian production: it is a very interesting subject. I do not think too many boat manufacturers are worried about competition except for the fact that boats manufactured in the United States are cheaper because of the lower price of materials. Manufacturers there have ways of exporting boats to Canada and avoiding in some way part of the duty that is charged, so that the percentage of the increase as a result of the excise tax on imported boats is lower than for Canadian boats.
Most hon. members here know that I always put in a plug for industry in Canada and I do not like to see anything done, small as it may be, to inhibit the development of industry in this country. However, here is another instance where it is not being helped. I would not be suprised if somebody in the boat manufacturing business in the Okanagan Valley said to me: "It would be much better for me to move my plant across the boarder to Omak, which is only about ten miles away, so that I could manufacture my boats there using American labour and American materials." We would be witnessing the disappearance from Canada of another industry that could sell its products for less. In the whole area of the Okanagan Valley there are beautiful lakes and a great many people have their pleasure boats there. Certainly, the tourist industry depends on boats and it would be to the detriment of that industry to impose this tax.
Another subject in which I am interested is the wine industry in the grape-growing area of the Okanagan. We have had our problems there with the farming industry. We have a tremendous fruit industry, but we cannot get cars to transport our fruit for export to the United States or even to bring it to eastern Canada. Perhaps the consumer does not see this, but I certainly see a great number of American apples being sold in eastern Canada today. I know, Madam Speaker, that you would not notice the difference in the price of American apples and Okanagan apples, but I certainly do. This is one of our problems. One of the things we have been told by officials of the federal Department of Agriculture and officials of the provincial department is to diversify the industry so as to avoid surpluses. One way to do this is to grow grapes. We have the right climate for grape growing-semi-arid, semi-desert.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) wants the wine industry to pay additional excise tax and I do not know why. I cannot understand this move, as the wine industry in Canada is not economically healthy, not making large profits, and not reaping the rewards of inflation which many other industries are reaping. It is in a depressed state. That is the best way to describe it.
We should consider the Australian experience of a few years ago. Australia imposed an excise tax on Australian wine. That move only helped to depress the Australian wine industry. Finally the Australian government had to
December 6, 1974

rescind the tax in view of large losses the Australian wine industry had suffered.
Look at it another way. The government is to tax more heavily the wine industry, but it will not impose similar taxes on beer or cider, substances which have competed for the consumers' attention over the years. It is well understood that demand for wine is elastic and responds to price changes. How consumers will respond to the price of wine is not known. As I say, wine competes with beer and cider for the consumers' attention in the market place. Considering the economic condition of the Canadian wine industry, I think that the new tax will make it much harder for the industry to expand and use all the grapes grown in Canada.
The Canadian wine industry is under pressure from imported wine. Last year wine imports increased by 9 per cent, and domestic wine sales were down by 1.5 per cent. Is this the time to impose a 60 per cent tax hike on our wine industry? Officials of the department think the extra tax will bring about $5 million more into the coffers of the federal government. A drop in sales of domestic and imported wines might mean that the government will gain much less than $5 million from its new tax.
We must also consider some intriguing side effects. Because of the tax importing agencies will be under pressure to bring in lower priced wines. Some low-priced wines may be dumped in Canada. We know that the grape crop in the United States has never been larger; probably it stands at an all-time high. We know American grape growers are looking for markets for their product. As American grapes are cheap they may be dumped in Canada, in one form or another. Further, I know from experience how difficult it is to prove dumping. Nevertheless, as some Canadian wines become more expensive by virtue of the tax, imported, low-priced wines may fill up the vacuum. Therefore the new tax will not help the Canadian wine industry, or Canada.
For that reason I hope the minister will consider again the imposition of this tax. At the same time will he reconsider the tax on boat engines, as it will not do what some in his department think it will? I hope, in any event, that the minister will reconsider the additional tax on Canadian wines.


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the difficulty the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) faces as he attempts to readjust our taxation system. His is indeed a difficult job, but he must make sure that, in adjusting our tax system, he does not upset the delicate balance of the market place. I am particularly concerned in case, by readjusting our tax system, he unwittingly destroys the competitive advantage enjoyed by a particular Canadian industry. By hurting the competitive position of a Canadian industry, he may disadvantage other segments of our economy which depend on that industry, and thus hurt them.
I was pleased to note that the minister talked about objectives and about the fact that he is trying to bring about competitive balance within industry. He also talked in terms of encouraging investment in Canada, particularly Canadian investment in Canada. Those are worthy objectives. Any actions which may bring adverse effects
Excise
or which may hinder the attainment of such objectives should be examined carefully.
I do not intend to repeat the arguments of my colleague from Okanagan. However, as a British Columbia member who is interested in the growth of the wine industry in British Columbia, I am concerned in case the competitive position of that industry may be disrupted. The industry may be damaged severely.
The Canadian wine industry now employs just over 1,000 people, and Canadian grape growers supply 2,000 permanent jobs and six weeks' seasonal employment for many more. Twenty-eight Canadian wineries and about 1,150 grape growers have a current capital investment of approximately $130 million. The wine industry uses about $36 million worth of supplies obtained mainly from Canadian grape growers, and from glass and paper board manufacturers.
Canadian wineries purchase over 75 per cent of the Canadian grape crop. This is the second largest fruit crop in Canada, and its concentration in the Niagara Peninsula in Ontario and in the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia makes it extremely important to the general economy of these areas. The current forecast for Canadian grape purchases by the wineries in 1974 is about 60,000 tons, with a potential value of approximately $14 million.
The proposed excise tax increases will seriously impair development of the Canadian wine industry, an agriculturally based industry which is still in its formative stages, although it has experienced some healthy growth in recent years and anticipates expansion in international markets. Certainly this Canadian industry is growing and anticipates moving into the international market. In some cases Canadian companies anticipate taking over American companies, rather than the reverse. Certainly they should be encouraged. Instead, they are facing a serious slowdown in sales, showing an increase of less than 1 per cent in the 12 months ending March 31, 1974. While corporate profits generally show substantial increases, Canadian wineries are showing profits below last year. The industry in encountering pressure from low-price imported wine and sky rocketing costs for Canadian wineries.
I ask the minister to reassess the competitive position he is disrupting in the Canadian industry relative to imported wines, and also the position of the wine industry relative to other alcoholic beverages such as beer. One of the responsibilities of a member of parliament is to make the minister and his department aware of some of the effects he might be having on small businessmen or small industrialists.
One change in the bill that is of concern to me and will affect the industry in my constituency relates to the situation of built-in fireplaces. There are three types of built-in fire-places. One is constructed from a base of brick. There are also the metal fireplaces and free standing fireplaces.
The free standing fireplace is being put in an unfortunate competitive position. I understand that 90 per cent of them are manufactured in Canada. This is a relatively new business. In fact this market is being taken away from United States manufacturers. On the other hand the American manufacturers produce a type of built-in fire-

December 6, 1974
Excise
place that will compete with this free standing fireplace and gain a tax advantage. They in turn produce some 90 per cent of the input into Canada.
It is rather incongruous that the Minister of Finance would promote a taxation benefit for an American industry and a taxation disincentive for a Canadian industry, particularly since this is a new industry which is just getting on its feet.
This Canadian industry is doing extremely well. Its growth has been quite satisfactory, particularly with regard to British Columbia. This is also an Ontario based industry. On that basis I ask the minister to reassess this and hopefully take out of the legislation the words "built-in". If fireplaces were just included generally, this would be satisfactory.
Another minor factor encouraging the free standing fireplace is the matter of conservation. A free standing fireplace gives off a considerable amount of heat. As we are talking in terms of energy conservation, we should not have the heat going up the chimney. We should instead ensure that it is distributed throughout the room.
Injuring the free standing fireplace industry by destroying its competitive position and increasing the competitive position of the United States companies is totally against all the concepts upon which the minister built his budget. He built it upon the premise of hopefully improving employment in Canada. This will do the opposite. He built his budget on the objective of encouraging Canadian investment in Canada. This clause regarding built-in fireplaces goes against the objective. It is upsetting the competitive position of this Canadian industry. I am sure that is not the minister's intent.
I hope the minister will remove the words "built-in" from the bill. I will look for that in the amendment. That is in schedule V, Part 1, paragraph 2. I would appreciate it if the minister would take these factors into consideration. If necessary I will discuss the matter further on third reading.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, as I do not wish to take too much time of the House I will only make a few comments. I know that other members want to speak and that there is a disposition to pass this bill by four o'clock.
When you look at this bill in an overall way, you see there is good news and bad news in it. The bad news is if you fly or are a passenger in an airplane, drive a big car, buy a boat with the motor over 20 horsepower, smoke cigarettes or cigars, drink wine and brandy.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is bad news for you, Bill.


William James Kempling: I'm glad you are here. If you are in the construction machinery business, truck equipment business, are handicapped, have children and are buying clothing for them, then there is good news for you.
I wish to endorse the comments regarding the wine industry which were made by my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) and the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). We have a considerable wine industry in the Niagara Peninsula. I have been in contact with them and I understand

they have made representations to the minister. I hope he will take the remarks of my colleagues into account, as well as the representations made by the industry which is quite concerned about where it will be heading in the future.
I know that other members intend to speak at some length regarding taxation on motors, boats and so forth. Therefore, I will skip my remarks on that. I will confine myself to the transportation equipment business. I commend the minister on his recent news release wherein he recognized the tremendous inventory that this industry has on hand. He says he is prepared to do something about it. Remitting the sales tax would represent millions of dollars to the industry which is now having great problems with cash flow. This would certainly help them. When the minister made the announcement I took the liberty of sending out approximately 150 copies to people I knew who would be interested. I know they are waiting for a further revelation on how this will be handled.
The industry about which I am particularly concerned is the Canadian truck body and equipment industry. It is vitally affected by the regulations pertaining to transport equipment. I wish to say a few words about that. This industry has had a good deal of difficulty getting any sort of recognition from the government. As a matter of fact, the reason its association was formed was because various members in the business had received different rulings from the Department of National Revenue pertaining to sales tax and excise tax.
At that time a handful of people in the business, including myself, got together and compared rulings. We found some people had rulings and other did not. Some were being taxed unjustly and others not taxed at all. Consequently we formed an association. It is now Canada-wide with representation in every province. It represents hundreds of millions of dollars in business every year and employs thousands of people. One particular problem the Canadian truck body association had was that they met with various departments of government, but I am told that the departments or the government were not aware that such an association existed. I want to repeat that they do hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business a year. They do employ a great number of people, and they are a very innovative type of industry. The proposal which mainly concerns them in the schedule is in Part XVII, items 8 and 9:
Parts and equipment designed for permanent installation on the tax exempt goods mentioned in sections 1 to 7 of this Part where, in the opinion of the Minister, the fair sale price by the Canadian manufacturer or the fair duty paid value of the imported article exceeds $1,000 per unit.
As I say, this is a very innovative industry. It responds to the demands of the construction industry and transport industry, as well as to the needs of municipalities. In many cases the products of several manufacturers are combined. I stress to the minister that he ought to accept the principle of aggregate pricing when dealing with $1,000 value per unit.
The bill provides, as I read it, that where the duty paid
value of the manufactured article exceeds $1,000 per unit
the tax is to be levied. It is very simple to take a hydraulic

December 6, 1974
pump and a power take-off, or some other device, and combine them into a piece of equipment which sells for $3,000. But either of these items separately might be worth only $500. In the past the department has held that when these components are combined it constitutes production for the purposes of the act.
Take the example of a manufacturer who makes a truck. That is merely transportation until someone puts a body or a piece of equipment on the back. But when fitted with a van body, a tailgate and a hydraulic lift, the additions, as a whole, may well be worth $3,000, although the value of the parts separately is less than $1,000 each. If any one of those articles is left off the buyer is not in possession of a complete piece of machinery. When the minister is laying down the rules I hope his officials will recognize this aggregate principle, so that when someone in the business describes a piece of machinery the aggregate principle will be applied.
I see that my hon. friend from South Shore has some comments to make. I believe I have made my point, and I see that the minister's officials in the gallery have noted my remarks as well. Having said this, I shall defer to my hon. friend.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: It is not my intention to speak at any great length on Bill C-40 or seek to delay its passage. However, there are a number of items in it which are causing me concern. One in particular appears in item 11 in clause 21 where we read that a special excise tax of 10 per cent will be applied against:
Boats, other than boats purchased or imported by Her Majesty in right of Canada for use exclusively by the Government of Canada, designed to be propelled primarily by motors exceeding twenty horsepower; and motors exceeding twenty horsepower (including drive assemblies) for boats other than boats purchased or imported by Her Majesty in right of Canada for use exclusively by the Government of Canada.
When this information became public knowledge following the budget speech, I received telegrams from several boat builders in my riding which I should like to place on record. One firm, one of the largest Canadian manufacturers of sailboats, expressed itself as follows:
Strongly oppose the special excise tax for pleasure boats and engines proposed in the November 18 budget speech. We feel this 10 per cent tax will strike a blow detrimental to the small boat industry which is already struggling in the grip of inflationary costs. We implore you to reconsider this proposed tax immediately.
Paceship Yachts, Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia
Another telegram which I received reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Crouse, Your attention is directed to the forthcoming bill re 10 per cent excise tax on large outboards and boats. This is a drastic blow to a business and industry which is already staggering under inflation. Your co-operation please.
Corbett's Gun and Tackle, Liverpool, N.S.
And from yet another boat builder:
Very unhappy with 10 per cent excise tax on outboard motors and boats introduced by federal budget. Anything you can do to eliminate or reduce this tax will be very much appreciated.
Excise
Sealand Industries Ltd.
Gerald B. Stevens.
These are the people who have sent telegrams to me, but I have received other indications through personal contacts and by telephone from many others, citizens and boat builders in my riding, about this matter.
In his budget speech the minister stated that this special excise tax was proposed with respect to high energy consuming vehicles, effective immediately, and presumably he is following this course in order to conserve our dwindling supplies of oil. Nevertheless, I view this measure with considerable alarm.
The boat building industry in Canada, and especially in Nova Scotia, is already troubled by marketing problems. I would point out that boats and yachts, generally speaking, are luxury items and that when the economy turns down into a recession, as it has at the present time in Canada as well as in the United States, a yacht is one of the first things a person deletes from his budget.


Mr. Hargrave:: I never had one in my budget!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I suppose the second thing to be deleted is a light private aircraft. But in this instance I am dealing with boats for special use, boat builders, and the tax the minister proposes to place upon this industry. I would ask the minister to bear in mind that when the yacht-building business declines, a whole group of ancillary industries are forced to close their doors.
I recognize that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has a vast range of knowledge in probably many fields, but I venture, nevertheless, to offer him this information: the hulls of most yachts or pleasure craft are built in one place, the galvanized fittings are made somewhere else, the blocks and rope fittings in yet another place, and the dacron sails are made elsewhere.
Bilge pumps, small anchor winches, riding and running lights, galley equipment, toilet equipment and fittings are either manufactured locally or brought in from some other part of Canada, so when the boat building industry is closed down it is not unlike closing down the auto industry, since the ramifications of such an action are felt, though on a smaller scale, throughout the length and breadth of Canada.
Another question which comes to my mind concerns the simplicity of the wording of this provision. Does the word "boats" refer not only to pleasure boats but also to fishing boats? If it does, it opens up a whole new field of inquiry and concern. I am not going to get into that aspect this afternoon in view of the limited time we have available, other than to say that if it does apply to fishing boats it is something that will really add the finishing touches to an industry that is already facing high winds, heavy seas and cloudy weather. I hope that the minister in his reply will clearly indicate that this does not apply to fishing boats.
For the life of me I cannot understand the reasoning behind the minister's action, for this particular industry contributes a great deal toward our balance of payments since the major part of our yacht and pleasure craft manufacturing industry exports its production to the
2030

December 6, 1974
Excise
United States. As long as the U.S. dollar was trading on a basis higher than the Canadian dollar, the Canadian shipbuilders could survive economically. But now the U.S. dollar trades on a basis lower than the Canadian dollar, and this is compounding the problems of our boat builders.
The average pleasure craft requires a motor, even if it is a sailing yacht, for motor power is required to bring it into port in the event that it is becalmed. I cannot help but wonder why the minister, if he needs money so badly, did not simply put the excise tax on the motor alone rather than on the entire boat. If he persists-and I say this with due respect to the minister-in this foolhardy proposal, he will simply be killing the goose which has been laying the golden eggs which the minister and his government dearly love to tax so highly.
This tax points out more clearly than any words of mine that in bureaucratic Ottawa the right hand simply does not know what the left hand is doing. Here we have a department of Regional Economic Expansion making grants to assist industry, on- the one hand, in regionally depressed areas, while the Minister of Finance on the other hand is establishing policies which basically lead to the destruction of local industries on a massive scale, leading in turn to still further unemployment, a problem which is seriously plaguing the present government and the country.
This 10 per cent tax deals our boat building industry a crippling blow which it may well not survive. I implore the minister to reconsider this matter, to cut down on his need for money by cutting down on his massive public building program for Ottawa and Hull for at least a few years, in the hope that this will take off the pressure for additional funds, pressure which, I submit, is killing the boat building industry in Nova Scotia as well as other private industries in this country.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am making this point of order now because I want to give the minister an opportunity to consider it. My point of order relates to item 11 in clause 21(2), relating to boats. My point of order is that this item offends against Standing Order 60(11).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has already spoken, and what he is now saying could have been said in his speech. The House is considering the second reading of a bill, and I do not see how it can consider a clause in the bill until and unless the House goes into committee of the whole. I see the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) shaking his head, and if he has a different opinion I would invite his comments.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my comments are very brief. First of all, I do not know that there has ever been any rule which provides that having spoken during the second stage of a bill an hon. member cannot rise subsequently on a point of order. That is item one. Secondly, I submit that although the hon. member is referring to a particular item which could be discussed in the committee stage, I put it to you that his point of order goes to the very resolution on which the bill is founded.
The minister is asking this House to give approval in principle to a bill which, on the basis of the argument that

will be advanced by my colleague, is defective under our standing orders. I can give Your Honour chapter and verse of previous examples. My colleague will explain, and I do not want to steal his thunder. I suggest that Your Honour hear him out, and then I think you will see that on the basis of his proposal it is at second reading stage that this matter should be raised. It could be raised on no other occasion that on second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am, of course, ready to listen to the hon. member's argument. The principal point that I was making, without my listening to the point of order- though I might be mistaken about this-was that I was afraid he was going to involve himself in another speech, using the excuse of a point of order to complete some comments that he did not make when he had the floor. I still question what the hon. member is attempting to do at this time. Nothing would have prevented him from at least enlightening the Chair during the course of his speech. Then, in view of the time element, we would not have had to go into a procedural debate which might take up all the available time. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.


George H. Whittaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, my point of order is that item 11 in clause 21(2) relating to boats offends against Standing Order 60(11). This Standing Order provides:
The adoption of any Ways and Means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
The ways and means motion upon which this bill purports to be based was adopted on December 2, 1974. With respect to item 11, the ways and means motion reads as follows:
Boats, other than naval vessels, designed to be propelled primarily by motors exceeding twenty horsepower: and motors exceeding twenty horsepower (including drive assemblies) for boats-ten per cent.
This is to be found at page 219 of the English version of the budget motions. The French version is at page 232. I point out that the exception in the French version reads "autres que les navires de guerre". The English version in the bill, at page 11, refers to:
Boats, other than boats purchased or imported by Her Majesty in right of Canada for use exclusively by the Government of Canada ...
I would point out that the meaning of "boat" to which the tax applies is affected as the exception widens or narrows. In the ways and means motion, the exception is "naval vessels". Note the distinction in the use of the word "boats" and, again, "vessels". Then, also, "vessels" is qualified only by the adjective "naval". It can be argued that "naval" is used to assure that "vessel" is understood in the sense of a ship, rather than any other meaning that the word "vessel" can have.
In this use the distinction maintained by many yachtsmen is upheld, namely, that there is a distinction between a "boat" and a "vessel". Generally this distinction relates to size. In this interpretation the tax would not apply to vessels whether owned by a private citizen or corporation or by the Crown. On the other hand, the tax would apply to boats, other than the class of naval vessels, even though owned by the Crown.
In support of this interpretation, the draftsmen of the item in the bill have dropped the use of "naval" and
December 6, 1974

"vessel" and have used "boat". Here they have qualified "boat" by substituting "purchased or imported by Her Majesty in right of Canada for use exclusively by the government of Canada". The words "purchased or imported by" are completely new. There is no such qualification in the ways and means motion. The idea of ownership is completely new. The motion does not refer to ownership at all. The bill brings in ownership and use. The boat must be purchased or imported by Her Majesty for the exclusive use of the Canadian government. Not only do the technical words differ between the motion and the bill, the concepts have changed.
I would also point out the obvious difference in the French version between the use of the words "navires de guerre" in the motion and the word "navire" in the bill. The English and French versions differ even in the motion. One uses "boat, other than naval vessels", the other "bateaux, autres que les navires de guerre". In the Bill, the word "boat" is used in the general and in the particular, but in the French version the general word is "bateaux", while the exception is "navires".
In the end result, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that item 11 in the bill does not comply with the requirements of Standing Order 60(11), and must be struck out as not based upon the relevant item in the budget motion.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member and the overworked research staff of the opposition on putting together that particular argument. The hon. member has made his case on second reading when his colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), said he should make it. Unless Your Honour wants to rule at this stage, perhaps we could argue the point when we get to the specific clause. In any event I should like to have the opportunity of examining the argument of the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. At this time the Chair has to decide whether there is a point of order, and not with regard to the goodwill of the minister. What the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) has said confirms the first impression the Chair had. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is aware that the motion before the House at this time is that the bill be read the second time and referred to the committee. I do not see how he could expect the Chair to rule on a motion to delete a clause of the bill at this stage of second reading without having that specific clause before the House. At this time the whole bill is before the House.
I see that the hon. member for Edmonton-West (Mr. Lambert) seems to be attempting to rise. He had the opportunity to stand up and make his case earlier. At this time the House is considering the whole bill, and I do not feel it can be amended at this stage of second reading. I cannot accept the argument of the hon. member that I should make a decision on a motion to delete item 11 at this time when that clause is not really before the House, but will be before the Committee of the Whole at a later stage. For these reasons I cannot accept the point of order raised by the hon. member.
Excise


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


John Napier Turner: The Speaker has made his ruling.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Speaker has made his ruling, and I say that is unfortunate because the same point of order arose at the time Bill C-259 was introduced.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that he had the opportunity to intervene during the procedural debate but did not do so.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, I beg your pardon!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member should have the right to make a further comment on the acceptability of the ruling after it has been made. For that reason I suggest that we proceed with the debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we should take one thing at a time. My colleague was raising a point of order. Your Honour intervened and, in effect, suggested that he should not be doing that. I suggested to Your Honour, without disclosing what the hon. member was going to say, that it was right that he should do so at this time. Your Honour did not give me the opportunity to speak on the merits of what he was saying. I could not speak on the merits of what he was going to say because he had not said it.
It was for that reason I indicated my desire to rise in order to draw Your Honour's attention to a very valid and compelling precedent, namely, the decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on precisely the same point in respect of Bill C-259. The bill introduced did not conform with the ways and means motion, and steps had to be taken to correct it. That is all we are concerned with now-correcting the discrepancy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to address myself to the subject matter of the item referred to in the point of order. I want to examine the item and its content, namely a provision for a 10 per cent tax on boat motors over 20 horsepower. I notice that the minister is here and that a half a dozen officials from his department are in the gallery.
I, too, have received representations from marine dealers, and I should like to lay some of their arguments before the House with the hope that the minister will listen carefully, as I think they make a great deal of sense.
The point is that the 10 per cent tax on boat motors of over 20 horsepower will have a detrimental effect not only on the marine business but also on tourist operators and commercial fishermen in northern Ontario. When I look at the tax I must ask myself why the minister brought it in. I can only conclude that this was an attempt to reduce energy consumption, and that the tax was viewed as a luxury tax in that these boats are used primarily for recreation. On an examination of this matter I would dispute that the tax will have the desired effect.
28543-60%

December 6, 1974
Excise
I suppose the first idea of the tax was to reduce energy consumption by taxing the large motors, thereby discouraging the purchase of motors over 20 horsepower. I submit that this is discriminatory. We find a similar tax being applied to high energy consuming automobiles. I would point out to the minister and his officials that these boat motors are used only during summer months, on an average for about 100 hours per year, whereas the high energy consuming automobile is used the year around. I conclude, therefore, that the tax regime is unfair when it compares boat motors with large automobiles.
In addition the owners of boats have to contend with higher fuel costs, and that has an effect on energy consumption. I find this tax, which applies to outboard motors of over 20 horsepower, is discriminatory if it is being used to prevent the high consumption of energy. I do not have a Canadian study on the matter, but I did examine the records of the United States Department of Commerce which indicate that the combined energy consumption of outboard motors, snowmobiles, lawnmowers and so on is less than one-half of 1 per cent of total energy consumption in the United States.
Let me also point out to the minister and his officials that 1975 outboard motor models have been vastly improved in respect of energy consumption. I am told that 1975 Mercury models have been improved to the extent of 25 per cent to 40 per cent in fuel economy. The new 1975 models will not burn as much fuel as the older models.
Also I have learned that a 1975 70 horsepower outboard engine uses less gas per mile than a 40 horsepower outboard engine. If the motive is to reduce energy consumption I do not think this tax on the new 1975 motors is a fair one from the point of view that the motors have been improved in their design and require less fuel. If the minister is looking at this tax, not from the standpoint of fuel consumption but from the point of view of this being a luxury item, then I think he is out of date. At one time outboard motors of 20 horsepower could be considered a luxury, but today the trend is toward larger and heavier boats which require motors much more powerful than 20 horsepower.
I would also point out that there is a need in today's society for recreation, and that more and more people today try to get away from the pressures of modern day work by getting out with their families. Boating is a very important recreational industry in this country. It is enjoyed by thousands of Canadians and their families. One cannot water ski behind a 20 horsepower engine. A larger engine is required.
This tax will have an effect on family recreation. I would also point out to the minister that marine dealers cannot survive on the sales of motors of 20 horsepower and below. A 20 horsepower engine sells for about $700. It is interesting to note that in respect of 60 per cent to 75 per cent of marine dealer sales, the revenue from engine sales is in the 40 horsepower to 80 horsepower range and not in the range primarily below 20 horsepower.
The other very discriminatory thing about this 10 per cent tax is that it means that the marine dealers will have to find 10 per cent extra working capital, because they

purchase their motors in December for sales during the spring and summer. I spoke to one dealer who told me that, as soon as this proposed tax was announced, he immediately called his supplier and cancelled his order for outboard motors for this winter because he did not have that extra 10 per cent that he claimed would be needed if this measure should pass. Marine dealers also tell me that because of the general inflation in today's economy, and the marginal aspect of their business, a number of operators will be forced to close down, or at least to lay off a number of employees.
In my riding of Sault Ste. Marie there are approximately 100 people employed as marine dealers. We can only guess how many workers in this country are employed in the building of boat engines, pleasure boats and other craft. Also, of course, the ramifications of the decline in the boat and outboard motor industry will be felt by tourist operators and all subsidiary industries which supply them. Therefore I think this tax will have a much more far-reaching effect than the minister and his officials first realized.
It is also interesting to note that in the budget of May 6 this tax was only 3 per cent, while in the November budget it is 10 per cent. I think some explanation is required in respect of this increase. Because of the hardship to marine, fishing and tourist operators, and indirectly the hardship to those employed in the building of boat motors and the building of boats themselves, I urge the minister to amend this bill so that the 10 per cent excise tax would apply only to marine engines of 85 horsepower or over.
If this is to be viewed as a luxury tax then obviously those who can afford to buy motors of 85 or more horsepower can afford to meet the 10 per cent tax. I very seriously urge that the minister reconsider the implications of the 10 per cent tax on motors above 20 horsepower. I find this to be discriminatory against many of our small boat operators. Many companies will be forced either to lay-off employees or even shut down. I think it is time the government learned to protect some of our small businessmen more than the large corporations to which the government gives so many tax concessions.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have but three minutes left. I think I can make a a five minute speech if you would be willing not to see the clock for two minutes. I hope to be awarded for my brevity by the minister when he ultimately makes his response.
The entry to my first comment is through clause 19, where there are some minor adjustments in sales tax to help handicapped people. I congratulate the minister for the step he is taking to help the handicapped by the removal of certain taxes, but the removal of the sales tax simply is not enough to help the handicapped.
The minister will ask why I do not bring this subject up during a debate on national health and welfare in a social context. The reason I am entering a plea for the handicapped during a debate on the finances of this country is that since the budget came down we have received from the Economic Council of Canada, in its annual review, the theme that there is a need for economic and social indica-
December 6, 1974

tors. I shall quote just one sentence to indicate what the Economic Council was saying:
.. . there is a need for a broader framework within which it should be possible to say something concrete, from the viewpoint of overall well-being, about the ultimate ends of the socio-economic activity of the nation, the means to achieve these ends, and the degree to which they are being achieved.
I am really amazed because, although I am a long way from being a candidate for appointment to the Economic Council of Canada, I go back to a speech I made a year ago in which I entered the idea of having a social council of Canada which would emphasize social indicators that would help us in an integrated economic and social plan. In other words, it is not enough any longer in our very complex society for us to have economic indicators as the chief criterion for our success in society.
I want to impress upon the minister how much I look to him for leadership in backing up what the Economic Council of Canada is saying about the implementation of social indicators and the integration of them with economic indicators, so that together there can be a better over-all policy aimed at the well being of the human being and the individual.
Now, on the subject of the handicapped I only point out to the minister that despite the programs and various things done for the handicapped, there is not in this country adequate educational, vocational and employment guidance for handicapped people. I know what I am talking about on this subject, because there are in my riding several handicapped groups which are overly dependent for funding on LIP and other politically inspired government programs.
I could make available to the minister correspondence and documents which indicate the difficult time the handicapped people in our country have because they are not plugged into the economic system and have too low a priority. The priorities of the government are geared exclusively to the economic well being-I reinforce what I am saying now by reference to the Economic Council of Canada-and there must be an integration that will improve the quality of life, into which the handicapped will then have a right of access rather than be treated in a paternalistic and patronizing way. I do not blame the minister. I only say I encourage him to get behind the Economic Council of Canada and lend support to the implementation of its ideas, and perhaps more specifically get behind the idea of a social council of Canada which would help implement this.
I ask for an extra minute so I may make my second point. I will do it under sixty seconds because the minister is well tuned into the argument which I am advancing, that is my very extreme objection to the implementation of an air transportation tax. I tell the minister that this is discriminatory in regard to western Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I had hoped that the hon. member would ask for the consent of the House if he wishes to go beyond four o'clock. I allowed him one minute, but I feel that an extra period of two or three minutes needs the consent of the House.
Excise


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order may I say that I think the House would grant an extra minute to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche), or give him an alternative. As other members would like to speak on clause 1 because there is an amendment to the definition section, if second reading is granted could we have an understanding on the part of the House that the general debate on clause 1 would be carried on in Committee of the Whole?


Douglas Roche: I am willing to wind up in one minute, if the House would agree.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Roche: The minister is familiar with the argument; he does not need to hear it in detail. It was mentioned at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, and he knows it that the spirit of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary was to treat transportation in this country as being for regional development. If we cannot get the National Transportation Act amended immediately so that the principle of it being for regional development is a priority, at least we can avoid taking steps that are discriminatory against western Canadians through a tax that would hurt many businessmen and families in western Canada for whom air travel is a necessity. I think this is an unfair tax which certainly violates the spirit of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, and I want to put that seriously before the minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree that we not go into Committee of the Whole now but proceed to private members' business?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It now being four o'clock, the House will proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find that there is general agreement that we discuss today private member's notice of motion No. 14 standing in the name of the hon. member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Howie).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we stand all motions appearing ahead of motion No. 14, and proceed with motion No. 14?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 6, 1974
Child Abuse



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should direct the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to study and report back to the House its recommendations in respect to appropriate measures for the prevention, identification and treatment of child abuse and neglect, and for such other ancillary measures in the same matter as the Committee may consider desirable.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of all members to make a slight change in my motion, that is, to change the words "Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs" to "Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs", so that the matter would go to a different committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I hope all hon. members will agree with me that the government should direct the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to study and report back to the House its recommendations in respect of appropriate measures for the prevention, identification and treatment of child abuse and neglect, and for such other ancillary measures in the same matter as the committee may consider desirable.
I feel that this is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which requires our immediate consideration and attention. This is not a partisan matter. This is an issue where political affiliation is not of concern. It is a matter which is of the utmost importance and which I feel has the support of many of the members of this House. My plea to this House is: do not let this matter die at the end of this hour. This problem has been with us for too long. I urge hon. members to do their utmost to ensure that this resolution, or one similar to it, is passed as soon as possible.
It has been many years since Jean Jacques Rousseau stated, "Let us speak less of the duties of children and more of their rights". It is indeed time that we act, and those who will benefit most from our action are Canada's greatest asset-Canada's children.
The term "battered child" is one which is often used to describe abused or neglected children. Dr. Henry Kempe of the University of Colorado offered this definition of a battered child, "any child who received non-accidental physical injury or injuries as a result of acts or omissions on the part of his parents or guardians".
There are no accurate national statistics on the incidence of child abuse or neglect. Very little is known about the rate or frequency, but child abuse does exist, and this is a fact. David Bakan, a professor at York University, in his book "Slaughter of the Innocents," which was published in Canada for the CBC learning systems by the Hunter Rose Co., at page 4 of that book, which is in the Parliamentary Library, says:

In numerous known and publicly recorded instances children have been victimized by those responsible lor their care ... How prevalent can such occurrences be? Clearly data are hard to come by because only in the most extreme cases do such things come to public notice. Yet available information strongly suggests that the frequency is far greater than one may naively or hopefully imagine.
In fact a committee of the United States Senate was told at a hearing in 1973 that 60,000 children in that country every year were reported abused, some to the point of permanent injury and even death.
In the province of Ontario, for instance, the chief coroner's office records show that from late 1962 to September of this year 116 children died as a result of abuse or neglect. However, after 1966 when provincial legislation was passed making reporting acts of child abuse mandatory, the number of child fatalities in Ontario due to abuse or neglect decreased by about 50 per cent.
It should be noted that only five provinces have laws making reporting cases of child abuse mandatory. It is estimated that the incidence of child abuse in North America is roughly 250 to 300 per million persons per year. If this is the case then the 600 incidents reported last year in Ontario represent only one quarter of the total number of occurrences in this province. Estimates of actual cases of child abuse in Canada per year range from 1,000 to 10,000.
The grim reality of child abuse and the shocking revelations of research in this area must spur us, as law makers, into action. In the past Canadian law makers have largely overlooked this problem. Horrifying examples of abused children, often resulting in death, come to our attention through the news media. However, there are many cases of lesser degree, where children have been beaten or neglected, that go unnoticed. Child abuse is not only characterized by extreme physical beatings but may also include sexual abuse, deprivation of normal and sufficient care and nutrition, and neglect on the part of the parents.
Child abuse is not a new problem. It did not start just a few years ago when a group of physicians found the courage to make public knowledge of it. The bible records many instances of child abuse. For example, the story of Moses, in which Pharaoh ordered that all male Jewish children be cast into the river, may be found in the Book of Exodus, Chapter 1, verse 22. Instead of putting him to death, his mother put Moses in a basket, from which he was recovered by a princess.
The writings of Charles Dickens contain ample examples of child abuse, such as the beating scene in David Copperfield. In England, not until 60 years after an act making cruelty to animals an offence was passed, was an act passed making cruelty to children an offence. This law was passed in 1889.
It is time to re-examine our past efforts to prevent, identify and treat child abuse. It is time to figure out where we have gone wrong and once and for all put an end to the tragic accounts that temporarily jolt us from our newspapers or television sets before we file them away somewhere in the corner of our minds so that we do not have to think about them. The courts have assumed the position that parents are entitled to punish children
December 6, 1974

within the bounds of moderation, but punishment must be for the child's welfare, without maliciously inflicting traumatic injuries. When punishment becomes unreasonable and traumatic injuries result, the state must intervene and exert its police power on behalf of the children.
I believe that we, Madam Speaker, as law makers must now act. There is no question as to the existence of the problem, nor of the need to find a solution. A problem of such major significance as the battered child requires the organized efforts and co-operation of all concerned persons and agencies for its ultimate solution. The abused child has no advocate. He is handicapped by his physical and mental immaturity. As Professor Bakan stated:
Child abuse thrives in the shadows of privacy and secrecy. It lives by inattention ... A reasonable solution to the problem can come about only if there is a large scale acceptance that the welfare of children is of concern to the whole of the society and that the welfare and very survival of the total society critically depends upon the welfare of its children.
The question before us is: are we prepared to use our power as law makers to do our utmost and ensure that appropriate measures are taken, to the best of our ability, to prevent, identify and treat abused children, and to see that such instances do not recur? I say that the answer must be yes. This is one matter which we must recognize. Children have basic rights, the most important of which is the right to be a child. When children are deprived of this normal developmental growth, as are most abused children, unusual and strange things happen to their ability to make decisions, to use others, to trust and to become dependent on someone else. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1945 includes the following in Article 5:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Section 2 of Article 25 states:
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Both these articles, Madam Speaker, which Canada endorsed, apply as much to children as anyone else. Very little is known about the battered child and his world. This, coupled with the fact that child abuse does exist is, I feel, one reason for a committee of this House to study the matter. This proposed study most look into the medical, legal and sociological aspects of child abuse. The logical solution would be to eliminate the problem. However, this appears to be impossible. Since this is the case, we must concentrate on the early case finding as a means of prevention.
The most desirable goal for treatment, of course, is that the child who has been selected for abuse will have it made safe for him to live in his own home. The beginning of the cure, and at times the only cure for the situation, may be removing the attacked child from his dangerous environment.
The great majority of child abuse cases are first seen either in a physician's office or in an emergency room. The manner in which this emergency care of the suspected case of child abuse is handled will set the stage, either for a smooth flowing therapeutic relationship for the child and his family, or for an ineffectual treatment program
Child Abuse
which often leads to repeated abuse or even death. It is a serious national responsibility to guarantee every protection to our children. We must ensure that cases of abuse are identified and reported, and that proper care is provided for children.
Because these tragedies most frequently occur within the family, it is imperative that cases of abuse be detected as early as possible, so that adequate treatment is afforded to both the abused child and the abusing parent in order to re-unite the family, so that a loving atmosphere can once again be established.
Law, as well as medicine, is concerned with child abuse. The law can never serve the true ends of justice until lawyers and judges alike view the battered child as more than a legal problem. Each must commit himself to the ultimate welfare of the child and parent. An adequate child abuse law, in addition to the usual statement of purpose, definitions and procedural provisions, should include: first, specific reporting provisions, including a mandatory requirement that physicians and medical and hospital personnel, schools and public agencies report suspected cases of abuse. After abrogating the physician-patient confidentiality privilege, the law should encourage reports from individuals, and should grant immunity from civil damage actions to all who make reports in good faith, even reports which prove unfounded.
The law should include, second, well defined responsibility on the part of the police or public welfare agency to require prompt and thorough investigation of all such reports within clearcut channels of referral for the protection of the child; third, the broad jurisdiction of the court to protect any child within its boundaries, regardless of the residence of the parents; fourth, the right of a hospital or protective family to provide emergency care and shelter for a limited time; fifth, the authority for a court to make unilateral orders for temporary removal of a child from a parent, pending the filing of and a hearing on a petition or a complaint of neglect and abuse, where reasonable grounds are shown to justify such action. The law must also provide, sixth, that child abuse may be established by a preponderance of evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt where an infant or child too young to testify on his own behalf sustains unexplained injuries. We should also review our laws forbidding persons from inflicting injuries on children, and urge provincial governments to consider reciprocal and related legislation.
The purpose of the reporting laws mentioned earlier are for the treatment of present injuries and to protect the child from further abuse. It is essential that there be one centralized depository where all cases of child abuse can be reported, to ensure a complete history and aid in the prevention of further abuse. Our laws should be a reflection of our attitudes to children. No simple solutions exist, but there are directions in which we can move. Studies have shown that the battering of children occurs throughout the population, and is not restricted to race, religion, education or socio-economic groups. I believe that we must act immediately to take steps to attempt to solve this problem.
I am not saying that it is feasible or even desirable to separate all abused children from their parents; but I am saying that, as legislators, we must expand our efforts in

December 6, 1974
Child Abuse
this field and take appropriate measures for the prevention, identification and treatment of child abuse and neglect.
This is not a partisan issue. I do not believe that any hon. members who sit in this House are in favour of child abuse in any form. However, we must now show this. We must now show that we are concerned about Canada's children. We must show that we are concerned about their rights, and that the abuse of innocent children will not be tolerated in our country.
Our children are this country's richest resource for the future. We must not allow some of them to be deprived emotionally or physically of their heritage, when it is possible for us to change the situation. We cannot right the wrongs of the past, nor can we right every wrong of the present. But what we can do and what we have a responsibility to do is to act on a situation that has become more prevalent than any of us wish to admit.
Our main business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance, but to do what clearly lies ahead. Of all human resources, the most precious is the desire to improve. I suggest to this House that this is one area which we can improve upon and which we must improve upon. I am not offering a solution to the problem of child abuse. Indeed, there may not be a complete solution, but what I am asking is that we recognize the problem, and that we make an attempt to do something about it by directing the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to study and report back to the House its recommendations in respect of appropriate measures for the prevention, identification and treatment of child abuse and neglect, and for such other measures in the same matter as the committee may consider desirable.
The problem exists, and I believe that it has been clearly defined in this House. It has been said that to define a problem is to begin to solve it. I hope this is the case. We have the opportunity to make an attempt to find a solution to this problem. I think we must, but it must be remembered that opportunities carry with them obligations, and this is only too true in this case. Our obligation at the present is to ensure that this resolution, or one similar to it, be passed by this House, and passed as soon as possible.
This is not a matter which should be neglected, and it is not a matter in which political affiliation is of concern. I hope all members of the House will do everything possible to co-operate and ensure that this measure takes effect, and that a committee will indeed look into this matter and report back to this House. Elton Trueblood once wrote, and I quote:
A man has made at least a start on discovering the meaning of human life when he plants shade trees under which he knows full well he will never sit.
I hope, Madam Speaker, that this is indeed one shade tree that all members of this House can sit under and can take pride in. It can be done, Madam Speaker, but only with the help and co-operation of all hon. members of this chamber.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I shall be just a very few minutes. I

commend the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) on introducing this resolution. I also wish to commend him on the thoughtful and excellent speech he has made in support of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree with him that this motion ought to pass this afternoon. I am delighted to learn there is a good chance that it will. My contribution toward getting it through will be to make these remarks very brief.
As hon. members realize, there is a fairly wide public awareness of the fact that there is more child neglect and child abuse in Canada than there ought to be in a civilized country. I am sure all of us are embarrassed and ashamed that it takes place in our land. I have the notion that people generally are aware of it and do not like it, but hope that somebody will do something about it. That somebody, of course, is always somebody else.
The hon. member said we are the legislators of this land and it does not fall to us to pass the buck. The least we can do is arrange for a thorough study of this matter in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I am pleased to give our party's support to this motion.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) on presenting this motion. This is a subject which has interested me for some time, and one which we have had under study in the ministry of the Solicitor General for several months.
Our three man team studying this matter has developed more than 300 contacts in Canada and the United States. They have travelled in Ontario and British Columbia, and have consulted with local authorities such as Dr. H. B. Cotnam, chief coroner of Ontario, and Dr. S. Segal of the British Columbia Family and Children's Law Commission. In addition they have attended conferences on the subject in Washington, Boston and Victoria, B.C. A policy paper is being developed within our ministry at the present time, and should be ready soon to be presented to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs should this motion pass. I might say that I am in favour of having this motion pass. I hope that near the end of the hour we will do just that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Generally our feeling is that while cases of child abuse may be prosecuted through either the criminal court via the Criminal Code sections on assault, neglect or sexual exploitation, or through the family courts under the provincial child welfare statutes, the Criminal Code is the less appropriate one. The experience in the United States indicates that state or provincial specific legislation on the subject, defining abuse and creating methods of reporting and handling cases, as well as safeguards for professionals involved, is one good approach.
The federal input in this matter might be to help the provinces with research and demonstration projects, to develop communications among interested groups and
December 6, 1974

agencies, to promote research on the subject and, in our case, by providing expertise where we are best able, such as in the areas of policing, records management, information dissemination and so on.
It is obvious that most of the initiative must come from the provinces as well as the federal ministries more directly involved, such as Health and Welfare. Unfortunately, little coordinated effort is visible at the present time and it might just be our role to take a lead in focussing attention and effort on child abuse, and then gradually to phase ourselves out if the option of decriminalization is followed.
We might spend some time looking at the definition of child abuse. What exactly is meant by that term? The definitions of child abuse are legion. The problem is not helped by varying degrees of distinction made between physical abuse, sexual abuse and neglect. In medicine, child abuse is generally known by the term "maltreatment syndrome" or "silverman's syndrome", which is more allinclusive than the definitions usually employed.
In a statement made before the United States Senate subcommittee hearings on senate bill 1191 in 1973, the bill known as the child abuse prevention act, Mr. Henry Kempe, a leading expert in the field, included all children receiving less than reasonable care and protection.
There are three components of child abuse-physical maltreatment, sexual exploitation, and failure to provide the necessities of life. Because the first two are generally manifested more luridly, there is a tendency for the other type of abuse to be less visible. Physicians frequently speak of a failure to thrive syndrome. Infants who suffer from it are malnourished and otherwise underdeveloped, not because of a failure to provide sufficient nourishment, but because the emotional climate of the environment interfered with development in ways which do not yet seem to be precisely understood.
The most complete definition which I have seen to date is that embodied in the child abuse prevention act, which I have referred to, and which decreed that the term "child abuse and neglect" means:
... the physical or mental injury, sexual abuse, negligent treatment, or maltreatment of child under the age of 18 by a person who is responsible for the child's welfare under circumstances which indicate that the child's health or welfare is harmed or threatened thereby.
What is the extent of the problem? It is impossible to get even a general idea as to the number and distribution of cases of physical abuse, sexual abuse or neglect. Reporting systems, which operate in only five provinces, have so many loopholes and are so inefficiently managed as to preclude obtaining valid statistics. In fact the only reputable statistics now available in Ontario are those of the chief coroner, Dr. H. B. Cotnam, which at least identify all those unfortunate children who died at their parents' hands.
Estimates of the number of incidents of child abuse in the United States vary widely, and some writers speculate that they may number in excess of 100,000 annually. In the preface to the second edition of their classic compendium on the subject, Kempe and Heifer note that:
Adequate demographic data which provide up-to-date evidence of the true incidence of significant child abuse in the United States are not available. Comparing current reporting of child abuse under state
Child Abuse
laws, we find that many communities are running a rate of 375 reports of suspected abuse per million per year. No one has tried to compare the reported rate of suspected child abuse to the actual incidence.
The development and refinement of mandatory reporting laws in every U.S. state has brought the reporting rate closer to the actual rate at a frightening speed. The report of the New York State Assembly Select Committee on Child Abuse of April, 1972, noted that there were some 400 reported cases of suspected child abuse in that state alone in 1966. By 1971 the annual total had climbed to 3,200. It was also noted that at least 1,000 American children died annually from causes attributed to child abuse and neglect.
In Canada, the only major work is by Mary Van Stolk, and she speculated that incidence rates and patterns in this country were likely similar to those in the United States, although she did take a slightly more conservative rate of 225 cases per million population.
The Nova Scotia study on child abuse tended to support Greenland's tentative position as it discovered only 59 cases in a year when Van Stolk predicted a possible 172.
Now there are many questions which can be asked and, as has been suggested, I think we should define more clearly who are the abusers, who are the abused; develop a pattern, and look into the results. We should examine the symptoms of child abuse. We should also find out what happens when a child has been abused, what happens when he goes to the hospital, and what happens when the matter is reported to the police, and so on.
I would like to end my remarks by suggesting some of the things which might be done. I stress that some of the examples which have come to my attention are quite horrifying. In general, suspected incidences of child abuse are treated by the hesitant, ineffective method described in the speech of the hon. member and mentioned by myself. In a very few serious cases where criminal acts are involved the penalty imposed in such proven cases does little for the child and little for the parent.
It is my feeling that a major effort will have to be made by all levels of government, acting with professionals in the fields of social work, medicine, education, and the criminal justice system, to develop new approaches in dealing with child abuse.
I suggest the following list of priority items be looked into: (a) the problem of child abuse must be placed squarely in the public eye as a first step in a massive public education program; (b) the entire question of the legal position of the child and, in particular, his right to protective services must be made the subject of a major study-this is currently being done in the United States; (c) the potential roles and functions of all professions, agencies and levels of government in eradicating child abuse must be analyzed and evaluated; (d) every effort must be made to increase communication and diffusion of knowledge among interested persons, particularly professionals, and assistance must be given to voluntary groups, such as Parents Anonymous; (e) a comprehensive review of federal and provincial legislation governing the provision of protective services to children and rehabilitative services to parents, with a view to providing new legisla-

December 6, 1974
Child Abuse
tion which will perform both functions effectively; (f) particular attention must be paid to the role of police forces-this is one glaring omission in the American literature which is available at this time, and I suspect it has its roots in the particular position into which the police forces in that country have been forced, as well as the traditional antipathy between law enforcement and social work; (g) the final main task will be to put all the pieces together.
This will be a truly massive undertaking, but one which must be tackled in co-ordination by all the agencies concerned.
What role can the Department of the Solicitor General play in this matter? First we should realize that our interest is from the viewpoint of law enforcement. Child abuse is a criminal offence and we are very much concerned because of the extensive commitment of the RCMP. Second, it seems apparent that the incarceration of child abusers is not the answer. The approach has to be one of diversion, one in which we are taking an active interest and in which we probably have as much expertise as any other agency in Canada. Third, it seems that a nationally co-ordinated mandatory reporting system will be required. The RCMP seems to be one of the very few agencies in Canada with the expertise to provide such a service.
What can we do to assist in the development of appropriate approaches to child abuse? We should recognize, first of all, that the main source of funding and expertise will have to come from other departments, and probably from other levels of government. I think the role of my own department would be limited to that of providing expertise on such subjects as the police, record-keeping and the dissemination of information, as well as in facilitating communication and consultation between the agencies, levels of government and individuals concerned with the problem.
Finally, by playing a leadership role, and encouraging study and discussion of the problem, particularly in the federal government, and by the formation of inter-governmental, multi-disciplinary task forces, we will be able to develop new approaches to the problem.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I support the hon. member's motion and I would like to see it passed by the House before the end of the hour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard Laprise: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) for having introduced such a motion and congratulate him for the the way he stood up for it, because I realize that this motion will be passed and I agree.
I am more particularly pleased because I listened carefully a while ago to the speech of the Solicitor General and I am happy to see that he also agrees. He has in a way laid down the line of conduct on which the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs may base its proceedings.
We have found that unfortunately, even if we live in a highly civilized country, there are still people who batter

children in one way or another. I think that ways must be found to protect those children.
As the father of an average family of ten children, I think I can understand the motion of the hon. member, and this is why, together with my colleagues, I must use every possible means to prevent situations similar to that we were made aware of not a very long time ago when a child was confined in a closet. Neighbours called the police because of the nauseating smell which was emanating from the dwelling.
Such situations should not occur in civilized countries such as ours, and I feel that this is a good motion which should be adopted. The committee set up to examine these cases and others of child abuse or negligence may recommend the necessary proposals for the corrective means to prevent similar incidents from occurring again in the future.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me an opportunity to take part in the debate and my first words will be to assure my colleague who took the initiative of presenting the motion of my whole support.
I should like to make a few comments supplementary to the statement of the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Allmand). As we know, Madam Speaker, the public is now and then made aware of cases of child abuse, either because cases are brought to court or still because some professional groups take the initiative of organizing symposiums on the matter. The last one we have been able to attend was the one held by the Criminology Institute of the University of Montreal and the Association of Women Graduates of the University of Montreal, on October 21 last. At that symposium, a brief was presented redefining the overall context of the problem we are discussing today. Previous speakers, mentioned the difficulty of determining the incidence of child abuse in our country each year.
Now, Claire Dutrisac, an editor for La Presse, wrote this in the issue of October 24, 1974, and I quote:
In Quebec alone there are 1,800 abused children each year, children who are ill treated, beaten, underfed, dehydrated. In Montreal alone, there are 750 such children.
This demonstrates, Madam Speaker, how widespread this problem is. Another editor for a newspaper, the Mont-real-Matin, said the following in the October 26, 1974 issue, and I quote;
Every day, children aged from 2 months to 10 years are mutilated by parents who lie when a physician confronts them with their brutality and who evoke their privileges as parents in order to escape a justice which is inoperative in the case of these children.
Madam Speaker, the time has come for the government in co-operation with all hon. members to review all legislation in that field. I not not agree fully with the commissioners of the Canadian Conference on the Standardization of Legislation who broached the subject in August 1969 and concluded, having terminated their work, that one of the solutions lies in furthering the education of the public. Not that I maintain, Madam Speaker, that we should not do so, among other things, but I trust it will not be the sole means resorted to.
The government of the province of Quebec tabled a tentative Bill of Rights, which now carries the number 50
December 6, 1974

of the Quebec Legislative Assembly; clause 36 provides that:
Every child has a right to the protection and security that his family or the persons who replace it must ensure him.
Clause 44 of the same draft stipulates:
Illegal attack on a right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to seek an end to the attack and reparation for resulting prejudice, moral or material.
Madam Speaker, the last work I have had a chance to consult is a volume published by the Canadian Mental Health Association. The book is entitled "In the Defence of Children's Rights". I quote from that volume because two of its articles, especially, are signed by persons who are well known in the field of social welfare. One of the co-signers, Mr. Claude Castonguay, formerly Social Affairs Minister in the Quebec government, writes on page 6, quote:
It is unthinkable that a battered child would remain at the mercy of those who mistreat him because the legislation does not provide enough security for those who might protect him.
All those points may appear interesting to citizens. The problem is their interest remains passive or transient.
And this is precisely where I wish to draw my colleague's attention. When the case of an abused child is brought to the courts-and I will come back to the last case examined by the courts of the province of Quebec, namely a judgment rendered November 12, 1974-tabloids seize that opportunity to publish scoops, report evidence and the judge's sentence, and a few weeks later the whole matter falls dead, until a new sensational case stirs up the emotions of the organizations concerned.
I believe the time has come for a complete revision of our philosophy on the child's fundamental rights, I quote another article from the same book by the Canadian Association for the Mentally retarded:
Dr. Eugene Brody, a professor in the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Maryland refers to the child's seven (7) fundamental rights as established by a United States Commission or joint Conference on the Mental Health of Children.
However, Madam Speaker, when one tries to find out at what time in history the rights of parents or their power over children were expressed, one has to go as far back as the history of roman law, of which I take the liberty of quoting a famous phrase:
Patria potestas in pietate debet non in atrocitate.
... in other words ...
... (the power of parents must be exerciced with love and not cruelty)
I should like to point out to you, Madam Speaker, that that phrase did find its place in our legislation. Indeed, Criminal Code's Section 43 is essentially based upon this maxim. As you know, Section 43 reads as follows:
Every school teacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.
However, the legislator realized quickly that certain people in charge of children committed abuses repeatedly. This is why, Criminal Code's Section 200 stipulates that these offenses are punished.
Child Abuse
However, Madam Chairman, we can easily see that Section 200 in its present form is inefficient. In fact, this article says:
Every one who unlawfully abandons or exposes a child who is under the age of ten years, so that its life is or is likely to be endangered or its health is or is likely to be permanently injured, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
However, Madam Chairman, we cannot ignore Section 204 which reads as follows:
Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years.
Yet, we have the ambiguous situation where a person who commits a criminal offense on a child is liable to a lesser penalty than one who commits the same criminal offense on an adult or a nubile person.
Madam Chairman, I think this is one of the facts that the committee should be instructed to investigate as it should study the necessity to revise the proposed bill on human rights which has already been mentioned during previous constitutional conferences, a bill that would contain specific provisions regulating the seven fundamental rights of the child mentioned by Professor Brody in his recent publication.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that since 1971, since such a motion was presented in the House for the first time, the Canadian provinces made progress in a way which allows us to hope that action in this area can be concerted between the federal and the provincial governments.
I take as an example bill 65 which was passed by the Quebec National Assembly in 1973, and which contains a section, Section 4, making it mandatory for anyone who is aware of an act of child's abuse to report the case to a Quebec court. Therefore, whether a parent, professor, baby sitter or teacher, any person aware of negligence toward a child must report the fact to a court of justice.
Let me refer also to the New Brunswick Child Welfare Act, under whose section 24 any person must report negligence toward a child. The same goes for section 49 of chapter 37 of Newfoundland statutes, whereby every person must report within seven days, any offence in this respect to the authority responsible for youth. The same applies in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
Madam Speaker, I believe this issue, in addition to being of concern to provinces, should also be brought to federal attention. I will conclude my remarks with the main features of a brief submitted by the Society of Criminology of the University of Montreal and the Association of Women Graduates in October last. The brief is interesting, Madam Speaker, to the extent it emphasizes prevention rather than repression. While it is easy to pity abused children, and especially when one considers instances of injuries to them and their lack of defence, I believe it is more important to act before violations are committed, and instruct future parents of their eventual role, so that they will not commit what we wish to prevent.
This brief by the Association of Women Graduates tells readers that the best way of preventing abuse is future parent education. It is said on page 9 of the brief that courses in parental responsibility should be given in schools. It is also stated that assistance should be given to

December 6, 1974
Child Abuse
parents, for instance, by public nurseries and family workers, to help them discharge their responsibilities.
Madam Speaker, we know that most delinquent parents are parents who either have broken bounds or whose home is very unsteady following the desertion or even the imprisonment of one of the spouses, or still parents in situations where one of the spouses indulges in the use of drugs or alcohol or fails in his or her task of properly running the household.
Madam Speaker, if the government can provide additional means to allow those parents to fulfill their roles by encouraging the setting up of a day care center system, by urging the provinces to do everything within their jurisdiction in this area, by promoting the establishment of family assistance services, we will make it possible for parents, who in other circumstances could leave their children on their own, to look after them.
I would also like, Madam Speaker, to mention an initiative that seems to me to be most innovative, that is the formation of mutual assistance groups for high risk parents. I think we know about the formation of groups to help anonymous alcoholics. They operate on about the same principles, that is people helping parents faced with those situations before they become delinquents. Those groups offer parents the necessary consultation and support services to prevent negligences from happening.
And I would like to bring to the attention of this House the existence of that society because I think it is an initiative that has not yet spread throughout the country and which deserves that kind of spreading that the Canadian Conference on the Standardization of Legislation mentioned in its report of 1969. That society, Madam Speaker, is called the "Societe quebecoise de protection de l'enfance et de la jeunesse." It is composed of parents whose purposes are to bring together and organize the services of people wanting to work on a voluntary basis to help and protect children and youth in the province of Quebec.
Its object is to provide means and services to children or families requesting them, while defending by all possible means the rights of children, of the young and of the
family. Those parents are organized on a voluntary basis, there is a reception committee to take phone calls and reply to letters. A mobile team of men and women visit parents at home to advise them and help in the guidance of problem children or wayward or unamanageable children in a normal family and those teams provide homes whenever children have difficulties.
As you are aware, Madam Speaker, this is a relatively new public responsibility and I believe the work that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs will be able to do will lend an effective hand to this provincial service that was established in recent years.
It is a pleasure for me to support the motion of my colleague and to urge the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Allmand) to pursue his efforts to adjust our laws to the modern context.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on the motion, as amended, in the name of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion as amended agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being five o'clock I do now leave the chair until Monday at 2 p.m.
At 4.56 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 9, 1974