1975-01-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of immediate and pressing necessity to move a motion having to do with the crippling effects which the recent freight rate increases have placed upon the livestock and meat processing industry of western Canada, and the failure of this government to honour its commitments to overcome freight rate discrepancies in the livestock industry which now threatens the future of this important segment of the western economy. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the federal government take immediate steps to remove the freight rate inequities existing between grain and meat shipments to central Canada: that the discriminatory gap on freight rates between processed beef and live beef be reduced to a realistic and equitable level and, further, that any freight rate increases be suspended until such corrective policies are put in place.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion being posed. 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 at this time.


SOLICITOR GENERAL
Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the annual report of the ministry of the Solicitor General.


PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO PREVENT APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAWS TO CANADIAN TRADE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which I think is acceptable to everyone in the House, as it will deal immediately with a problem which has arisen during the last few weeks. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House instruct the government House leader to split from Bill C-2 sections 31 and 32 and incorporate them into a separate bill that would make it illegal for a corporation operating in Canada to base trade decisions on a law in force in a country other than Canada, and that we deal with this bill as soon as possible in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion 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 at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent matter.
Since CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, will spend more than $750 million in 1975 and that with such expenditure, CIDA ranks third among all government bodies and departments as to the importance of its budget, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House strongly urge the government to convert CIDA into a department, so that the CIDA budget administrator will sit in the House and answer the questions of members of the House on the use of the $750 million that constitute its budget.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
2658

January 28, 1975
Mackenzie Pipeline


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter of undeniable importance and urgency.
In view of the many loathsome crimes committed in Canada since the beginning of 1975, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House authorize the Standing Committee on Justice to look carefully into the timeliness of introducing a measure designed to allow the holding of a referendum on reinstating capital punishment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the recent decision by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) to proceed with an inquiry by his own department into the feasibility of gas processing and feeder lines in the Mackenzie Delta, and in view of the fact that the Berger commission hearing will commence on the same subject in one month's time and will deal with exactly the same matter and many of the same witnesses, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That this House direct the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to forthwith cease his special inquiry into gas processing and feeder lines in the Mackenzie Delta and that the Berger commission be given an opportunity to do its job without interference by the minister and his officials.


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, it cannot be debated at this time.



FEDERAL REMUNERATION REVIEW ACT


Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-375, to provide for the establishment of a commission to report upon executive, legislative and judicial remuneration and to provide for the periodic readjustment of such remuneration.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, this bill would establish, for a one-year term every four years, a Federal Remuneration Review Commission to recommend appropriate remuneration for federal executive, legislative and judicial offices, to take effect from the following general election. It avoids indexation, which parliament has not endorsed for other earnings, and avoids as well the arbitrary assessment of our own worth. While recognizing the ultimate responsibility of parliament to decide on such remuneration, this bill would ensure an orderly, open, regular review on the basis of independent analysis and advice.


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I think you will forgive me for not having taken the opportunity at the outset of the sitting to call your attention on a question of privilege which concerns not only the member for Bellechasse, but also the other French-speaking members of this House. I do not want to blame or incriminate anyone. I would like to be thoroughly understood on that, but I deplore the fact that the French version of Hansard has reached us far too late today, and this is not the first time it has happened, with the result that we are prevented from checking carefully into the report of the proceedings of the day before. That is what happened today, for example: I left my office at 1:50 p.m. to get to the House and I had not yet received the French version of Hansard for yesterday. Now, it happens sometimes, Mr. Speaker, that we need to check into some decisions taken in the House which could give us some indication about the business of the House for the sitting to come, and could help us avoid waste of time and speed up the procedures to
January 28, 1975

ensure our country with a better administration. So, I would ask with all due respect to the Chair that some ways be found in order that the French version of Hansard could be delivered sooner in the future. I would be very grateful to the Chair for that. As I said, I do not want in any way to blame anyone for this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for having raised such an important question. I will look into it carefully, and perhaps it will be possible to discuss this problem with the hon. member tomorrow.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   TRANSPORT FREIGHT RATES-EFFECT OF COURT DECISION ON JURISDICTION OF TRANSPORT COMMISSION

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the situation resulting from the recent court decision setting aside a decision of the Canadian Transport Commission on the railways' application for freight rate increases, which raises the question of where the responsibility for regulating freight rates in this country lies and aggravates even further the inequities and anomalies which have existed for so long in our freight rate structure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As required under the terms of Standing Order 26, the hon. member has given the Chair notice of his intention to move his motion. The question of freight rates is, of course, an extremely important one. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to rule against the introduction of the motion for two reasons. First, as appears from the terms of the hon. member's own motion, the decision to which he refers is one which aggravates a situation which has existed for a long time. I think it would be most difficult to place upon this situation, or even upon the hon. member's description of it, any interpretation which would accurately describe it as an emergency occurrence. Second, the hon. member has referred to the decision of the courts. Regardless of how it might be interpreted, this is one of a series of either judicial or semi-judicial proceedings which are taking place with respect to freight rates and in these circumstances, rather than inviting a debate in this chamber to place an interpretation upon a court decision it would seem to me that this House ought to resist getting into such an area while matters of this importance are under a judication before the courts and may continue to be before the courts or administrative bodies.
Unless I were persuaded that there would be no other way in which the House could get at this subject-and I am not-I cannot hold that we should set aside our regular
Oral Questions
business in order to debate this topic under Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question about his mysterious policy with regard to fighting inflation.


Mr. Hees:: The ratchet policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the purpose of this program, the purpose of these discussions, to achieve a mutual understanding of the claims of each group upon the economy? Is it the purpose of the discussions to persuade each group, starting with labour, to agree upon the claim it will make upon the gross national product?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has stated the situation correctly, with the slight shading of meaning that at this stage the government is exploring with various sectors of the economy whether such a mutual understanding or mutually co-operative effort to moderate demands on the economy is possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister currently exploring with the leaders of labour whether they will agree to a specific claim on the gross national product? The minister has told leaders of labour that the major driving force with regard to inflation is coming from the rapid escalation of wage and salary costs as those who work in every country press for increased income to at least keep pace with the rising cost of living. Has the minister expressed this point of view to the leaders of labour, and has he specifically asked them whether or not they will accept a specific guideline in regard to wage and salary increases?


John Napier Turner: I have said that
because the initial thrusts of inflation were internationally oriented, in terms of the imbalance of supply and demand, shortage of basic commodities, bad harvests and then the quadrupling of oil prices, it is now quite understandable that wage and salary rates are attempting to catch up so as to offer some sort of compensation for the erosion of income that has been suffered as a result of rising prices over the last 18 months. The problem now is that unless there is some sort of mutual understanding, not only with labour but with business, the professions, owners of rental property and other segments of the economy, there is the likelihood that wage settlements, in anticipation of a continuation of future inflation at cur-
28626 - 34/4

January 28, 1975
Oral Questions
rent rates, might, in effect, act as a self-fulfilling prophecy by aggravating the trend of inflation itself.
I told the labour leaders as long as six months ago in Vancouver that from my point of view the addition of a COLA clause makes a good deal of sense, because it responds to the cost of living rather than anticipating rates of inflation, which hopefully will not be attained. I also see no objection to periodic adjustments. What we are trying to avoid is anticipated wage rates that might, in effect, aggravate and propel the forces of inflation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I try to be patient with the Minister of Finance because he does have a difficult responsibility, but I should like to ask him when he is going to speak frankly to us and to the principal groups in the economy, instead of giving us all this mystery and double talk. Has the Minister of Finance expressed this point of view to the leaders of labour, or, rather, is it correct to say, as has been said by them, that the minister has made no such suggestion to them but has talked to them about the possibility of controlling or reducing profits, interest and other forms of rip-off? What kind of a game is the minister playing? If he wants confidence and the support of this House and the country, then would he please simply explain to this House and to the people of the country what it is he is trying to do? Does he want voluntary guidelines?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I stated to the leaders of labour what I have stated to the hon. gentleman. I have assured them that whatever mutual understanding can be arrived at, and we are still at the exploratory stage, the position requires the co-operation of all segments of the economy, and labour will not be called upon to make any sacrifices that other areas of the economy are not prepared to make. Nor is labour to be the scapegoat of any understanding. The hon. gentleman is referring, of course, to some remarks that may have been made in response to what I said yesterday in Toronto. I would hope that the labour leaders concerned would now have an opportunity to read the whole speech and judge the whole tone of it, because I suspect that at the time they were asked for comments they had not had the opportunity to read it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to ask another supplementary question, but I should like to get a definite answer from the Minister of Finance. He has indicated that labour is not going to be asked to carry the can by itself, but is he in fact seeking a comprehensive understanding as to guidelines respecting labour, salaries on the one hand, profits and the revenues of other groups in the community on the other?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can repeat to the hon. gentleman, and I am being as frank as circumstances permit at this stage in the discussions, that we are at the exploratory stage, and rather than seek to impose what the hon. gentleman has termed guidelines, from the government's point of view, we would prefer to see this mutual understanding evolve from all quarters of the economy.


FAILURE OF INTEREST RATE ON CONSUMER LOANS TO FOLLOW DECLINE IN PRIME RATE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, during the three years in office of the Minister of Finance, and I believe his anniversary is today, the prime bank lending rate has risen from 6.5 per cent the year before he took office to 10.7 per cent last year. In view of the fact that the prime rates are now breaking and coming down, will the minister indicate why consumer rates have not similarly fallen, and does he believe that they will fall?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not keep count of anniversaries the way the hon. gentleman does. I am glad his indication of selective statistics has pointed out that I have survived for three years in this interesting portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I suppose if the hon. gentleman wanted to prompt the statistic I was most proud of I would say to him that in the time I have held this portfolio there have been a million new jobs created in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: And how much unemployment?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I did not bring up this subject, I am just trying to reply to the question. If one is going to measure the economy in human terms, as to how men and women are able to earn their bread and butter and a decent living in this country, then that figure is of great significance.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my reference to the sad three-year record of the Minister of Finance appears to have flustered him so much he forgot to answer my very simple question. I asked him whether he anticipated that the interest rates now paid on consumer loans in Canada, particularly those with chartered banks, would be coming down? I would also ask whether he intends to direct the banks to lower the consumer rates under consumer credit plans?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, one would expect, as the prime rate is reflected in the interest rate structure of the banks, that this will happen.


SUGGESTED COMMITMENT TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES OF COST OF LIVING CLAUSE IN ALL CONTRACTS TO GIVE CREDIBILITY TO DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER GROUPS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question also is directed to the Minister of Finance. If his claim to try to build some kind of consensus on the basis of equity through all sectors of the economy is to attain any credibility with the trade union movement and specifically with the leaders of that movement, is the Minister prepared now to commit the government to some specifics in this area. More particularly, is the Minister prepared to assure the House that the government, in
January 28, 1975

terms of its dealings with its own employees, in negotiations that are now taking place will implement the kind of policy he seems to be talking about in vague terms? Specifically, would he assure the House that the government will offer to its own employees a contract that, as a minimum will guarantee them a full increase in the cost of living between the present time and the time of the last contract, and, second, will the government include a clause that would provide increases in the future corresponding to increases in the gross national product?


John Napier Turner: I suppose that that question should more properly be directed to my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board. Whatever understanding is mutually evolved, of course, will have to involve the government as well in the treatment of its own employees.


John Edward Broadbent: I ask the Minister whether he believes, in terms of his discussions with the trade union movement alone, if he wishes to gain their acceptance, that vague talk will gain any agreement, or is he not convinced, as are any of us who have talked to trade union leaders following his own discussions, that the whole business will be a sham unless the Minister of Finance himself is prepared to make some specific commitment on the part of the government?


John Napier Turner: Among the union leaders who have participated in these discussions are leaders representing public service employees in all three levels of government, and I do not happen at this stage to be discouraged by the way the talks have been going.


FAILURE OF INTEREST RATE ON CONSUMER LOANS TO FOLLOW DECLINE IN PRIME RATE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: My final supplementary goes back to the general question of equity in another sector referred to in the previous question on the matter of interest rates to consumers. The Minister suggested that he expects a spin-off effect corresponding to the decline in the prime rate going to consumers. I point out to the Minister that there has been no corresponding decline in the interest rate to consumers. We have had a decline in the prime interest rate from 13.5 per cent to 10.5 per cent, but no equivalent decline in the rate to consumers. Will the Minister take specific action to make sure that the consumers of Canada get some benefits from these declining interest rates in other sectors?


John Napier Turner: Interest rates move up and down at different rates of speed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Short term rates are more volatile, followed by medium and long-term rates, including the bank rate, followed finally by mortgage rates, both up and down. I would expect that in response to the lower prime rate the interest rates structure would reflect lower rates throughout.
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Following the release of different information that CIDA will spend more than $117 million during the next three months to obtain a bigger budget next year, could the Prime Minister assure this House and the Canadian people that his government will develop the necessary controls to avoid a needless wasting of public moneys by an organization whose main concern seems to be obtaining more money to spend?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I cannot agree with the conclusions of the question, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, CIDA has been created to express and embody the generosity of Canadians towards less favoured nations. As to wasting, as my colleague the Minister of External Affairs said, the House itself will have the opportunity, in the coming months, to review CIDA's estimates, as those of other departments, and, at that moment, we can examine the criticisms that will be made.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. He said several times in the House that he is investigating a voluntary method of controlling inflation. As the government tried such a method four years ago of bringing in voluntary guidelines and as this effort failed completely, I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether his conversations in the last few weeks or months give him any reason to believe that his efforts today to control inflation by voluntary method will have any more success and, if so, what are those reasons?


John Napier Turner: I am not
in any way willing to adopt the vocabulary of the hon. gentleman. The situation in 1969, 1970, and that in 1975 and 1976 are different. The gravity of the situation here and abroad in terms of the rate of inflation and in terms of the threat of slower growth and even worldwide recession, taken into account with the effect on the economic policy of conservation policies in energy, and the necessity of finding new sources of energy, made it an unusually complicated, delicate and difficult situation. Because of that, I find that all quarters of the economy are conscious of the risks. So far I am not at all discouraged with the way the conversations are going.


George Harris Hees: In his talks with management and labour on this very important matter, has he received any indication from either management or labour that they will go along

January 28, 1975
Oral Questions
with voluntary guidelines as a means of slowing down inflation?


John Napier Turner: We are still going through the exploratory stage. I want this process to evolve in a way that is equitable for all sides.


George Harris Hees: You say nothing in such an attractive way.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the shortage of energy supplies and the need to open up off-shore oil and gas reserves, is it the Minister's intention to hold special talks with his counterpart in the United States in order to establish ownership or a workable agreement covering any resources which may exist on Georges Bank, or the continental shelf off the coast of Nova Scotia which is a grey area, where ownership is presently claimed by both Canada and the United States?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not planned any such talks.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I have a brief question for the Minister of Transport relating to the Desjardins report on pilotage. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he has forgotten that on October 10, 1974, he had signed an order approving the Desjardins report when on October 17 in committee and later in the House he indicated that a final decision had not been reached. I should like to ask him at the same time if he has any immediate plans to change the almost independently the authority and status of the pilotage authority.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have refrained until now from answering the false and slanderous publicity the hon. member for Central Nova has given to remarks made in committee. I merely say that there is no contradiction between what I said on October 10 and what I said a little later before the committee. As I said on October 10, there are three documents involved in this statement: the press release, the regulations, and the report itself. Well, I said on October 10 that I thought I had signed the press release. This is

perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, since my reply was the following:

As you know, we received the Desjardins report and we issued a public release on it and on the use of languages on ships on the St. Lawrence river.

Later on, on the date he indicated, I realized after checking that we had not published this press release and I made the necessary correction personally before the committee. In fact, Mr. MacKay's question was the following:


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Did you not say in the first round, that you had released or made some public statement on the Desjardins report or did I misunderstand you?


Jean Marchand: I think I said it. Now, I would like to check if I did. We have not published a press release?

I made then the necessary correction before the committee, and Deputy Minister Stoner repeated:
The report has not been released. We have not actually made a report on it.
So I was wrong. I did not do it.
Excuse me.
This I did on my own, Mr. Speaker, and this may be the kind of thing that some members opposite would not have the courage to do, but I did it-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: The trouble is, that is all you have done.


Jean Marchand: After that, he asked for the Desjardins report and I tabled it. He received it first. I sent him the Desjardins report and I said I had signed the regulations but not the public communique. So they publicly found circulation among all members here-


An hon. Member:: Marchand lied to the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: You read the papers.


An hon. Member:: Again?


Jean Marchand: I always thought that the hon. member for Central Nova was an honest man. I still believe it, but I think he pushed a little hard on this.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I should like to take the matter up further at the first opportunity on the adjournment debate and continue this with him.
January 28, 1975


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have another short question for the Minister of Transport. I should like to refer to his statement in Hansard on October 23 in which he said that the President of Canadian Pacific Airlines exaggerated STOL costs by $125 million. In view of Item 84 in the Auditor General's report of March 31, 1973, which points out that the readily identifiable STOL costs and commitments by the Crown at that date were $118.5 million, has the minister now come to a different conclusion and if so, would he advise the House of his new figures?


Jean Marchand: I think it will not be exaggerated, Mr. Speaker, if I ask to check the figures, not because I think the hon. member is not quoting the correct figures but I should like to see if there really is a difference between what I said and what he is saying.


POSSIBILITY OF PROVINCES SHARING COST OF CHRONIC CARE HOSPITALS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that galloping health costs, mostly in the field of active treatment hospital care are running up in many cases in certain areas to well over $100 a day, and in view of the bottleneck created by the shortage of chronic care beds, I should like to ask the minister if any agreement or any basis for agreement was arrived at with the health ministers when they met, regarding share costing on these programs?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to send the hon. member a copy of the communique issued by the last federal-provincial conference of ministers of health. At that time, I put forward a proposal aimed at expanding the present interpretation of the Hospital Insurance Act and Medicare Act so as to cover, if possible, other institutions that are not covered at present under current agreements in cases where it could be proven that such steps would produce greater cost effectiveness and hopefully reduce unit costs in the provision of health services.


SUGGESTED LEGISLATION TO PREVENT THOSE UNDER 20 FROM ENTERING PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Recently, the minister has urged the persons responsible for professional hockey not to sign contracts with young players under 20 years. As a follow up to this statement,
Oral Questions
would the minister tell us whether he intends to introduce legislation in this House, and if so, when?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that legislation would be necessary. Recently I met representatives from professional and amateur hockey and I have every reason to believe that these organizations will take care of this themselves, keeping in mind their own interests in this field.


TAXATION
Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of reports that theatrical producers in the United States and Great Britain are planning to cancel tours or their productions in Canada as a result of changes in taxation policy, can the minister tell the House whether changes have taken place or are contemplated in the application of tax procedures to foreign entertainers performing in Canada?


An hon. Member:: Such as John Dean.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into this. We used to run quite a flexible system of taxation administration relative to foreign entertainers and performing companies. At the request of the Canadian Theatre Managers' Association, we imposed a uniform system which has received a somewhat mixed reaction. I am reviewing the situation because I do not want the tax system to interfere with the performing arts, and I am seeking a meeting with the theatre managers' association to see what, if any, changes should be made.


TRANSPORT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the courts have overturned a decision of the Canadian Transport Commission on the railways' application for freight rate increases, I should like to ask the minister if that ruling vacates the CTC December 31 decision, and if it has the effect of reinstituting the freight rates structure as of December 31, 1974? In other words, no increase is in effect?


Jean Marchand: I think the hon. member is asking me for what would be called a legal opinion on the powers of the CTC with regard to a judgment of the court. I am not a lawyer and I do not expect that I will be very soon-I think we have enough in the House anyhow-

January 28, 1975
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: -so I referred the judgment to the legal branch of my department. I hope that in a day or two I can give a more satisfactory answer to the question.


FREIGHT RATES-REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF SASKATCHEWAN POSITION BEFORE TRANSPORT COMMISSION-POSSIBLE RESUBMISSION OF TARIFFS BY RAILWAYS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Saskatchewan government is applying to the CTC today on this very ground, may I ask the minister, first, if he will instruct his officials or the Minister of Justice to support the position of Saskatchewan before the CTC and, second, would the minister tell the House if the CTC will now have to hold hearings and require the railroads to resubmit their tariffs.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not have the power to instruct the Minister of Justice to do anything and I do not think he needs to be instructed at all! I think this is a complicated case. The hon. member is well aware of the National Transportation Act which was adopted by this House in 1967, and by virtue of which all the railways have to do is file their intentions with the board-not with the Department of Transport but with the CTC. I think this is the legal debate which has been decided upon by the court. Before I go further, I should like to have the legal opinion of my people.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport and ask, first, whether the federal government knew about what appears to be price fixing in charters among the six north Atlantic airlines using the north Atlantic route, and, second, if it knew about the situation, whether it encouraged it through the actions of the Canadian Transport Commission.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, of course, floor prices for Atlantic or international airlines are assessed by an international organization. But if the hon. member is referring to chartered planes, it is the Canadian Transport Commission that determines the rates. Well, I did not understand to which group the hon. member referred to.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As, apparently, at least one airline presented an estimate which was considerably lower than any offered by the

other six airlines and as there is, apparently, price fixing on the part of the airlines, certainly on the part of the government airline, in flight charters to Great Britain, will the federal government authorize the holding of a public inquiry or initiate a private inquiry in order to determine the facts and to assure that this kind of thing will not happen again, so that contracts will be awarded to the company prepared to bid the lowest amount for the transportation of passengers overseas.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member forgot to answer my question. Was he referring to the scheduled airlines or to the charter airlines?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure if that is an answer or a question, but I think the hon. member should be allowed a supplementary.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question of the hon. member across the floor, let me say that it is charter airlines we are talking about.


Jean Marchand: In that case, it must be approved by the CTC.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-RESULT OF DISCUSSION WITH ALBERTA
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he been in contact with the Alberta government or any of the syndicates representing the Syncrude plant, as it now appears that this project is a dismal failure and will not go ahead.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity, with my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, of meeting members of the Alberta government yesterday for the purpose of reviewing our mutual efforts with regard to the examination of the Syncrude project. The first priority that we discussed and agreed upon was that we would seek an extension of the time period in which the two levels of government and other interested parties could review the situation and decide whether or not they would invest in that project. I hope that within 48 hours we, and the Alberta government, should both have a clearer indication about the possibilities of a longer time scale for this examination so that we can decide on what terms the government and other private parties might participate in the project.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-ALLEGATION HIGH TAXATION AND PRESENT PRICE OF CRUDE REASON FOR FAILURE TO DEVELOP
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As it is estimated that the crude petroleum reserves in the tar sands are six times
January 28, 1975

greater than all the oil reserves in Arab countries, can the minister say if the consortium developing the tar sands has advised the federal government that it is uneconomic to go ahead with the development because of the high taxation of the industry, as proposed in the recent budget, and also because the present price set for crude petroleum makes such production uneconomic.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the recent changes in the budget, as my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has indicated, have had no effect on the economics of this particular transaction. The principal problem, of course, was the escalation in the cost of the project and the financial difficulties of one of the participants, which caused it to withdraw. One of the elements involved is the appropriate level of pricing in the future, toward the end of this decade, when the project would come into operation. That was one of the matters discussed with the government of Alberta and with the companies interested.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and is supplementary to the question directed to him by the hon. member for Lisgar. Is it consistent with government policy for the Canadian Transport Commission to encourage the collusion of airlines in setting charter rates to Britain, as reported in today's Ottawa Journal.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have not read what appeared in the Journal today and it would be better if I were to read it before commenting on it. I can tell you that price fixing in the field of the airlines is nothing new, because they are part of an association. That they fix the price of journeys over the ocean is very well known, and is determined by their association in Montreal.


FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, since my earlier question did not elicit a satisfactory answer from the Minister of Transport, may I direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is the government giving active consideration to the possibility of setting up an inquiry into all federal regulatory bodies, to determine whether those bodies are actually protecting the privileged position of industries under their jurisdiction by shielding them from competition in the market place, instead of representing the public interest, as they are charged with doing.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and is supplementary to the question directed to the Minister of National Defence last Friday by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore. In view of recent news reports that armed U.S. coastguard icebreakers might be accompanying or escorting supertankers through the Northwest Passage in the not too distant future, can the Prime Minister advise the House if discussions have taken place between the Department of External Affairs of Canada and the United States State Department regarding the use of the passage as a tanker route. If not, is it his intention to institute such discussions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the minister that such discussions have not taken place. We do not know what the news report refers to and we are making inquiries in Washington.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Douglas Charles Neil: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister advise the House what steps the government plans to take to give some meaning to our assertion of sovereignty over the northern parts of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question would call for a statement of policy by the government in all areas where we are acting. This refers back to the law, to the policy we announced several years ago concerning sovereignty in the Arctic. The hon. member in his question was mainly concerned about the transportation aspect of it. Of course, it is very much part of the transportation review that we are embarked on.


OIL-EFFECT OF IMPOSITION OF IMPORT TAX BY UNITED STATES
Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 28, 1975
Oral Questions


Samuel Victor Railton: Since President Ford recently decided to apply import taxes to crude oil of $1 on February 1, $2 on March 1 and $3 on April 1, how will this affect the export of crude oil from Canadian western provinces to the United States and what difficulties will result from this action for the Canadian oil industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister feel he can answer that question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will make every effort, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would have to say that while, of course, the imposition of the import fee by the United States administration will increase prices to the United States consumer, this will not in any sense result in a drop in the return to Canada from Canadian oil sales to the United States market, nor a drop in the export tax revenue. Indeed, it is very likely that with the escalation of prices internationally, particularly the recent Venezuelan increase, the energy board will be considering whether there should be a further increase in the Canadian export price into the American market in the near future.


CRIMINAL CODE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to give the impression that I feel vengeful towards the people who may have made mistakes in their lives, but I think our task as parliamentarians imposes certain duties and this is why I wish to put, through you, a question to the Solicitor General.
Following his recent statements regarding firearms- statements which suggest that these and not the murderers are the criminals-can the minister tell the House if he intends to bring in some legislation to prohibit firearms and convict those who sold them so that, in murder cases, they may be judged and incarcerated if necessary, just as the murderers themselves?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House yesterday there is a group in my department which is studying the adequacy of our present gun laws. I, personally, believe that stricter gun controls lead to a reduction in crimes involving weapons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: I hope we will have some proposals to put to the House in due course.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. How many aliens are employed illegally in Canada? If the number is as large as has been reported, is the minister considering tougher regulations directed at employers of such persons who presently escape any responsibility by pleading lack of knowledge of the status of these aliens?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first couple of sentences, but I think I got the gist of the question. First, I do not subscribe to the statement that the number of people in Canada illegally in terms of immigration is as high as has been indicated. I was not a party to that estimate. The fact is we do not know the number who are here illegally. I doubt it very much if anybody could make an accurate forecast, although I think the number is considerably less than about a year ago before the adjustment of status program. Second, among the many options to be considered, I believe it is wise to explore the possibility of perhaps placing a greater onus on employers when hiring visitors who might be here illegally. The act and regulations now provide for prosecution tied around the word "knowingly" employing such people. We are looking at that law to see what might be done.
* * *.


SUGGESTION THAT PART OF BILL C-2 DEALING WITH FOREIGN INTERFERENCE WITH CANADIAN TRADE BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. In view of suggestions made by this party, and yesterday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, that Bill C-2 be split and the part dealing with foreign interference in Canadian trade be dealt with in a separate bill immediately, can the minister say whether he intends to proceed with that suggestion? If so, when can we expect that new bill?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be preferable if the members of the hon. member's party would support the government in getting the whole of the bill through this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. I insist that he answer the question I asked. Does he intend to split the bill, as suggested not only by this party but by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? If so, when will he introduce it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it quite clear that I prefer to have the House pass the whole of the bill. I thought the hon. member's party would have been more in
January 28, 1975

Oral Questions
favour of that than holding back and splitting the present bill.


AGRICULTURE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the very serious difficulties facing the beef producers of western Canada, something which has undoubtedly been aggravated by the policies of the federal government, particularly discriminatory freight rates and the recent increase in freight rates, has the minister been carrying on discussions with his colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the minister in charge of the wheat board, to impress upon them the importance of reducing the freight rate inequities and the need to fulfill the commitment made by the minister in charge of the wheat board in providing a freight rate equalization program as part of the overall agreement of the feed grains policy?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept everything the hon. member has said. I hope he has observed the close proximity of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Transport and the minister in charge of the wheat board. We are discussing these problems, as we said we would, and will continue to do so until we find a solution.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister in charge of the wheat board inform the House when we may expect a fulfilment of the promise he made to the western provinces at the time the feed grains proposal was undertaken, as well as the promise made by the Minister of Transport last Friday, with regard to the freight rate equalization program which will have the effect of reducing freight rates for dressed beef vis-a-vis live beef?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we made the commitment of equity in freight rates between grain and beef not just to the western provinces, but as part of our overall policy of providing fair treatment to different segments of agriculture in the various parts of this country. We remain committed to that. In the course of the discussion on the feed grains policy, so much attention was devoted to other and different aspects of the policy that we really did not have adequate discussion about the appropriate approach to take in relation to grain and meat rates. We therefore prolonged the period for this discussion. This has been going on and we will in due course be putting forward the specific proposals we have for bringing about equity with regard to these matters. I am glad to have the apparent support of the hon. member in seeing that this comes about.


POTATOES-DIFFICULTIES FACING PRODUCERS- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a related question to the Minister of Agriculture. Have any communications been received from the potato growing industry in the maritime provinces with regard to the very dire straits that industry is in at present? This has been aggravated by the increased freight rates. Have communications been received either direct from industry or through the provincial governments of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from the Minister of Veterans Affairs who is from Prince Edward Island, as well as the minister of agriculture of Prince Edward Island with regard to the very low prices the potato growing industry is receiving at the present time on the Toronto and Montreal markets. My department has compiled a paper on the prices they are receiving. I think I can sum up the situation by saying this is one horrible way to market potatoes, ship them and hope someone will buy them. I suggest there should be a better way of marketing potatoes than that being done at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order to avoid a repetition of a series of questions tomorrow in the House and, more particularly, to clear up matters for people outside the House, will the Minister of Finance agree to inform us now whether he will make a statement tomorrow on motions to clarify the purpose of the discussions he is having with various groups in the economy and outline to the House the particular proposals on which the government is making a commitment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of privilege with all the respect I owe the Chair. I understand that I sit at the far left, at the other end of the House, and that it is sometimes also difficult for the Chair to see a member from that distance, and for that member to ask a supplementary question, as is usually allowed other members.
Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is the following: I asked a very serious question of the Solicitor General, a question which concerns all Canadians. I would have liked to ask him a supplementary. Unfortunately, I am quite sure that the Chair did not see me, and I did not have the opportunity to ask that supplementary question. So, with all due respect to the Chair, I would like to ask this same question tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse is raising the question of privilege to be recognized for a supplementary question.
For a moment, the question was whether to recognize a second Social Crediter this afternoon. There were at that moment exactly four Social Credit members in the House.

January 28, 1975
Excise
I must always establish a balance between Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats and Social Crediters. The decision I made was first to recognize a second Social Credit member. I recognized Social Credit member this afternoon, but I also exercized my power of discretion and I refused to allow the supplementary question.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, will all the respect I owe to the Chair, I consider once for all that it is quite irregular for the Chair to count hon. members from such and such party in the House. The fact of being recognized must be based on the fact of being in the House and as I was here, it seems to me that I should logically have been recognized as an hon. member who was here and who normally sits in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I consider that I have to take notice of the number of hon. members from the various parties who are in the House during the question period. It is not simply a regular procedure but it is a fair one, and I intend to continue to preside in such manner.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, January 24, consideration in committee of Bill C-40, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)- Mrs. Morin in the chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose on Friday, January 24, clause 21 was under consideration and the hon. member for Capilano had the floor.
On clause 21.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Shortly before the hour of four o'clock on Friday last I reversed mileage figures, and the sentence reported in Hansard at page 2599, toward the end of the first column, should read: We must think in terms of ... 15 to 40 miles per gallon rather than ... 6 to 12 miles per gallon.
The balance of my remarks will conclude my participation in the debate on these two paragraphs. It is still my contention that paragraphs 11 and 12 are causing hardship. One Vancouver yard has been faced with the cancellation of $500,000 of work. In addition, one half of its back orders have been cancelled. In another yard, $150,000 worth of work has been cancelled and, again, one half of the back orders cancelled. This yard is itself seeking to cancel $200,000 worth of purchase commitments placed as far away as Sydney, Nova Scotia. A $300,000 new model moulding development program has been stopped.
I would bring it to the minister's attention that Sceptre Equipment Limited, a small construction equipment company in North Vancouver, has a tax-paid D-7 and two loaders in inventory. At the time of import, $12,000 was paid in federal sales tax. The minister offers tax recovery procedures to automotive companies in similar circum-

stances, yet he digs in his heels when asked to deal with this man's problem. This man needs relief; he needs a procedure by which he can recover his $12,000 since he cannot now sell the equipment at its tax-paid value. Where is the just society, about which the Prime Minister boasts at election time, in the face of this refusal of justice on the part of the Minister of Finance?
The pleasure boat industry in British Columbia alone is a $78 million industry and the incomes of a lot of people are affected by this vindictive stroke of a bitter pen. There is no logic or justice about the minister's explanations in support of paragraphs 11 and 12 of clause 21 and the lack of procedure for recovering sales tax on inventories of construction equipment. The minister's action negates the small harbour assistance programs which are still being put into effect by other departments of government. It negates years of government programs to encourage the development of the boat building industry which is responsible for important payrolls in British Columbia. After all, British Columbia is a marine-oriented province.
The paragraphs of the bill to which I refer are highly discriminatory against a minority who as individuals make a higher than average contribution to the gross national product. The reasons given for the inclusion of paragraphs 11 and 12 do not stand up to examination. Any loss of revenue due to the abandoning of this policy could be recovered if stricter attention were given to avoiding wasteful government expenditure. As a means of conserving energy, the measures we are being asked to approve penalize only those who have been saving for their dream, not those who are already equipped with aircraft and boats. Surely, dealers with tax-paid inventories of construction equipment on hand are entitled to the same recovery procedures as are automotive dealers.
I support the amendments offered by the hon. member for Moncton and urge the minister to reconsider what appears to be an extremely rigid and autocratic stand on these three items in Bill C-40.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ritchie:: The purpose of these excise tax provisions is obviously to dampen down the use of energy by increasing the financial burden placed upon those who use motor boats and cars, particularly those requiring a great deal of fuel. The insertion of these clauses emphasizes the need for a comprehensive energy policy in this country. Most people would agree that the increase in the cost of running a motor boat, for example, would in theory be of some value as a measure designed to conserve fuel supplies. However, in this instance it is discriminatory. The minister might well consider explaining to the committee why he has not included snowmobiles, for example, in these provisions. After all snowmobiles, like boats, are used for pleasure. Some people in Canada find snowmobiles very important to their livelihood. It seems to me it would have been fairer to have taxed none or all of these craft used for pleasure. It is also an indication that the time has long since passed when the government should bring forward its energy policy. Like the Americans, we will have to decide how high the price of energy should go in order to implement some form of rationing and conserve fuel.
January 28, 1975

There is one other item I should like the minister to clarify regarding the tax on boats, and that is whether or not fishing boats will be taxed. I ask this because in my riding the lake fishery uses boats of a fair size, and the industry is at a rather low level. It is now being assisted by ARDA grants, the provincial government and various other programs, but placing an added tax on these boats would be an imposition upon the industry. I believe it is provided that boats used for fishing will not be taxed, but I should like to hear the minister himself directly say that this is so. I think it is most important that in general there is no excise tax on production items. For instance, I understand there is no excise tax on farm tractors, tools and other items used to produce goods. When the minister speaks perhaps he will clarify whether the clause on boats applies to fishing boats. The fishing industry is directly dependent on the use of boats as tools to enable the fishermen to earn their livelihood. With these requests, perhaps the minister in due course would answer my question regarding the tax on fishing boats.


Mr. Whittaker:: Madam Chairman, first of all I should like to thank the Minister of Finance for amending the Excise Tax Act last Thursday so that clause 18 now encompasses regional districts, fire districts and unorganized territories. For almost two years I have been trying to get something done about this question, and this just shows that by persistent attack we can get the finance minister to see the logic of our arguments.
The tax on boats is a very serious matter for the manufacturers of boats in Canada, as well as for those who buy and use pleasure boats. Again I would ask the minister to tell us the philosophy behind this excise tax; I have never been able to understand it. Is the government simply looking for some easy money? Do they pick on industries which they feel will be easy marks, industries in which they believe the majority of the people are not interested or about which they do not care? Perhaps they feel they should tax areas that would appeal to the public. I believe the government's thinking is that the tax on the boat industry would be a popular move from the public's point of view.
The government is trying to use the excuse of energy conservation to justify its action. It does not tell the people that really it is looking for some easy money. It is desperately looking for sources of revenue to satisfy the spending programs of money hungry government departments. Surely the minister must worry about putting people out of work. In the three years the Minister of Finance has been minister we have had one of our highest average unemployment rates. The average trade balance deficit over those three years has been close to $1 billion, whereas in the preceding three years we averaged a slight surplus. It is because these industries have been picked on that this deficit has been generated. The boat industry in Canada is not healthy; it has to compete with industries in other parts of North America which buy their components more cheaply. The Canadian boat industry has had to struggle in the past, at the best of times, without having to face an excise tax on its products.
Excise
Over 80 per cent of the boats sold in British Columbia have more than a 20 horsepower motor. The motor boat industry in Canada consumes less than 1 per cent of all gas used. This is hardly sufficient to justify an excise tax. The boat manufacturers have already been hit very hard by the energy crisis. For example, in one year the cost of resin used in making fibreglass boats has gone from 20 cents a pound to 56 cents a pound, almost three times as much. Plastic used in the upholstery of boats has risen in cost by 27 per cent. In 1973, a popular model of boat manufactured in my constituency sold for $5,847, but in 1974 it sold for $7,268. With the increase in tax proposed by the government, this boat will cost $7,915 because of the increase in tax amounting to $647.
I do not think this increase is going to deter people from buying boats. The tax on heavy cars certainly will not stop people who can afford to buy Cadillacs. This is really an additional source of revenue to the government. I hope the government will not do anything that will put the boat industry out of business, so I plead with the minister to reconsider the excise tax that he is proposing to place upon boats used for pleasure.


Mr. Smith (Churchill):: Madam Chairman, when the excise tax bill we are dealing with was drafted, somebody must have been out to lunch, because they did not take into consideration the fact that in some parts of Canada boats are used for purposes other than pleasure. In my riding, boats are an essential form of transportation. As many as 30 communities in my riding do not have roads, and when you do not have roads the waterways become your avenues of travel. The people there do not have any choice in respect of paying this 10 per cent excise tax: they cannot say they will not buy a boat, because they require a boat as an essential means of travel. The government should seriously consider giving people in remote areas some sort of tax concession, because while these boats could be classed as pleasure boats, they really are not because they are essential to these communities. There is hardly a person in these remote areas who has a boat with a motor of less than 20 horsepower, and therefore they are subject to this 10 per cent tax. There are also a number of commercial fishermen in my area, and they use boats extensively. I should like to know whether they will be exempt from this 10 per cent tax.
We should also take a serious look at this 10 per cent tax on aircraft. The people who own aircraft in my constituency do not use them strictly for pleasure; many of them operate small lodges and use small aircraft to haul groceries to outlying stores. I repeat that the area I represent does not have an extensive roads system and many of the people who live there must rely on aircraft to get supplies to their operations. I am talking about the small operator who uses a 180-Cessna and hauls groceries 200 miles to supply a store in a remote area. I see the minister is agreeing with me, so I hope there will be action soon in this regard.
We must also be very careful when imposing these taxes on people in the remote parts of Canada. Yesterday I said that many jobs remained unfilled in northern Manitoba. Perhaps this is because of the high cost of living in the remote parts of the country. We are now preparing to

January 28, 1975
Excise
impose an additional charge, in the form of this excise tax, on equipment that is essential to the survival of people in northern Manitoba. It is about time somebody-and I hope to do this-brought to the attention of the rest of Canada and the government the situation that exists in northern Manitoba.
If the government insists on imposing taxes of this kind, I am afraid we will find that the natural resources we are trying to harvest in northern Manitoba will not be harvested: people will not be able to afford to harvest them. If we want to encourage people to work in the remote areas of Canada, we must provide some incentive. There is certainly no incentive to anyone to go into the north, particularly for the first time, when he is faced with having to purchase a boat for transportation, or perhaps an aircraft, and has to pay this 10 per cent tax. To me this tax is ridiculous.
The other matter I want to talk about is the tax on air transportation. This has caused untold hardship for the small air carriers in northern Manitoba. The small air carrier operator out of Thompson, for instance, has to impose a 5 per cent charge on the air tariff. In many cases he may charge the 5 per cent on the basis of using a DC-3, and then uses a 180-Cessna and has to reimburse that additional tax. Very often when the government issues vouchers for its personnel to travel on small commercial aircraft in northern Manitoba, the vouchers include the 5 per cent tax. However, on many occasions these individuals travel on smaller aircraft and-


Mr. Fortin:: Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


B. Keith Penner: Order. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Chairman, I would like to point out to the Chair that there are now in the House 20 Liberals, 10 Progressive Conservatives, 3 New Democrats and 5 Social Crediters. This means that we are now in considerable numbers in the House, contrary to what the Chair said a while ago.


B. Keith Penner: I am sorry but the hon. member must surely be aware that this is certainly not a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Madam Chairman, I rise again on a point of order.
In view of the precedent created today in that we count hon. members in the House every hour, I point out that it will be my duty to count them in the future, until such time as the Chair changes attitude towards the Social Crediters.


Cecil Morris Smith: Madam Chairman, I was saying that the 5 per cent tax on air travel is causing utter chaos for the small operator in the remote north who does not have the personnel necessary to collect this tax. In many cases the operator has to reimburse the individual who ends up travelling on a smaller aircraft. If we are really interested in developing the rest of Canada-and I some-

times think the rest of Canada means from the Ontario border out to British Columbia, because many taxes are imposed to cover the more developed areas without any thought of the problems they create in the remote and developing parts of Canada-we must seriously consider the unique problems in the north or we will discourage development there. In order to encourage development we must create incentives. These incentives can be created through tax concessions of some sort for people moving into the remote parts of Manitoba and northern Canada.


Mr. Ellis:: Madam Chairman, when speaking on Bill C-40 it is difficult to add very much on the subject of boats since so much has already been said. One thing that does strike me is that we are adding a tax on top of a tax. This means that the treasury department of the government will be making more profit from these transactions than will the manufacturer or his employees, the wholesaler or distributor or their employees, or the retailer or his employees.
At a time when retail sales are lagging, employees of retailers are being laid off or are working shorter hours. Retailers and wholesalers are facing cutbacks and a reduction in profits. Approximately 23 per cent of their profit goes to the government for little or no input-certainly no useful input. Retailers and wholesalers who could go bankrupt in transactions such as this, and in fact have been known to go bankrupt, receive little or no sympathy. Nevertheless, the government still gets its pound of flesh.
Madam Chairman, I wonder if I might ask you to call to order hon. friends to my left who are being particularly noisy this afternoon, all three of them. One of them is perhaps the instigator, but all three are noisy.
The money that is received from these taxes is going into the government's coffers. What is the government going to do with all the money it has collected? What has the government done with money collected from similar taxes in the past? I suggest that the answer is that they have done very little, certainly very little of interest to the manufacturers of boats, to the wholesalers, distributors and retailers of boats, and a whole lot less to the owners of boats. These boats provide pleasure to many families in what is commonly called the middle class. These people, who already bear a major portion of the tax load in this country, are sometimes called the silent majority. Perhaps they are the ones who most need a break on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon to get away from some of the pressures imposed by this government. I strongly suggest to the minister that he consider a break for these people. He would not be giving anything away, but merely reducing the load that is already on them.
I want to add a few words with regard to private business aircraft. I think it has been firmly established that the amount of fuel used by this type of aircraft is absolutely minimal in comparison with the consumption of energy in the country. In a country as vast as Canada, aircraft are an essential means of transportation for businessmen. Many people may look on this, and perhaps the minister does, as taxing the rich who can afford it. But I say to the minister that this is not so. Certainly, the majority of aircraft owners pay perhaps more than the
January 28, 1975

average corporate or personal income tax, and their aircraft help them to increase their revenue and consequently the amount of tax they pay. So why should the government not pass legislation to encourage businessmen to continue earning more money? The government cannot have it both ways. These people are frequently capable of providing new jobs for many Canadians, and they should be encouraged to do so.
The arguments that have been put forward regarding fuel savings, I consider to be hogwash and balderdash, or whatever strong term is allowed within the procedures of this august body. This is a measure to give the illusion of taxing the rich. The government could easily save far more energy in any one of the dozen ways suggested by the Minister of Public Works, and impose any other method of taxation. But the answer is really to curtail government spending in many areas that have already been suggested. In my opinion, the government has tried many other ways to discourage businessmen in Canada from using private aircraft, yet this is a form of transportation that should not be discouraged.
Together with my colleagues on this side of the House and many hon. members on the other side, I ask the minister to give serious consideration to rescinding these two paragraphs which would do much harm to a viable industry.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Chairman, I want to deal with clause 21, more specifically paragraph 7 of Part XVII, having to do with the following vehicles:
Air cushion vehicles and tracked vehicles specially designed to transport twelve or more passengers or ten thousand pounds or more freight.
I will deal with tracked vehicles designed to transport
10,000	pounds or more freight. I wonder why the limit was set at 10,000 pounds rather than a lower figure that could meet the same purposes. I think, of course, that the purpose is to prevent the exemptions from applying to vehicles used for recreational purposes or pleasure.
But, there is already a major company here in Canada- Bombardier-that already manufactures tracked vehicles designed to transport 8,000 pounds of freight. Those vehicles are quite popular, and it is well known that the fact that they can transport 8,000 pounds of freight stops them from being considered as purely recreational vehicles.
May I be allowed, Madam Chairman, to point out to the minister that there might be grounds to consider seriously amending paragraph 7 and reduce from 10,000 to 8,000 pounds the transportation capacity of tracked vehicles because Bombardier is the biggest manufacturer in the world of tracked vehicles, whether pleasure or industrial vehicles. There are no known recreational vehicles transporting more than 2,000 pounds of freight at present. Bombardier now manufactures the Muskeg Carrier, a vehicle that is sold to industry only. The Muskeg Carrier can transport a maximum of 8,000 pounds of freight. It is priced at $20,000. It is surely not a vehicle designed for pleasure or recreational purposes.
In my opinion, this bill as it now stands prompts prospective customers to buy much heavier vehicles than might be required under present standards. Businessmen
Excise
would thus be encouraged to buy much heavier tracked vehicles precisely to avoid that tax, and this legislation would therefore be detrimental to a major industry which has been manufacturing vehicles with an 8,000 lb. carrying capacity and designed for industrial purposes.
The Bombardier Corporation which employs thousands of people in Canada manufactures vehicles specifically designed for industrial purposes. The vehicle I have been talking about, namely the Muskeg Carrier has an 8,000 lb. capacity. The only other industrial vehicle they manufacture has a 30,000 lb. carrying capacity.
For all those reasons, and I believe it is fair to say that the 10,000 lb. limit was specified for the sole purpose of preventing vehicles which are used for recreational purposes to benefit from the exemption, I think there would be no harm in amending section 7 and lowering the limit from 10,000 to 8,000 lbs. At all events, this would help an important industry which already manufactures tracked vehicles designed for the transportation of goods. It would be beneficial to the purchasers of those vehicles without being detrimental to anybody, and I think the legislator's purpose would be met because the exemption would apply to a vehicle which is really designed for industrial transportation. The limit should be lowered to 8,000 lbs.
Madam Chairman, I wish the minister would seriously consider those few remarks which I hope will be fruitful. An amendment aimed at reducing to 8,000 lbs. the limit provided in section 7 of part XVII should be moved.


Mr. Epp:: Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to follow a member of the government who has lent his voice to the representations being made to the minister for amendments to Bill C-40 with regard to the discriminatory tax proposed therein. It is with interest that I see members of the government using this forum to impress upon the minister the fact that changes will have to be made to the bill. Many of the things we are saying may be repetitious, but even with my limited experience I can see that a lot of repetition is needed before this government listens.
This government, and especially the Minister of Finance, remind me of the tax collectors of medieval times. Perhaps the best thing that could be said for them is that they were quite innovative in their methods. They must have spent all their time trying to devise new means of collecting taxes from citizens. I am rather hesitant to mention any examples of that time for fear the minister might introduce some of them. History teaches us that a number of rulers, especially Peter the Great, brought in a so-called beard tax. He thought every man should be clean-shaven, but if they insisted on wearing beards when they visited the cities or towns, they were taxed for the privilege. There were other innovations, too. Now that I have cited one example, I wonder if the minister is going to ask each of my colleagues who wears a beard to pay a tax every time he comes into the House. Maybe he should start with the Secretary of State who, after some comments he made last week, seems to be trying to hide behind his beard.
Madam Chairman, in respect of the excise tax to be imposed on small aircraft, I should like to point out that

January 28, 1975
Excise
the northern half of my riding relies heavily on small aircraft for business and everyday activities such as the movement of goods and services. A number of small aircraft charter companies have built up the industry over a long period of time. The people they are serving, often the native and Metis people, are those least able to afford any increase in the cost of goods and services. In fact, the price of foodstuffs in this area is the highest in Canada at present. This excise tax will do nothing to reduce the cost of living of these people. I think the minister should re-examine this question. He is not simply taxing people who use small aircraft for pleasure but, rather, those who can least afford it. The costs of operating small aircraft have increased astronomically in the past year.
This may seem to be a relatively insignificant clause in the bill, but nevertheless we should examine it carefully. One or two small businessmen in my riding have become involved in the sale and service of small aircraft in the last few years. Lower overhead costs have enabled them to compete with larger companies but, of course, as their volume of sales dwindles they will be strapped for funds; and that is what will happen as a result of this tax. One owner of a small company in my riding recently explained to me the way he acquired aircraft and sold them and the difficulties he would face. For the protection of small businesses I think the minister should re-examine this clause.
The effect of the excise tax on boats owned by people in the northern part of my riding will be much the same. The minister received a letter dated November 20, 1974, from the Allied Boating Association of Canada. I am sure he has read the letter. Some hon. members may have quoted this letter already, but I think it bears repeating because of its significance to my riding. It is addressed to the Minister of Finance and it reads:
Dear Sir:
On behalf of the pleasure boat industry in Canada, we strenuously object to the special excise tax for pleasure boats and engines in your budget speech of November 18, 1974.
The inclusion of pleasure craft and outboard motors in your "High energy consumer" category is, in our opinion, a gross misrepresentation of fact. The annual boating consumption of gasoline is about one-half of 1 per cent of that used by Canadian automobiles.
The salient facts are:
1.	Boats are not, in general, large energy consumers.
2.	Marine manufacturers, dealers, marina and service facilities are usually a small business operation.
3.	Our industry appears to have been the hardest hit in the new excise taxes.
4.	At least 80 per cent of the boat sales dollars will be affected.
5.	Order cancellations have already been received by manufacturers as a result of the November 18 speech.
6.	The resulting vastly increased sales price will add to inflation.
We emphasize that your new excise tax of 10 per cent for boats and engines is discriminatory, unfair and presents a serious threat to the small boat industry in Canada. Your attention to eliminate this tax is urgently requested.
The letter is signed by Mr. Don J. Critton, president, Allied Boating Association of Canada. Madam Chairman, the points made by the writer are valid for any part of Canada where small boats are manufactured and used in the pursuit of private enterprise. In my riding, the G. H. Lund Boat Company Limited was established two or three years ago. The parent company is in the United States. I

am not one of those members who cringe at the prospect of American investment in my riding; indeed, I think if we can co-operatively develop an industry and provide work for the people of the riding, then their investment is welcome.
This company approached the citizens of Steinbach and asked if they were interested in a boat manufacturing company being established in the town, and if labour was available. The company wanted to build a plant which would manufacture light aluminum boats mainly for the western Canadian market. After holding discussions with members of the community, the principals of the company applied for a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant, which was subsequently approved and received.
The company invested money in Steinbach. Local townspeople were approached and asked if they, too, wanted to invest in the company. They bought shares in the company, and its success story is remarkable. Because of good management, because the market was looked into carefully, this company is a success. Today it competes with American manufacturers. Eastern Canadian manufacturers have always found it difficult to compete in this area simply because extra freight charges are imposed on light boats of the kind manufactured by the company. The Steinbach company has expanded and has recently gone into fibreglass boat manufacturing. To me, this is a success story. Local people invested in the company and the company is a good corporate citizen, having become an integral part of the community. It is a member of the Allied Boating Association of Canada which recently made representations on behalf of this company, as well as on behalf of others, about the proposed excise tax. The general manager and vice-president of the company wrote a letter to the Minister of Finance dated November 25, 1974, which reads:
Dear Sir:
As a new manufacturer of pleasure boats in Manitoba, we endorse completely the letter of protest sent to you under date of November 20, 1974, by the Allied Boating Association of which we are members.
The pleasure boat industry in Canada from the manufacturer through to the dealer falls into the category of small business which, I submit, is less able to absorb a tax of the magnitude proposed. Boating in Canada utilizes a lower volume of energy fuel per dollar of manufacturing than do many other industries in Canada, and we therefore submit that the excise tax proposed is discriminatory.
Your review of the proposed excise tax in relation to the revenue to be derived for the federal government measured against the losses suffered by the industry as a whole and the loss of corporate tax revenues which will undoubtedly follow is requested-
The letter is signed by Mr. G. V. Hastings, general manager and vice-president. The point has not been made sufficiently that this industry consumes far less energy than most other industries of similar size. 1 will not belabour the point. As this industry is competing successfully with boating manufacturers of the United States and eastern Canada, and as the government wants to encourage economic activity in designated areas, I ask the minister and his departmental officials, on behalf of my constituents, to consider our representations seriously and objectively, in the hope that the tax to be imposed will be fair and will not militate against the best interests of all.
January 28, 1975


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Chairman, I only wish to ask a few questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to obtain further explanations concerning Bill C-40 now before us.
Since my area, and especially my constituency, includes islands scattered in the St. Lawrence where the airplane is the most common means of transportation, could the minister tell us if the holders of air transport permits will be affected by this legislation and if the tax will be levied on those who use these planes to go from their home to the mainland to stay in communication with the rest of Canada or of the province? This is what worries me about this bill. I would like to have an accurate answer to this question.


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Chairman, I do not wish to be disagreeable, but I have already risen several times today, I have made remarks which may not please the Chair, but since we are in committee of the whole, I have requested some information from the minister who seems quite ready to answer my questions. Could I please ask you to allow the minister to reply to the questions that I have asked?


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member is aware that the minister can reserve his answers until the end of the debate, but if the minister wants to reply immediately, I shall recognize him.


John Napier Turner: I leave the floor to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Chairman, may I draw the minister's attention to clause 21(8). I am concerned about the proposed reduction of sales tax on construction materials. The question I raise deals specifically with the financial repercussions of this reduction on unlicensed hardware wholesalers, of whom there are many in this country. The point is that there is a difference in the competitive positions of unlicensed hardware wholesalers and those who hold a federal licence which results directly from the way in which the tax is collected. The unlicensed hardware wholesaler buys goods for resale and pays his supplier the applicable federal sales tax on building materials, which before November 18, 1974, was 11 per cent or 12 per cent. Since he pays his tax money directly to the supplier or manufacturer, the tax becomes part of his direct cost and is included in the cost of his inventory.
The licensed hardware wholesaler, on the other hand, is in exactly the same business as his unlicensed counterpart, but holds a federal sales tax licence which allows him to buy goods from the same source that his unlicensed counterpart buys from. He, however, does not pay tax at the time of purchase but, rather, collects the federal sales tax applicable when he sells those goods and then remits
Excise
the tax. In other words, the licensed hardware wholesaler is a tax collector; he works under the advantage that the cost of his inventory does not include federal sales tax, an advantage not to be discounted lightly in view of the present cost of money. With regard to the budget and the reduction of the sales tax from 11 or 12 per cent to 5 per cent, quite frankly this has put the unlicensed hardware wholesaler in a tremendously non-competitive position vis-a-vis his licensed wholesaler counterpart. It will remain this way until stocks have been turned over and the two start off on an equal footing. Approximately 30 per cent of the unlicensed wholesaler's stock has been depreciated through no fault of his own by the 6 per cent reduction in the sales tax.
The ramifications of this tax reduction are quite apparent as far as the competitive position of the Canadian unlicensed wholesaler is concerned and his tremendous loss in actual inventory dollars. I mention this because there are a great many more unlicensed hardware wholesalers in this country than those who hold federal wholesale licences. This large number of small, unlicensed wholesalers makes up a very significant part of small business throughout Canada. These small businesses are struggling to survive because of the competition of large conglomerates. Anything that affects them in the way this reduction in tax does, makes their survival much more difficult.
I am asking the Minister of Finance to seriously consider, on a one-shot basis, some means of compensating these unlicensed hardware wholesalers for the losses they will have to absorb on tax-paid inventory when the tax on building materials is reduced from 11 or 12 per cent to 5 per cent. I hope the minister will take that into consideration when considering clause 21(8).


George H. Whittaker: Madam Chairman, I wish to speak about the reaction to clause 11 which was passed before Christmas. What we are talking about now is the unfair excise tax on boats. I have before me the December issue of the "Ontario Grape Grower," the official publication of the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board. I quote as follows from the "Chairman's Corner" which appears in the publication:
Proper approach fizzled: Is a 'militant' strategy the only way to be heard?
Is it any wonder that pressure groups are getting louder and stronger in their approaches to governments? The grape and wine industry has been the victim for its gentlemanly conduct and proper approach to bring the views of its members to the attention of first the local members of parliament, officials of the Department of Finance, and finally the Minister of Finance, the Honourable John Turner; that an increase in the excise tax on wine as proposed in the May, 1974, budget would be harmful to the sales, production and maintenance of the industry.
The result of our "proper" approach was that special excise taxes on table and sparkling wines were increased along with those on liquors but the excise taxes on beer and sparkling cider were left unchanged. The reason for leaving beer at the same level of excise taxation was never made clear in the discussions....
The vast majority of the public abhors the use of pressure tactics on governments generally but by ignoring man-to-man communication, it only brings more and more groups to a "militant" approach. Is this what we want in our society? Governments have only themselves to

January 28, 1975
Excise
blame by forcing groups to forceful tactics, but it obviously cannot be avoided.
I have not read all of the excellent article by Ron Moyer, president of the Ontario Grape Growers' Association. However, I feel it would make very good reading for members of the government. This is the sort of reaction we get from industries that are forced, because of this type of excise tax, to almost militant action. It puts a great strain on their industry when competing with similar industries throughout the world.


John Napier Turner: I shall reply to the hon. member when the time comes.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: Since we have been on clause 21 for some time, Madam Chairman, I thought I might make some reference to what has been said and give some response to it. I have listened with considerable interest to the comments which have been made thus far concerning Bill C-40, and particularly to the generally constructive criticism made in reference to clause 21 of the bill. I would like to assure the committee that I am sympathetic to many of the important points which have been raised, and I would like to comment on these matters at this time.
Several members said that the proposed specia< excise taxes on energy-consuming vehicles will have only a slight impact on energy conservation. It should be emphasized that the proposed taxes on energy-consuming vehicles constitute one of several programs the government has introduced to deal with the critical question of conserving Canada's energy resources. Other measures include the government's recent announcement to dramatically reduce exports of Canadian oil and petroleum products. In addition, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will shortly be bringing forward important energy conservation proposals.
It is clear that the government has little alternative but to take action today in order to minimize the future disruption which will occur as world energy reserves continue to decline. Parenthetically, I draw to the attention of the committee the fulsome measures proposed by the President of the United States to Congress that are going to have dramatic effects on energy consumption and on recreational use of energy in the United States. Although the proposed special excise taxes constitute a modest step in the direction of a more responsible allocation of scarce energy resources, the government is aware that the impact of the new taxes on industries directly affected will result in some short-term dislocations in those industries. However, it must be emphasized that disruptions in industries directly related to the consumption of petroleum products will inevitably occur, and the government must take action now to encourage such industries and consumers to adjust their production and consumption in the direction of more conservative energy-consuming products if even greater dislocations are to be avoided.
Although the purpose of the special excise taxes on the specified categories of energy-consuming vehicles is the

same-that is, to deter wasteful energy consumption-the proposed taxes as they apply to each category are quite different and it would be difficult to make any meaningful, direct comparisons between the categories. The general principle operative within each category is that items designed to consume fuel for relatively more essential purposes are excluded from the tax, whereas items which are considered to be less essential are subject to the tax.
A number of comments have been raised concerning the proposed special excise tax on motors larger than 20 horsepower and boats designed to be propelled by such motors. With regard to comments concerning the impact of the proposed tax on commercial fishermen and ferry boat operations, it should be noted that Bill C-40 provides in clause 21(2), line 40, page 11, that all boats, motors, cars and planes for which relief is provided from the general 12 per cent federal sales tax will not be subject to the proposed special excise taxes on energy-consuming vehicles.
For example, part XI of schedule III to the Excise Tax Act provides exemption from federal sales tax for boats purchased by commercial fishermen. In addition, this part provides that all ships licensed to engage in the Canadian coasting trade-for example, ferry boats used in British Columbia, the maritimes and other parts of the country- are exempt from the 12 per cent sales tax. Consequently, such boats and ships would be exempt from the proposed special excise taxes.
A number of important points were raised concerning the impact of the proposed tax on Canada's boat building and tourist industries. Since the ways and means motion was tabled in the House on November 18, 1974, the government has received a number of representations from all sectors of the boating industry. As a matter of fact, I have had several meetings, now, with representatives of the industry. These have made it clear that the economic situation of the industry has changed appreciably since the proposed taxes were first introduced in the budget of May 6. As a consequence of the extraordinary oil price increases which have occurred in the course of the last year, the industry has already experienced extremely large increases in the price of fibreglass, the principal construction material which it uses. These price increases are themselves a significant deterrent to the pruchase of high energy-consuming boats. I believe this fact, coupled with the current economic situation in the industry, warrants Bill C-40 being amended to exclude boats from the proposed special excise tax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: In other words, the tax will be on the motor, not on the boat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Napier Turner: In addition, even though the tax should remain on marine motors in excess of 20 horsepower, the proposed amendment to exclude boats from the special tax also contains provisions to permit commercial fishermen, hunters and trappers to purchase boat motors without paying the special excise tax. This amendment should meet the concern raised by
January 28, 1975_______________________COMMONS DEBATES________________________________________2675
the hon. member for Northwest Territories and echoed by members on both sides of the House.
I should like, now, to comment on concerns raised about the special excise tax as it applies to aircraft. Questions have been raised concerning who will be permitted to purchase aircraft without paying the special excise tax. Bill C-40 gives authority to the governor in council to exclude a broad range of end users from paying the proposed tax. Although regulations describing exempt purchasers cannot be completed until such time as the legislation is passed by parliament, administrative guidelines issued by the Department of National Revenue give clear indication of the scope of the proposed exclusions. For greater clarity, it is intended that the governor in council should by regulation exclude aircraft from the tax as follows: (a) aircraft used in scheduled and unscheduled commercial air service to provide public transportation of persons, goods or mail both inside and outside of Canada as included in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9-2, 9-3 and 9-4 of the air carrier regulations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And 9-5?


John Napier Turner: And 9-5. Then (b) aircraft for use exclusively in commercial flying club air services as provided in class 6 of the air carrier regulations; (c) aircraft for use exclusively in the provision of such commercial air services as specified in class 7 of the air carrier regulations whether such services are performed by licensed air carriers or not. For example; (1) agricultural flying including the application and distribution of chemicals, aerial pest control, spraying, seeding, cattle spotting, forest cultivation and fish cultivation; (2) aerial construction including aerial hoisting, pole setting and power line construction; (3) aerial control including firefighting, fire prevention, water pumping, forest control; (4) aerial inspection reconnaissance including aerial patrol and inspection, ice reconnaissance, forest, pipeline and power line patrol; (5) aerial photography and survey; (6) flying training. And (d) aircraft used exclusively to provide air services directly related to the exploration and development of natural resources in Canada; (e) police and military aircraft.
The relief from tax in respect of many of the specialty air services just described will be extended to any craft used for these purposes when owned by an individual or a commercial air service. Questions were raised concerning the position of aircraft used in a combination of exempt and non-exempt uses. It should be noted that Bill C-40 provides, in clause 13(2), that in the event an aircraft purchased under exempt conditions is diverted to a taxable use, the aircraft will become subject to tax. However, provision is made in the same clause for diversions of a casual nature which will not jeopardize the exempt status of the aircraft. The government is aware of the importance of aircraft in Canada and will take any necessary steps to ensure that the proposed tax does not exert an adverse impact on the provision of essential air services. In this regard, consultations with the general aviation industry are now under way to explore the most appropriate scope for exemptions from the proposed tax.
Comments were made by some members to the effect that smaller aircraft achieve a gas mileage comparable to
Excise
that of larger automobiles. While this may be true in some instances, the argument is not relevant for purposes of the special excise tax. To the extent that the proposed tax stimulates the utilization of existing commercial air services, more efficient energy consumption will be achieved. In response to comments that adequate commercial air services are not available to certain points in Canada, I would point out that persons flying to such points in taxable aircraft would likely be pursuing business interests and that such persons would benefit from two important tax concessions which greatly minimize the impact of the proposed tax. First, persons utilizing private aircraft for business purposes escape payment of the 5 per cent air transportation tax. Assuming a six-passenger aircraft which makes ten trips per month and has a ten-year life, the total tax savings would amount to $36,000. Second, private aircraft purchases for business purposes are deductible for purposes of corporation income tax. Assuming a 47 per cent rate for income tax, the 10 per cent special excise tax would be reduced to an effective 5.3 per cent.
I should like to conclude my remarks concerning the impact of the proposed special excise tax on Canada's aviation industry by pointing out that the November 18 budget also proposed that the 12 per cent federal sales tax be removed from aircraft used for most commercial purposes. In addition, such aircraft will not be subject to the special excise tax of 10 per cent. The removal of the 12 per cent tax will save aviation industries an estimated $20 million annually, whereas the proposed special excise tax on privately-owned aircraft will generate less than $5 million annually.
I turn, now, to the proposal to remove federal sales tax from transportation equipment. The hon. member for Hal-ton-Wentworth raised the question whether the principle of aggregate pricing would be accepted with respect to the $1,000 value per unit for parts and equipment for transportation equipment. I can assure the committee that where a manufacturer sells an assembly of parts-for example, a hydraulic tailgate-the assembly will be regarded as a unit and will qualify for the exemption as long as the price of the complete assembly exceeds $1,000. The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth also made reference to repair and replacements parts for transportation equipment and for construction equipment, suggesting that the provisions in respect of construction equipment were more generous than those accorded transportation equipment. I should like to emphasize that even though the provisions related to parts for construction equipment are worded somewhat differently from those applicable to transportation equipment, the exemptions are identical; that is, all parts for equipment valued at more than $1,000 per unit are exempt from sales tax whether for use in relation to transportation equipment or construction equipment.
While the aggregate principle to which I have just referred will be accepted in instances where manufacturers combine parts into a unit, it has come to my attention that a number of operations are out in the equipping of transportation equipment by persons who are not licensed manufacturers, and that such persons may be placed at a competitive disadvantage as a consequence of the $1,000 limit. In order to eliminate this anomaly, I propose to amend clause 21(7) to provide exemption from sales tax

January 28, 1975
Excise
for all parts and equipment installed on tax exempt transportation equipment prior to the first use of such equipment. A somewhat more significant anomaly exists with respect to the $1,000 limit as it applies to parts for aircraft. Consequently, I am proposing an amendment to remove the $1,000 limit for parts and equipment in respect of aircraft. This amendment is necessary to eliminate the possibility of conferring a competitive advantage in favour of foreign aircraft and air engine overhaul operations. A number of members on my side of the House have made this point to me, including my colleague the Minister of National Defence.
During the debate, some members observed that the special excise taxes on heavy cars proposed in the November 18 budget should apply only to vehicles ordered on or after November 19, 1974. I appreciate that there may be instances where dealers have entered into contracts with customers on or before November 18 and that in instances where those orders were not completed until after November 18 they would be subject to the special excise tax on heavy cars. It should be noted, however, that it is customary for changes in taxes on commodities, including the special excise taxes and taxes on liquor and tobacco, to come into effect on the day following the budget announcement. If this were not done, retailers and wholesalers could purchase very large quantities in advance of the tax increase and so avoid the additional tax for a time. Those with adequate cash or credit could take advantage of the delay to a greater extent than others.
In this regard, I might also point out that the special excise tax on heavy cars was first proposed in the May 6 budget. Following the defeat of the budget, a press release was issued stating that, if re-elected, it was the government's intention to ask parliament to enact legislation implementing the proposals contained in the May 6 budget. It would seem that any persons who might be subject to the proposed tax on heavy cars would have had ample time to arrange their affairs in anticipation of the new tax.
Turning briefly to the proposed reduction of federal sales tax on a comprehensive list of construction materials and equipment for buildings, I would like to emphasize that it is intended that the reduced rate of tax apply to a broad spectrum of materials and equipment. In this regard, questions were raised concerning the inclusion of free-standing fireplaces in the schedule subject to the reduced rate of tax. I would like to assure the committee that the government is prepared to review the question of including additional items in the schedules subject to the 5 per cent rate of tax. This can be accomplished by regulation of the governor in council pursuant to section 24 of part I and section 5 of part III of the proposed new schedule V to the Excise Tax Act.
Before tabling the amendments referred to earlier, I would like to comment on one other matter mentioned during the debate. This concerns comments related to the review of the commodity tax system. I wish to announce that a general review of the commodity tax system will shortly be initiated. I will be making a more detailed statement concerning this matter later in the session. At 
that time I will outline a timetable for taxpayer participation in this review.

The hon. member for Drummond referred to a complication in the bill now before us about trucks transporting twelve or more passengers. 1 am prepared to introduce an amendment to correct the problem raised by the hon. member. We are now looking for the specific terms to answer in the affirmative the argument he submitted this afternoon.
The hon. member for Belleehasse asked a question that I did not fully understand but if he could ask it again briefly and directly I would be prepared to answer him. Then my colleague the Minister of Supply and Services will cooperate by introducing for me the amendments before the committee.


Mr. Lambert (Belleehasse):: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his kind attention regarding the question I put to him.
I refer to Bill C-40 provisions on excise dealing with aircraft transportation. Since in my riding there are many cities and navigation is impossible during several months, the people in those cities must travel by plane. So, if people holding transportation licenses to operate those airlines must pay taxes on the purchase of their aircraft, or still on transportation tickets, I feel that increases the travelling expenses incurred by those people. Yet, they too are entitled to go to the mainland. In fact, they must necessarily do so on a regular basis either to transport their production or for personal needs, or go to the doctor's or the hospital.
I simply want to be assured that those new taxes will not apply in those cases so as not to increase the expenses of the people living on those islands.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member the policy dealing with taxes remains under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Transport, and I would want to consult him before answering the hon. member on the problem he just raised.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Fine.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Chairman, I have a brief question I should like to direct to the Minister of Finance regarding the statement he has just made. I might add that it was a statement that was most welcome, especially in my riding, since clause 21, paragraph 11 as originally worded undoubtedly would have created considerable hardship for a large number of boat builders, sail makers and others in that particular part of Nova Scotia.
I listened with interest to the minister's statement relating to paragraph 11, which applies to "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 (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".
January 28, 1975

As I understand it, the minister has removed the tax from all boats, especially boats used by fishermen in the fishing industry. He has also removed the 10 per cent tax from boats used for pleasure. But the tax will apply to the motor of any pleasure yacht. Is this correct, and if so, in what manner will the ministry determine whether an engine supplied to a boat is used for pleasure or for purposes of fishing? I am thinking here of some areas in my constituency. For example, I think of over 400 people who reside on Great Tancook Island, some 70 people who reside on Little Tancook Island, and some 35 people who reside on East Ironbound Island, off the coast of Nova Scotia. These people use their boats really in a dual capacity; they also require them for transportation to the mainland. I should like to know how the department will determine the taxable element of 10 per cent on the motor used in those boats. I am grateful for the recognition the minister has given the boat building industry, but I would appreciate his comment on the point that I have raised.


John Napier Turner: Madam Chairman, I have known the hon. gentleman for a long time but I was looking for a little more information from the last part of his remarks. I might say that the purpose is this. The commercial fishing industry will not be affected in any event, so there is no problem. Now the tax will no longer be on the boat which has an inboard motor; it will merely be on the motor itself. That evaluation from the department's point of view is a very easy one to establish and can be accomplished by way of a rebate from the tax imposed in the first place, depending on how the Department of National Revenue decides to do it. So that from now on there is no tax on the boat, only on motors used for pleasure rated at 20 horsepower or more. If the hon. member's constituents are commercial fishermen, then we will treat them as commercial fishermen unless he is able to tell us more about them.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Chairman, might I direct a question to the minister? He may have inadvertently overlooked the matter that I raised concerning the special plight of unlicensed wholesalers. Is consideration being given to providing them with some form of compensation on a one-shot basis because of the fact they were placed in a non-competitive position, with the introduction of the reduction in sales tax, vis-a-vis their licensed counterparts who operate under different regulations of the tax department?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, because of the thousands and thousands of items of building materials, there is really no way we could, administratively, rectify the situation to which the hon. member refers.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the minister could indicate what will be the net effect of the amendments he has proposed in respect of excise taxes so far as budgetary revenues are concerned. Could he anticipate the revenue, on the one hand, prior to the amendments and the revenue he will be giving up as a result of lowering the sales tax on building materials? Perhaps he could give us the old gross figure and the new gross figure.
Excise


John Napier Turner: I gave the old figure to the committee in respect of the special excise tax on automobiles, boats and aircraft. It amounts to about $30 million. The purpose of this provision is not really related to revenue but to exercise discipline in respect of energy consumption. We do not have the reduced figure from the $30 million that this will result in. We are responding, really, to points that have been made on both sides of the House regarding the equity of the matter. As soon as I have the revenue picture I will be glad to give it to the hon. gentleman.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Dealing with the sales tax, I was wondering if the minister could indicate the gross amount and any change there might be in what he projected to be the loss of revenue as a result of the reduction in the sales tax on building materials, transportation and construction equipment. Could he also give us a figure as to what it would cost the treasury if he eliminated the tax on building materials entirely, bringing it down to zero?


John Napier Turner: It would be another $450 million.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I wonder if the minister could explain his last answer and answer my first question as well. Why would there be an amount of $450 million, when you consider that it is a smaller reduction, from 5 per cent to zero, than from 11 per cent to 5 per cent?


John Napier Turner: One figure is $450 million and the other is $350 million. We will just see how they work out. Perhaps in the meantime my colleague could introduce the amendments in order to get them before the committee.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the hon. minister-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, with the hon. member's permission, I would like to add a few amendments consequent on my previous statement.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Agreed, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Goyer:: I move that Bill C-40, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act be amended by repealing item 11, clause 21, subclause 2, page 11 of the bill and the following substituted therefor:
"11. Motors exceeding twenty horsepower (including drive assemblies) for boats, whether inboard or outboard, other than boats purchased or imported by Her Majesty in right of Canada for use exclusively by the Government of Canada or by professional fishermen, trappers or hunters for exclusively commercial purposes.
... ten per cent."
I also move that Bill C-40, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be amended by repealing item 6, subclause 7, clause 21, page 14 of the bill and the following substituted therefor:
"6. Aircraft and aircraft parts and equipment 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."
I also move that Bill C-40 be further amended by replacing lines 13 and 14 of page 14 by the following:

January 28, 1975
Excise
"designed to transport twelve or more passengers or eight thousand pounds or more freight."
I finally move that Bill C-40, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be amended by repealing item 8, subclause 11, clause 21, page 14 of the bill and the following substituted therefor:
"8. Parts and equipment designed for permanent installation on the tax exempt goods mentioned in sections 1 to 5 and 7 of this Part where, the opinion of the Minister, the fair sale price by the Canadian manufacture or the fair duty paid value or the imported article exceeds $1,000 per unit, or installed on such goods before they are used for the first time."


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of clarification for the hon. member for York-Simcoe, the figure would be $380 million, on a full year's basis, as a result of a reduction of the remaining 5 per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Could the minister also help us in that respect by indicating the cost of collecting the sales tax at the present time? If $380 million is the amount of revenue lost, could he indicate or estimate what the actual administrative cost is in collecting the tax?


John Napier Turner: I cannot do that at this moment, Mr. Chairman. We have to allocate staff in respect of the total amount of sales tax collected over the whole range of excise taxes. In due course we could make this allocation with the personnel and the time, and give an answer.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I only want to put a question to the minister a question regarding the amendment he has just moved relating to the tax on motors exceeding 20 horsepower. Will a boat owner who changes the motor on his boat during the year have to pay tax on the motor and will he have at the same time to determine the value of his boat. He would not have to give proof of the boat's value there, but only of the motor's? Are we talking about a new or used motor?


John Napier Turner: The boat's value is not relevant, and the motor is considered as new.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, it happens very often that an engine or a motor unit can still be used. There are some shops which rebuild those engines, as we commonly say, and resell them as reconditioned engines with sometimes the same warranty as for a new one. Is the tax charged in those circumstances?


John Napier Turner: There is no problem, Mr. Chairman, the answer is no.	.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you very much. [English]


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. As the committee is aware, during the course of the debate on clause 21 a number of proposed amendments were read into the record and distributed for the information of hon. members. These amendments could be called in the order in which they were distributed or, in view of the minister's comments, it may be the wish of the committee that the

amendments be dealt with in the order in which they were presented. The Chair would like to receive the views of members of the committee on this matter of procedure.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I
wonder if it might be helpful to suggest that in view of the amendments I have proposed, perhaps those who gave an indication of amendments they have in mind might indicate to the Chair whether they still want those amendments to be put. For instance, I have it on the basis of conversations with the hon. member for Halton-Went-worth that the amendment that I propose resolves one of the points he makes; that he is satisfied and will not put his amendment. There may be other hon. members in the same position, including the hon. member for Northwest Territories who, I believe, is also satisfied. If they could indicate to you their intention, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could save a lot of time. Can we not put my amendments and see then whether there are other amendments that hon. members wish to put?


B. Keith Penner: Members of the committee have heard the suggestion of the minister. If that is agreable, and if there is unanimous consent to proceed that way, we can begin immediately the reading of the amendments and they can be put to the committee. Is that agreed?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I believe that would be agreeable and desirable. Perhaps we could then call it five o'clock in order to give an opportunity to those who have amendments under consideration to consider the minister's amendments first and decide whether they wish to go further.


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


John Napier Turner: Can we put the question on those amendments, if the committee is agreeable, and then call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


B. Keith Penner: Shall amendment No. 1, as read, carry?
Amendment No. 1 agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: Shall amendment No. 2, as read, carry?
Amendment No. 2 agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: Shall amendment No. 3, as read, carry?
Amendment No. 3 agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: Shall amendment No. 4, as read, carry?
Amendment No. 4 agreed to.


John Napier Turner: I thank the committee for its co-operation.
Progress reported.
January 28, 1975



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-Inability of doctors to cope with increase in tropical diseases; the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin)-Transport-Freight rates- Effect of court decision on ruling of transport commission; the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker)-Consumer affairs-request for assurance of supply of rings and lids for Mason jars to preserve food-Reason for lack of protection for Canadian manufacturers.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Henry Perrin Beatty: that Bill C-219, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said; Mr. Speaker, it was with some reservations that I decided to move the adoption of the bill sponsored in the twenty-ninth parliament by Mr. Don Blenkarn. I was hesitant to do so, not because I doubt the morality or justice of the legislation-I believe in it deeply-but because I know that doing so will result in my being caricatured as inhumane, repressive, insensitive, or a religious zealot. To speak of the sanctity of all human life, born or unborn, is not an acceptable action among much of our intellectual community, and I am saddened because I know that my participation in a controversy so laden with emotion will not be understood by many Canadians. I know, too, that my private member's bill will not be allowed to reach a vote and that the government will not allow any legislation of this nature to become law in Canada.
I am moving second reading of this legislation, aware of the consequences of my action but also acutely aware of the heavy personal responsibility, both as an individual and as a member of parliament, to speak as forcefully as I can against the tendency to dehumanize modern life. I rise to speak today not because I am confident that if I do so we can reverse the course of our society, but because I am fearful that if people who share a reverence for human life do not speak, our cause is certainly lost.
Abortion
The brilliant Irish poet and statesman, William Butler Yeats, believed that what he described as our present Christian, civilized age would come to an end with this century, replaced by 2,000 years of brutality and inhumanity. I remember reading once that he said the change would follow a period when people did things "not because they would or should, but because they could"; in short, when our social and mechanical technology had triumphed over our morality.
The proponents of abortion talk of its safety and relative ease: indeed, they sometimes speak of statistics which show that it is safer for a woman to abort her child than to carry him to term. They speak of the unborn child as nothing more than tissue and they euphemistically talk of "terminating pregnancy". The pro-abortionists contrast this surgical procedure which they consider safe, simple, and morally insignificant with the horrors of back-alley butchery, unwanted children and population explosion. That they are sincere, and that they fervently believe in the justice and the necessity of their cause, I do not question. I have had the opportunity to speak with many of them and I believe that they are unfairly pictured as bloodthirsty and murderous. The word "murder" to my mind implies an awareness and deliberation in the commission of evil, and they are anything but aware of the implication of their actions. Instead, I believe they are tragically mistaken about the nature of their activities.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most disturbing tendencies I have detected since coming to parliament is our anxious avoidance of attempting to resolve issues which are moral in nature. We seem to want to find technological solutions to moral dilemmas or to find compromises that leave us all feeling a little unclean but that will defuse a contentious issue. All too often we simply wash our hands of trying to find a resolution to moral problems.
The debate on capital punishment exemplified the worst of what parliament is capable of. Faced with the need to make a decision on the morality of the government in taking the lives of human beings, the legislation we settled upon satisfied neither the retentionists nor the abolitionists. What it did was to extend for another five years a partially retentionist bill that the government gives every indication of simply not enforcing.
The present abortion legislation is a classic case of an unenforceable and morally indefensible law. It satisfies neither the proponents of unlimited abortion nor those who are pro-life. What it does is to put an impediment, which is far from insurmountable, between some pregnant women and the abortion they want. It is discriminatory in that the application of the law varies widely throughout Canada, and it is almost impossible to enforce as the key provision-the health of the mother-is subject to so many different interpretations; and, of course, it fails totally to come to grips with the question of the humanity of the fetus.
The critical change which would be made if the legislation I am proposing were to pass is that it would delete references to the health of the mother and permit abortion only where a choice had to be made between the life of the mother and that of the child. In practice, it would dramati-

January 28, 1975
Abortion
cally reduce the number of abortions taking place from its current level of between 40,000 and 50,000 each year. The premise upon which the bill is based, that human life begins at conception and that all human life is precious and irreplaceable, must be addressed in any attempt to deal with the morality of abortion.
The supporters of abortion on demand must either deny the very humanity of the unborn or they must establish that some human beings are innately less human than others and that their claim to human rights is also inferior. In either case, the implications of accepting the assumptions of the pro-abortionists are horrifying because they involve the need to put a restrictive definition on what constitutes humanity and they open the door wide for the destruction of life they feel is less than human.
Are we, as a society, to define humanity on the basis of viability for independent life? If so, then what are the implications for the physically or mentally weak, the retarded, the paraplegic, the comatose, the newborn, the senile: are they no longer to be considered human beings possessing intrinsic human rights? Do we say, as most abortion laws say, that a fetus achieves humanity mysteriously after it has existed for a set number of weeks? If so, we must explain why we do not consider the life of the fetus to be a continuum, and how we can say that in the space of a second a fetus which does not appear to have changed physically has progressed from being a meaningless piece of tissue into a person with human rights. I say that such a position is unprovable and untenable: it constitutes nothing more than an avoidance of reality.
Are we to say that abortion does involve the destruction of human life, that it can be defended on the basis that not all human life is sacred, and that some of us can lay a greater claim to human rights than others? If so, then what is to be the basis for our allocation of human rights? Are they simply something to be distributed by legislation, subject to extension and withdrawal at the whim of government?
I believe that all people, regardless of race or religion, male or female, rich or poor, born or unborn, share a common humanity and that all of us have an equal right to life. I am convinced that the only instance in which the taking of another human life is justified is the most extreme case of self-defence. It is because of my belief in the sanctity of human life-all human life-that I remain opposed to capital punishment. It is also for that reason that I am committed to preserving the life of the unborn. What disappoints me acutely is that my colleagues to the left, who stood with me and who spoke eloquently for sparing the lives of a handful of individuals guilty of the most heinous of crimes, will now stand to support the destruction of nearly 50,000 innocent lives each year.
Let us turn to some of the arguments used by pro-abortionists to rationalize their position. We have already considered the claim that the fetus is not a human being, and that premise has two commonly heard corollaries; that to deny a woman the right to abort a fetus is to deny her the right to control her own body, and that the health or wishes of the mother are more important than the life of the child. If one accepts the contention that the fetus is a human being, it is obvious that the issue is not the right of the mother to control her own body, but whether she has

the right to kill another human being who shares her body. Similarly, it is hard to understand a claim that the fact that one person does not want another to live because to do so would be traumatizing or harmful to the financial position of a family, or even potentially damaging to the health of the mother, justifies killing.
A person would have to be totally blind or absolutely insensitive to the problems of other people to deny that giving birth to an unwanted child can be a tragedy. Certainly, I would never make such a claim. The potential for human misery is enormous and each one of us has a responsibility to lessen that misery in any way legally and morally acceptable. It is here that I break ranks with so many who oppose abortion but whose compassion does not extend beyond the fetus. But to share the agony of those who give birth to a child against their will is not to support the killing of another, innocent, human being. It is there that we must draw the line.
Another defence of abortion that is often heard is that because any law circumscribing abortion could be avoided by people with money to travel to another jurisdiction, the unequal application of a law is reason for eliminating it. Surely, though, we must realize that if an act is basically immoral each and every time it is committed, we cannot justify its unrestricted commission on the grounds that some people will be able to get away with it even when our society says it is indefensible.
The corollary of this assumption is the claim that because some women will decide to have an illegal and unsafe abortion at the hands of a criminal, we should abolish the law so they can have their abortions in safety and relative ease. But the issue is not the safety of abortion; it is the morality of abortion. And what is critical is not whether a law will be broken, but whether it is just. We know that almost any law we propose can and will be broken, but we do not often hear proposed legislation resisted in parliament because although the vast majority of Canadians will abide by the law, some people will elect to break it.
Another claim is that opponents of abortion are undemocratic, that Gallup polls show a majority of Canadians believe abortion should be a matter of personal choice. First of all, the evidence presented by polls is contradictory. As a poll released by Gallup last March shows, a significant plurality of Canadians felt an abortion was already too easy to obtain. Interestingly, the poll debunks the claim that abortion laws are a male attempt to oppress women, because some 11 per cent more women than men felt our abortion laws were already too lax. Secondly, it should be apparent to each of us that there are often great disparities between what is popular and what is right, and no poll, whether of the CMA or of the general public, can make something that was immoral one moment, moral the next.
It is disturbing that so many of the leftists who spoke for life during the capital punishment debate and who reminded the House of our duty to do what we believe is right, whether it is popular or not, now call for government by Gallup. My friends who take that position demonstrate a curious example of situation ethics where their support of a course depends more upon its acceptability to their ideological peers than upon its justice.
January 28, 1975

Another common excuse tendered in defence of abortion is that it is an effective means of birth control at a time of overpopulation. The implications of this particular suggestion are ominous because one could just as easily argue for killing old people, or criminals, or invalids, or the mentally retarded. Killing for the sake of reducing population is intolerable in a civilized society, and abortion is certainly not acceptable as a form of population control.
Finally, similar to the advocacy of abortion for population control is the claim that abortion is justified to prevent a child from being born who may be unwanted by his natural parents. To anyone who believes the fetus is a human being, abortion on these grounds is intolerable. I do not believe that anyone who seriously considers the case made by pro-abortionists can accept abortion except to save the life of the mother. However, the bill I am proposing today is not enough in itself to fight abortion. It should simply be one component in a comprehensive program. The pro-abortionists are quite right when they say that a reformed abortion law will be avoided and broken as long as pregnant women under enormous emotional pressure see abortion as their only means of escape from an intolerable situation.
If we are serious in our desire to reduce the abortion rate, and if we do have compassion for the women caught in a tragic situation, we must be willing as a society to put our money, our legislation and our moral suasion on the side of life. These are the other components of a policy which I think could reverse the direction in which we are going: first, all levels of government must co-operate in improving birth control education throughout Canada. Improved educational programs could make an attack on ignorance and would be a powerful means of reducing these human tragedies. Second, birth control devices should be made available free of charge through the medicare program to eliminate any financial disincentives to the use of contraception. Third, improved assistance should be provided to children's aid societies for their important work.
Fourth, the federal government should pressure the provinces to repeal legislation that discriminates against illegitimate children. We must recognize the equality of all children, regardless of the marital status of their parents. Fifth, society should provide every assistance possible to unwed mothers to help them over the crisis period. Instead, the harassment and discrimination against unwed mothers is enormous. We must remove the stigma from unwed motherhood, giving support to these mothers instead of making their lives more difficult.
Sixth, we should provide financial assistance to groups counselling women on the positive alternatives to abortion. At the present time, the federal government gives money to groups facilitating abortions, but it does not help those who are specifically dedicated to the reduction of abortions. Seventh, our social assistance programs should provide a decent level of assistance to needy families with children, because much of the trauma for many families involves having another child when money is scarce.
I believe that, coupled with a reform of our abortion laws, these proposals could result in a dramatic reduction
Abortion
of the innocent lives lost to abortion. I urge both sides in this debate to look beyond simply changing the laws to the need for policies that will assist thousands of human beings in difficulty. We must not allow ourselves to become so preoccupied with the debate on new legislation that we ignore the people we say we want to assist. Over the next several years parliament and the Canadian people will be faced with a series of issues that will test our national judgment. Euthanasia, genetic engineering, psychosurgery and abortion will each require us to make decisions about what makes us human beings and how we can preserve our humanity.
The application of modern technology to our social problems has had the effect of both extending our reach as individuals and depersonalizing our lives. Modern technology has extended our life spans, reduced our workload, expanded our leisure time, broadened our knowledge and increased our prosperity, but it has also eroded our sense of purpose and depersonalized our relationships with our fellow man. Even death and our attitude toward it have been changed by our modern technology. We are freed from the killer diseases that once ravaged former societies, and we take pride in having conquered nature and reducing war. But there is another side to our technological society, the cold, depersonalized, remote-control destruction of human life; and we seem to believe that antiseptic, passionless killing is a sign of how far we have progressed as a civilization.
There was an example of what I mean during the capital punishment debate when one of my colleagues proposed legislation he felt would make the killing more attractive. He would have retired the hangman's noose in favour of a simple, painless injection. And modern warfare conducted from airplanes or submarines or missile bases represents the perfection of killing by remote control. We do not have to see the people we kill, and it all seems so much less messy than before.
So it is with abortion. We do not know the fetus and we do not mourn its loss, because we have come to think of it as simply useless tissue, almost a cancer that needs to be removed. The supporters of abortion will tell you about its ease, its safety and its virtual painlessness. Abortion is fast, neat and an easy escape from our problems. Indeed, it has become so simple and acceptable that a recent study reported in the November 16, 1974, issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal showed that experiencing a previous abortion has little effect in inducing women to adopt a more effective method of birth control.
I am deeply disturbed by the effect of abortion on the thousands of unborn children killed last year, but I am even more frightened by the effect of abortion on those of us who remain, because abortion is a denial of the sanctity of human life, a statement that our society holds life cheaply. As legislators, we hold a trust both for those who live now in our country and for those who are as yet unborn. If we are to keep that trust, it is our duty to speak in defence of human life.
Some people will have reservations about the course of action we propose because we will be called upon to make judgments which cannot be tested by computers or analysed by modern science. At times we may be mistaken. But if we are to err, let it be on the side of life; for if
2682

January 28, 1975
Abortion
we, instead, embrace death as our cause, we will debase our humanity and burden our souls.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, it is always with a certain uneasiness that political bodies, made up of elected representatives, choose to deal with highly emotional issues which are the source of impassioned debates within the public. These include capital punishment, abortion, and euthanasia, because they touch on the integrety of human life and divide our society into two irreconcilable parties, made up respectively of those for and those against, which accuse each other of defending indefensible positions.
In fact, these are such highly emotional issues that people are no longer asking what your opinion is, but insist now that you take a stand. These remain however modern issues over which physicians, priests, psychologists and politicians will ponder and which a number of nations had eventually to cope with.
In addition, at this point in the history of civilization where we are starting to worry about the decreasing relation between the rate of growth of the population and that of resources, it is of the utmost importance that we should reflect as reasonable men on the means available to us for generalizing collective greater well-being.
To seek to reply positively or negatively to those questions, and more specifically to abortion, a corrective measure and no more, is to give it the value of a right, which it is not. It is rather an exceptional measure which, in some cases, can be legitimized to safeguard fundamental human rights. Once the debate is put back in its real context, the discussion can be broached with more serenity and objectivity.
The present Canadian act satisfies no one. On the one hand, for those who are in favour of it, it is too strict and it leads to discrimination. For those who are against it, it leads to scandal, to abortion on request. In fact, here again, there is need for moderation, for a study that is strictly legalistic in nature: criticism will follow automatically.
The provisions of the Canadian act on therapeutic abortion are relatively flexible. Except for that which stipulates the creation of a selection committee of three doctors, one can interpret them restrictively or very broadly. But that very flexibility has given rise to discrimination and uncertainty, for it lends itself to various interpretations and there is practically no way of knowing what intentions the legislator has, if any. Furthermore, application procedures are inadequate. In fact, as the decision depends on a committee of three doctors and they have no guidelines whatever, in accordance with the beliefs, the prejudices, the nationalities of these doctors, the therapeutic committees have interpreted the law in their own way and arbitrariness reigned.
The whole problem resides in the interpretation to be given in the legislation to the term "patient's health". Not all doctors define health in the same way. Is it the absence of disease? In other words, must we take exclusively into account psychological or physiological criteria, or must we also bear in mind psycho-social motives, including factors

such as a sufficient number of children, the advanced age of the mother, the financial situation, an unsuitable home or the fear of childbirth? The whole debate revolves around this.
The World Health Organization has replied to that question. It defines health as follows: a complete state of physical, moral and social well-being not existing solely because of an absence of disease or disability. Understanding and accepting this definition is vital if one wishes to debate abortion. Because, if we Canadians refuse to answer the question, we maintain the existing social evil of illegal abortion, and recourse to abortion abroad.
Some might say this is only an ethical problem. To me it is also-and mainly-a political problem. The aim here is not to give the woman concerned, through liberalization, a false illusion of freedom of choice. Within the present framework of our society and our laws, this would be immoral. We have here a group responsibility. When a woman comes to the point of requesting abortion, something went wrong somewhere along the line and this is our responsibility. If we favour the use of personal freedom, we should be practical about it and give each one the tools needed to use that freedom of choice. Otherwise there is no real choice. Or alternatively, we put personal freedom under the heading of collective freedom. We say no on every count, we shut our eyes, and let illegal abortionists operate. I have too much respect for human life to let
100,000	Canadian women go to charlatans each year. That is no solution. I am strongly against it and as a politician as well as a man I will not shut my eyes on the facts. As I indicated, abortion is an exceptional measure. What may then be done to prevent it? We must concentrate on prevention and information on the first hand, and help families on the other. The gaps now existing in Canada in this area are tantamount to criminal negligence.
Since ethics underwent a change from a strictly religious dogma to a "social contract" affair, procreation has become a choice rather than a moral or religious obligation. When a choice is to be made, one must have the tools needed to make a sound choice. We are here at a crossroads, but there is practically no means of knowing the consequences of either road. Certain unshakable opponents of abortion will not even admit the fact. In general they also oppose information on sex matters and contraception. They give no choice to future mothers, and the latter must then be in a perilous position: inaction, waiting, fear, indecision.
Now, in this last quarter of the 20th century, we cannot afford to stay undecided. We have to make a choice, and it is the duty of the government to make sure that our choice is enlightened. Therefore, we must emphasize social measures aiming not to favor abortion, but to suppress the need of it. We must table on global measures about population, information on birth planning and contraception. And, above all, because this is the underlying principle to any systematic assistance plan for the human development of families, it is only within a collective adjustment of our family policy that our society will be able to respect individual liberties which all the Canadians think so highly of.
Besides, in spite of all the assertions to the contrary by "anti" groups, experience shows that a global policy of
January 28, 1975

assistance to the human development of the family, such as there is in other countries-I am thinking of the Danish act on abortion, and also of the French act-experience shows that the best way to control abortion is to pass a bill allowing abortion and providing appropriate consultation and assistance services to couples regarding family planning. Both aspects go hand in hand. Therefore I support the statement of the League of the human rights when it says that they cannot admit abortion as a right, but as an emergency measure justified by the right of anybody to health and to the human quality of life, as well as by the right of women to decide on the number of children they want to have and to be helped by society.	[DOT]
I plead for the quality of life, which cannot go with the unbridled population explosion as recommended by some undeveloped countries. I plead for procreation to be a willfull and conscious act, rather than the result of chance. I plead for a morality that, at last, takes into account the psychological and social development of individuals, without which emotional health of the human being is impossible. I plead for measures and services-and here, our responsibility is very important-as I was saying, measures which will insure a better physical, sexual, mental, emotional and social health to all members of a family. I plead for real conditions of well-being and respect of life for children. I plead for the couple.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment to the abortion legislation which we have before us this afternoon is indicative of the malaise in which this debate is taking place. Amendments are moved to do away with the three-physician therapeutic board because the latter, depending on hospitals and regions, is likely to be partial in its assessment of the facts, and especially the physical condition of the mother.
On the other hand, great care is taken to stress in the explanatory notes that social or economical conditions which affect the female person or her family unit must not be taken into account by the qualified medical practitioner when assessing the facts.
Does that mean that the hon. member feels that the advisory therapeutic abortion committee should consider the said criteria of a largely psycho-social nature? That, we are not told. Presently, such is not the case. I for one say that, first of all, the sections concerning therapeutic abortion ought to be deleted from the Criminal Code. It must be clearly established that the committees or other similar organizations must consider the psycho-social reasons that prompted the person-and it is the case for 60 per cent of the requests-to ask for an abortion. And finally, it is essential to set up immediately a government planning and advisory body to which the person requiring an abortion could refer, until a comprehensive family assistance policy is implemented in Canada.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I support very strongly the presentation made this afternoon on Bill C-219 by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty). His presentation was one of the finest we have heard in this parliament. The member distinguished himself by bringing forward, in the manner he has, a subject replete with controversy and emotion in a way that was
Abortion
shorn of the emotionalism that clouds many minds on both sides of this House on this subject. It is an honour for me to follow his presentation and to speak to one or two points contained in it.
I listened with great interest to the speech just made by the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance). I took it to be a prolife speech. He said he wanted abortions to be prevented in this country. He wants better family planning information made available throughout the country. The hon. member pleaded for the quality of life and for life itself to be truly respected. He spoke of the malaise in this country because of the increasing abortion rate. As I listened to the hon. member, I wondered why he and those of his colleagues who feel as he does did not press for some means to be found whereby this question would be allowed to come to a vote in this parliament.
It is likely that the bill before us this afternoon will meet the normal fate of private members' bills and be talked out. If that should happen, so be it. But let there be at least on record some speeches pleading with the government not to allow the present situation regarding abortion to continue. I myself have spoken to several Members of Parliament who were here in 1969-I was not here then- and who voted for the omnibus Criminal Code amendment which gave us the now infamous section 251 which permits abortion for a wide range of reasons, and they have told me that if they had known then what they now know they would not have voted for the enlargement of the Criminal Code with respect to abortion at that time.
I believe the Canadian people have a right to know where parliament stands on this issue. Obviously there is polarization in the country. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is attacked by some for being too strict in his interpretation of 251. He is also attacked by those who say he is remiss in his duty to uphold the law by staying quiet while the abortion rate quadruples as a result of the way in which this section has been interpreted.
The Canadian people are confused. I think they need to be led by parliament through an examination of this subject and of the situation which has arisen with respect to abortion since the Criminal Code was amended. The Canadian people deserve leadership from parliament. I think it is scandalous if we are expected to wait until the public mood becomes so definite, one way or another, that we can follow what the public opinion polls tell us is the prevailing mood. I was especially pleased with the speech made by my hon. friend from Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo because he spoke directly to this question of parliament and leadership.
I ask members opposite, particularly members of the government, to allow a parliamentary examination of this subject if through no other device than that of merely allowing Bill C-219 to go to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs after second reading. After all, what is that committee for if it is not to examine the way in which the law is being followed or abused? Let us have an impartial, objective, unemotional examination of what is happening in this country with respect to abortion so that we may not be subject to the kind of thing which is presently happening. For example, the President of the Canadian
28626 -35^2

January 28, 1975
Abortion
Medical Association makes a speech which I can describe as a very unfortunate speech, and then goes on television, using the prestige of her office, to sway public opinion in a manner which I thought was an insult to the medical profession.
In passing, I express the hope that those members of the medical profession who were as indignant at the comments of Dr. Betty Stevenson as I was will speak out, using their names. Let us hear from doctors, because doctors are in a privileged position. The other day the Ottawa Journal carried a letter commenting on Dr. Stevenson's remarks and signed "MD". Who, I ask, is "MD"? I will tell you who "MD" is. "MD" was the pseudonym, the name submitted for publication, by at least ten doctors in the community of Ottawa who took umbrage at Dr. Stevenson's remarks and who wrote without revealing their names. I can only say to those doctors that they were falling down in their duty to give leadership to the Canadian people in this very sensitive area of the right to life.
I want to close on this note. There are so many aspects of the abortion question that it is easy to get lost amid the different arguments-the biological, the medical, the sociological, the ethical, the legal, the demographic and so on. No wonder people are confused. I believe it is the duty of parliament to concentrate on the civil rights side of abortion because this is the side which most directly concerns the law. And is that not our business here-to be making the law and reflecting on the manner in which the law is being followed?
If we look at the abortion statistics since the Criminal Code was amended we see that the abortion rate has climbed from 11,152 in 1970 to 43,201 in 1973, the last year for which statistics are available. Abortions have, in fact, quadrupled in that period; they have reached a point at which they constitute 12.6 per cent compared with live births in this country. This is an alarming situation. Why is the abortion rate climbing so rapidly?
Also, when we look at the figures, we find that in the three wealthiest provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta, the abortion rates are higher by far than those for any of the other provinces. I will put these figures on record to illustrate my point, and I repeat they are supplied by Statistics Canada. In 1973 the abortion rate in British Columbia was 26.7 per cent of live births. In Ontario it was 18.3 per cent, and in Alberta it was 13.8 per cent. It is ludicrous to suggest it is more dangerous to be pregnant in those three wealthier provinces than in any of the other provinces. It is ridiculous to suggest it is less healthy to be pregnant in those three provinces. It is this kind of question which is bringing the law into disrepute today.
What is really happening is that more abortions are being performed in those areas of Canada where abortion clinics have been set up on a wide scale, because a growing number of women are deciding that if it is not convenient for them to carry their child to term they can decide in favour of an abortion.
I do not want to take up any more time of the House. I say only that the Parliament of Canada cannot much

longer stay quiet or neutral on this subject because we ourselves are divided and expect the people of Canada to look to us for leadership. We have seen this afternoon an example of the kind of leadership that this country needs, and I commend it to the government.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill concerning abortion and in this regard, Mr. Speaker, I shall talk about patriotism.
One has to be a good patriot to fight abortion. To be a patriot is to represent positively people in the surroundings in which they live. It also means to help pregnant women bring their children into the world instead of destroying them. We all know that, of all creatures, only human beings destroy their progeniture before its birth.
To be a good citizen means to fight abortion with all our power, because our children are our inheritance. Where are we going if we do not fight abortion? In the beautiful province of Quebec, we have reached the point of zero growth as regards demography. Our society is largely contributing to this state of affairs. For instance, accommodations are too small or too expensive to meet the wishes of young couples to have a number of children legally wanted; usurious interest rates inhibit young couples who would like a home of their own. In short, in the present context, everything contributes to the fall of the birth rate.
We of the Social Credit Party of Canada believe that society should favour and encourage young couples who would like to have children and that these couples should be able to develop according to their own wishes in a society that respects itself and favours the blooming of life in every way.
To sum it up, I say that our country means our children, and we are losing it by allowing abortion.


Miss Monique Begin (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, to be fair to my colleagues who would like also to express their views I shall try to be as brief as possible and to omit a few paragraphs.
Very often, Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to take position on the abortion issue. In fact, to be honest, I must say that I do not like to discuss this matter. However, I shall not find it difficult to outline and defend the position I took on this serious problem of abortion. This is a distinction that makes all the difference in the world. A theoretical, logical type of debate referring to philosophy, ethics, biology or theology does not seem desirable nor possible to me. Furthermore, I never use this kind of intellectual approach to abortion-even if it gives rise to lengthy and exciting intellectual discussions for some people-I consider it above all as a concrete, acute and frightening problem that tens of thousands of Canadian women from 14 to 50 are facing each year without any help or hope. And this, Mr. Speaker, I cannot tolerate or consider normal. My position is practical and not intellectual. I do not understand men, and very often some of my colleagues who logically relate their views on capital punishment to abortion. Those two subjects have nothing in common, if not a moral and highly emotional dimension, but their premises are basically different.
January 28, 1975

I think my position is known as I co-signed in 1970 the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada. Under the title "Responsible Parenthood" in the chapter entitled "Women and the Family" and not in the chapter dealing with criminal law, we clearly established the relationship between the self-accomplishment and the slavery of women depending on whether the birth of their children was accepted or acceptable or was a physical or other constraint, sometimes even unbearable. We discussed the happy or disastrous effects of motherhood on women, couples, children, of course, and society as a whole. All this work was based on the many briefs and testimonies received all across Canada during our public auditions. The recommendations of the report to Parliament read as follows:
We recommend that the Criminal Code be amended to permit abortion by a qualified medical practitioner on the sole request of any woman who has been pregnant for 12 weeks or less. We recommend that the Criminal Code be amended to permit abortion by a qualified practitioner at the request of a woman pregnant for more than 12 weeks if the doctor is convinced that the continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the physical or mental health of the woman, or if there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would be greatly handicapped, either mentally or physically.
Those are recommendations Nos. 126 and 127.
I think I can confirm that the recommendations are the "smallest common denominator" the members of the Commission could reach. I endorsed them without misgivings. They correspond to a liberalization of our Criminal Code. However, I personally go a little further, and I think that abortion cannot and must not come within the provisions of the Criminal Code.
The facts of pregnancy are often far from what we wish to believe and see. Perhaps one cannot begin to understand until one has witnessed the misery and distress of a pregnant woman who cannot accept her condition, despite all the efforts and help of others. I have often thought that this is the kind of instance where reality perhaps gets to us only through someone close: a friend, a sister, a daughter, a wife, an acquaintance. When faced with human tragedy involving someone, some person whom one must help, great theories vanish quickly and one is surprised, disturbed and shocked to discover the unacceptable and dangerous situation thrust upon women in this country. Indeed, the current provisions of our Criminal Code lead to ambiguity. Besides, I could say the same thing about the section of private Bill C-219 now before us. I repeat that the current provisions lead to ambiguity and however restrictive may be the Code as to the legal aspect of abortion, it is still ten times worse in practice, for it requires bureaucratic procedures and an hospital organization which probably make abortion still more difficult.
We all know about the 1969 amendments to Canada's Criminal Code. It is clear now that one cannot rely on today's legislation to reduce either the number of illegal abortions or the number of deaths or unfortunate results that are brought about: sterility, etc. Any legislation that has more unfortunate than favourable results is bad legislation. Until today's legislation is amended, something like
100,000	Canadian women, perhaps more, of whom a few hundred will die, are bound to transgress it this year. We know all about it in the province of Quebec and even in Canada's metropolis, Montreal, where hypocrisy has
Abortion
reached a degree of absurdity, and I mean to say that it is easier to have the cost of an abortion performed in New York or elsewhere refunded by Medicare than the seek legal abortion as approved by one of our very few hospital committees. Now let us not make a secret of it: if there are many young girls anxious to get an abortion, national statistics in other countries corroborate what we know about this country. Most of the women who want or try to get an abortion are married and already have two or three children.
This leads me to expose those who consciously or not confuse the very serious public debate on abortion. The words "for" or "against" abortion are very inappropriate not to say irresponsible words. Nobody is "for" abortion. There is not one woman in Canada who would want an abortion just like that, on impulse and out of sheer wantonness. Women can give life: they are "for" life, not "for" abortion. However, contraceptive methods that would be absolutely safe and available, that could be used by any woman without any after-effects simply do not exist at the present time. There will be for a long time, surely too long, a great many cases of dangerous or intolerable pregnancies and frequent recourse to abortion.
Movements which are exploiting this problem emotionally and send us an abundant and very expensive publicity financed by sources I do not know, are liable to be accused of dishonesty, and their colour pictures as well as their brochures on the development of the foetus are aimed at handling public opinion. All these militants would do much more for Canadian families by asking their respective provinces to establish family planning hospitals so that pregnancies are the most deliberate and best possible choice.
Moveover, it is very difficult to discuss abortion without going into the much broader problem of birth control. And here, I shall recall quickly the fact that before 1969, for instance, six years ago, such hospitals were technically illegal in Canada. This is a measure of the progress made by the legislators, but when we see the extremely low number of hospitals, about 90, we are concerned about the irresponsibility of governmental authorities, particularly provincial authorities.
Birth control centres should be very varied in their form, as well as in their information techniques and population services. However, they can obtain federal aid only if they request it. In 1972-73, only $991,541 were allocated to this field for all Canada. In 1973-74, this figure increased to $1.25 million. Our own federal government reserves for its part 1 cent a year per woman of procreative age for publishing information on birth control. We should definitely re-think our priorities.
Mr. Speaker, I am nearly finished. My male colleagues often end a conversation on abortion by saying: "Fortunately, this does not concern me. I have nothing to do with this problem!" I always want to remind them that it usually takes two to make a baby. Even though in my opinion the decision concerning abortion involves only the woman since she alone must give birth and, unfortunately, too often raise her children alone, changes in the Criminal Code are the responsibility of the legislators of this Parliament, which includes 96.5 per cent men. As far as such a basic question is concerned, we have no right to let our

January 28, 1975
Abortion
personal fears and the general and vague anxiety created by these times of economic uncertainty lead us into taking reactionary attitudes.
The repeal of the matter of abortion in the Criminal Code, or at least its true liberalization, is an extremely urgent problem in Canada and one which concerns all of us. On this point, I entirely agree with all previous speakers. This issue concerns justice certainly, but it concerns compassion even more. This very beautiful word is often misused. Yet compassion means "to suffer with". In the "Dialogue des morts", Fenelon wrote: "Compassion is love that grieves for the sorrow of the loved one." This is the only valid position as concerns the abortion problem.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the proposed private member's bill of the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty), not to fill in time but to express a point of view which is not very often seen in print or heard in other areas of the media. It seems there is in Canada and other parts of the world today very few people who will stand up for their convictions against abortion and fight for the innocent unborn of our country. It is important; no, it is imperative that not only federal but also provincial and municipal representatives make their views known so there may be no misunderstanding of the importance placed on this dastardly act of abortion.
Abortion, no matter how you try to rationalize it, is murder. As Malcolm Watts, M.D., a militant pro-abortionist of intellectual integrity, wrote in the September, 1970 issue of "California Medicine":
-the curious avoidance of scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking of human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.
On too many occasions the views of anti-abortionists are labelled as following the direction of a certain church. It is too bad that, although this looks good to the pro-abortionist, as an isolated part of our Canadian community, it is not true, and if those who are in the abortion-on-demand camp believe this, they are in for a fight by people of many churches and convictions, and I will be in the middle of it, regardless of political consequences.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member had sat down before you stood up, and I asked that the question be put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I interrupted the hon. member because it was six o'clock and the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business had expired.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. member can confirm that he sat down prior to your standing up, and I think he had concluded his remarks.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Perhaps the House would agree to going back into the committee of the whole before calling it six o'clock.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-40, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act- Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Penner in the chair.
B. Keith Penner: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
B. Keith Penner: In order to clear any doubt with regard to the several proposals which have been put forward during the past few days it may be that the committee might wish to dispose of those proposals at this time. Members of the committee are aware of the fact that there were three proposals put forward by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth. Is it the understanding that, in the light of the amendments proposed by the minister earlier this afternoon, the committee will now agree that these proposals be dropped?


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Chairman, I understand that that would be agreeable.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: Next, there were two amendments that had been suggested by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. Again, in light of the amendments that have now been moved by the minister, it is suggested that both these proposals be dropped. Is that agreed?


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Chairman, I understand that by dropping those amendments and adopting the amendment which was proposed by the minister we will still have a chance to put forward subamendments.


B. Keith Penner: The amendments that are now being considered were proposed and circulated. What we are trying to do in committee at the moment is to attempt to bring some order into our procedure. What the hon.
January 28, 1975

member has suggested is quite correct. The amendments by the minister have been duly moved and read, and it is up to the committee to decide what further steps will be taken following that.


Mr. Cullen:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. You indicated that the amendments have been read. They were read and carried before the adjournment.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If hon. members will check Hansard, they will see that the amendments were carried. I am sure that the whip of the opposition would concur in that.


B. Keith Penner: It is quite correct that the committee can move further amendments. There is no bar to that at all.
The Chair is still not clear about the two amendments suggested by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. It has been suggested that they be dropped. Is that agreed?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 
B. Keith Penner: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: That brings us to the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. The Chair wishes to determine from the committee what is the wish concerning this amendment.


Mr. Symes:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that amendment and test the committee's views on it. I move, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting the word "twenty" in clause 21, subclause 2(11), page 11, line 29 and line 30, and substituting therefor the word "eighty-five" in lines 29 and 30.
This would have the effect of only allowing the 10 per cent tax to be imposed on motors and boats propelled by motors of 85 horsepower and over.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question regarding procedure. That particular section has been amended, and I assume that that would be an amendment to the amendment. I do not know if the hon. member's words fit into the amendment.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it would be an amendment to the amendment proposed by the minister.


B. Keith Penner: I think the Chair will be able to assist hon. members in this regard. The amendment in fact amends clause 21 as amended, and that is slightly different from what the hon. member has suggested.


Donald W. Munro: I think possibly my amendment to the amendment of this afternoon falls within the same general ambit. It concerns an amendment to clause 12, page 11, line 38 where it is stated that in the
Excise
absence of any clarification as to the class or classes of air services the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe. I move at this stage the addition of the following words: "Subject to affirmative resolution of parliament", because there is no clarification whatever.


B. Keith Penner: I would point out to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that the Chair is now dealing with the motion of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. If the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich will prepare his motion in writing for the table, it will be considered as soon as we have dealt with the motion of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to support very briefly the amendment of my colleague the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), by informing this House of a message I got from boat companies of my constituency. It is a telegram dated January 21 and sent on the same day to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury). I read this telegram hoping I shall convince my colleagues to preserve the small manufacturing industry of pleasure boats.

Hon. John Turner,
Minister of Finance, Ottawa.
Regret you were unable to visit Toronto boat show and meet many people dependent on boat manufacturing industry for their livelihood. Survey of show indicates drop in sales varying from 20 per cent to 50 per cent. Figure given to you in Ottawa estimated drop at 35 per cent in line. Association survey indicates extreme hostility and public resentment against this discriminatory and punitive taxation on small boats and motors. Manufacturing companies are being forced to reduce staff and labour immediately. Figure given to you in Ottawa eight to twelve thousand unemployed in twelve months is in line. Implore you for immediate action in rescinding excise tax to maintain employment and keep this industry a viable part of the Canadian economy.
D. J. Critton
President
Allied Boating Association of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, this morning, at the time when the Speaker of the House was having fun counting my colleagues, something which the Standing Order does not stipulate, I was meeting shipping officials of my riding who represent small French-Canadian companies which will have to compete with American concerns.
For your guidance, Mr. Chairman, at the Toronto Boat Show held recently, 75 per cent of all boats displayed came from American compagnies. If this tax is applied, our Canadian companies will in no way be able to compete against their American rivals. Our boats of 20 h.p. or more will bear a tax of 23.2 per cent. The amendment of my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie would protect especially the category which is most severely affected and which has no other means of paying the tax other than by

January 28, 1975
Excise
depriving itself of those crafts. I feel that the limit of 85 h.p. provided for in his amendment will still allow those of modest means to buy a boat without being penalized.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendment of the member for Sault-Sainte-Marie is welcome, that it will clear up the situation and will do justice to consumers and, above all, to small manufacturers in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) should not be here tonight because there are in his riding three boat companies which are similar to those which are found in my part of Canada: les Industries Espadon Inc. or the Sunray Boats Inc. In the riding of the President of the Treasury Board, these are Canots Cadorette, Saint-Maurice Canot and Bateaux Dorval. These three French-Canadian companies can be found in the minister's riding, who is absent from the House. Now, we can say that a member is absent, since the Speaker of the House himself has started this custom today.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) to consult with his colleagues, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, who gave grants helping to develop jobs in the boat industry and now impose an excise tax which will hit particularly small consumers and people with low income, will deprive them of the means to buy a pleasure item for a very short period, and, at the same time, will favour big consumers and particularly American business.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary had discussions with the President of the Treasury Board, or if the President of the Treasury Board, who is now absent, made representations about the three companies of his riding.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize to the Chair that several Liberal and Progressive Conservative members are absent from the House at the time when we debate on a vital industry. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I repeat that the Social Crediters have 40 per cent of their members in the House. We now may count the number of members in the House, given the attitude of the Speaker himself. Mr. Chairman, I know that it is not in keeping with the standing orders, but there is now a precedent. I think that it is important to note the presence of members, given the importance of the matters in question. This is why we are going to support the amendment of the member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Mr. Darling:: Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the minister-and I hope the parliamentary secretary is listening-for giving some consideration to the requests of members on all sides of the House to do something to alleviate what I feel was a very unfair tax on boats and motors. I understand now the hulls will be excluded, and that only the motors will be taxed.
I am certainly in full agreement with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie that there should be something in there to protect the small boat owners, those who use boats from 20 horse power to 85 horse power. I still feel, however, that the 85 horsepower limit does not compare too well with the high energy

tax on heavy cars. A 135 horsepower outboard motor costs in the neighbourhood of $3,000 to $3,500. If you put the manufacturer's cost at around $3,000, then there is the manufacturer's tax to go on that. That would mean about a $300 tax on one of the heavy outboard motors.
If you compare the tax on a heavy Cadillac car, which would be 10 per cent on anything in excess of 4,500 pounds, coming to about $195, or the tax on a heavy Buick, Oldsmo-bile or Electra which would be around $75, with a 90 horsepower motor selling at $2,000, the tax on the outboard motor would be about double that on the heavy car. This does not seem rational to me, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that the minister, with his grand mandarins and experts, will look into that and see how unfair is the tax. Why should automobiles get off with a much lighter tax when they are used 12 months of the year and boats, which are used only three months of the year, be subject to pay a much higher tax?
I concede that some consideration has been given to fishermen, hunters and trappers. It will be amazing to see how many fishermen, hunters and trappers there are in my riding from now on. Everybody will have to hunt for food because of high taxes, and they will have to fish as well.
There is probably already on the drawing boards, even tonight, a new, super 19.99 horsepower outboard motor which will be tax free. I see a member of the minister's staff smiling. How can we rationalize a $75 tax on a great big heavy $10,000 car against a $200 tax on a damned outboard? It does not add up, and I should like an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Fair is fair, Mr. Chairman. In a way, an outboard motor or boat is a luxury. It has been determined that the tax applies to pleasure craft. Mr. Chairman, I am sure there will be fewer pleasure craft right now than there were three hours ago before this matter came up.
I should like an answer. I see that the illustrious minister has returned to the chamber. How does he rationalize a tax of $75 on an Oldsmobile or Buick which weights 4,800 pounds, compared will a tax twice as great on an outboard motor which is to be used for three months of the year, sells for $2,500, and puts out 100 horsepower?


B. Keith Penner: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Symes) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 60.


B. Keith Penner: Before coming to the motion moved by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, may I direct the attention of the committee to the two proposals put forward by the hon. member for Moncton. I know that the hon. member is absent and it is suggested, therefore, that both his proposals should be submitted for the decision of the committee. Accordingly, the first question is on the following amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moncton:
That section 21, subsection (2) of Bill C-40, on page 11, lines 26 to 39, be amended by deleting clauses 11 and 12, and that the figures "11" and "12" in line 40 on page 11 be deleted in clause 13 thereof.
January 28, 1975

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said motion?
Amendment (Mr. Jones) negatived: Yeas, 6; nays, 60.


B. Keith Penner: The next question is on the following motion, also proposed by the hon. member for Moncton:
That section 21, subsection (2), of Bill C-40 be further amended by adding the following new subsections:
(9) If taxes previously imposed by this act have been paid on items
in hand and in inventory or stock in trade, then the distributor or
dealer having paid such taxes shall have the tax refunded or
remitted.
Amendment (Mr. Jones) negatived: Yeas, 29; nays, 61.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Chairman, on Friday last, as recorded on page 2597 of Hansard, I suggested that it was the duty of the minister to respond to my questions about the class or classes of air service which the Governor in Council is to prescribe as being subject to the provisions set out in subparagraph (12) on page 11 of the bill. In other words, what aircraft service will be subject to the proposed tax? To the best of my knowledge, although I have attended another committee all afternoon and was not present in this chamber, my question remains unanswered.
I still feel that it is the government's duty to clarify this question, if not now, at least before this order in council becomes operative. I therefore propose a new amendment. I suggest that the words "subject to an affirmative resolution by parliament" should be added after the word "regulation", on line 38, page 11 of Bill C-40. Subparagraph (12), if amended as I propose, would then read:
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, subject to an affirmative resolution by parliament, prescribe . ..
One should not be asked to pass a piece of legislation couched in the present vague language. If the minister is not happy with my suggested amendment, he might consider removing from the purview of the bill such class or classes of air services as the Governor in Council may prescribe. Let us not include that language in the bill. After all, we do not know if this provision will apply to aircraft engaged in civilian use. Will it apply to those engaged on timber cruising, on air-sea rescue, or on other commercial purposes? The House has a right to know these things, and the only way in which I can assure it is by having this clause inserted so that after the regulations have been written they will come back to the House for discussion and approval.
A carte blanche may be all right as a credit card but I have no intention of giving a credit card to the government. This is why I feel the amendment should be accepted, and I serve notice now that I shall take a similar position when we come to consider what appears on page 14 of the bill.


John Napier Turner: I am sorry that because of committee duties the hon. member was not able to be here this afternoon when I went over the matter in some
Excise
detail in response to his earlier remarks. I should like to draw the attention of the committee to this: what the hon. member is doing is trying to circumscribe not a tax regulation but an exemption. If he would read the clause carefully he will find he is at cross purposes with himself.


Donald W. Munro: You have a double negative in there.
Amendment (Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)) negatived: Yeas, 28; nays, 34.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 21, as amended, carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Earlier this evening there were references from the other side of the House to the amendments suggested by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. Unfortunately he is not able to be here just now, but I understand that one of the amendments he suggested has been accepted. In fact, the government has gone even further and applied what he requested to the whole of Canada. I understand, however, that the other amendment has not been dealt with as yet. I believe that, although he read both amendments into the record the other day, he did not actually move them. Therefore, on behalf of the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, I move:
That Bill C-40 be amended on page 11 in line 24 by deleting the word "two" and substituting therefor the word "seven".
I think I know what this does. It has to do with motorcycles. I hope the government will continue its good relations with the north and accept this amendment as it accepted the other.


B. Keith Penner: The understanding of the Chair is that both the amendments proposed by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories have, by agreement, been dropped. I gather that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is now proposing this one in his own name. Is that correct?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Obviously I am proposing it because I am here, but I am doing so on behalf of the hon. member for Northwest Territories. When, earlier, I agreed to the two amendments being dropped it was because I understood from the parliamentary secretary that all the points covered by the hon. member for Northwest Territories had been dealt with satisfactorily. The parliamentary secretary and the minister, if I may put them in that order, have told me since that only one of the points has been covered. That is my reason for moving, now, the amendment on the other point so that the committee could decide upon it.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)) negatived: Yeas, 8; nays, 76.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, as concerns clause 21 of Bill C-40 before the House, I want to say that last Thursday, I asked the minister a number of questions that have not been answered yet.
2690
January 28, 1975

Excise
As a matter of fact, it is well known that the Sunray Boat Company in Victoriaville, a furniture manufacturer, received a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Development for the development of a new plant and for the creation of new jobs. This plant employs several French-Canadians and uses domestic capital. This same company went to Toronto recently to take part in an exhibition called the Toronto Boat Show. The minister was invited but was unable to attend. He has received representations from the Allied Boating Association of Canada, and he knows that the boat sales have declined by 40 per cent this year as compared with last year, precisely on account of the report of this 10 per cent surtax.
Last Thursday, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) if, before he made such a suggestion, he had asked for the opinion of his colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) who has been striving every which way to create employment. Did the Minister of Finance actually confer with that minister? And if he did, what studies or conclusions did the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion use to justify a tax that will have the effect of preventing our Quebec manufacturers from competing with their American counterparts? Is the minister aware that goods of that industry are currently being dumped in Canada? Does he know that the Americans can compete with approximately 75 per cent of our market and therefore threaten our typical Quebec industry with annihilation, including every retailer attached to it in the Drummond constituency or any other Quebec constituency? And if the minister has conferred with his colleague can he tell us what their conclusions were? I would also like to ask him if he had any talks with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), his cabinet colleague: his riding includes three industries of a similar type, namely Canots Cadorette, Saint-Maurice Canots and Bateaux Dorval, which are similarly threatened with annihilation or with a serious slowdown of their employment and their production since they are unable to compete with American industries.
Mr. Chairman, it is most important before we dispose of clause 21 that the minister give us the assurance that he thoroughly assessed the impact of that tax before crushing small home industries, as was done before with the footwear industry and as is being done in the case of the furniture industry which has to face high scale dumping.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we are naturally bound by the tradition of Cabinet solidarity, but I must assure the hon. member that the amendments that were passed quickly this afternoon greatly solved the situation he mentions because we exempted the boats themselves from the special tax, which will apply only to motors. Therefore, the position of most of the manufacturers that he has mentioned has been improved. I believe that I even told this to the president of the company involved and I have the impression that even if he is not entirely satisfied with the fact that boats will be considered separately from motors for tax purposes, we have accomplished some progress in the direction he wished.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, before we vote on clause 21, I wonder whether the minister would make a statement with regard to the sales tax on building materials. I would

like him to explain why he chose to remove only partially the sales tax rather than go the whole way. The minister indicated this afternoon that to bring the sales tax down to zero, which is the original recommendation of the Progressive Conservatives, would cost an additional $380 million. In view of the slump in the housing industry at the present time and the hope that that industry may be stimulated by a sales tax reduction, can the minister indicate why he chose to go only part of the way and not the entire way so that we might have a zero tax on building materials?


John Napier Turner: Because of revenue implications, Mr. Chairman.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with clause 21(7) paragraph 6 on page 14. I have again run across this extraordinary omission on the part of the government to tell the committee what classes of aircraft or air services it is going to prescribe. I was told on the previous occasion that the minister was being kind to me by defeating the motion because it was the sort of double negative which works backward and involutes. Therefore, one never knows for sure whether the prescription on the excluding feature means that something is in or out. If it is as complicated as that, why could it not be put more clearly in the bill so that we know what classes are being excluded?
If classes of aircraft or services are excluded, that is one thing. Those that are not mentioned obviously are not excluded, but included. This seems to be a completely nonsensical way of drafting legislation. Therefore I wish to propose an amendment to page 14, line 11. Following the word "regulation" we should add "subject to affirmative resolution of parliament". Clause 21(8), Part XVII, paragraph 6 would then read:
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 subject to affirmative resolution of parliament prescribe.
I submit this as an amendment at this time.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-
Saanich)
Page 14, line 11, after "regulation" add: "subject to affirmative resolution of parliament"
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said amendment?
Amendment (Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich)) negatived: Yeas, 25; nays, 57.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Finance. Initially, when he proposed the 10 per cent tax on boats, he noted that this represented total revenues of $30 million for the federal government. Happily, he then proposed an amendment following pressures from both sides of this House to apply the tax to motors rather than to boats. Can the minister say what the revenue of the federal government will be with this new measure?
January 28, 1975


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) asked me the same question. I promised that I would provide him with some figures. I will do the same for the hon. member, since I do not have the figures with me.


André-Gilles Fortin: Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether he has discussed this new proposal with the Boat Manufacturers' Association of Canada?


John Napier Turner: Yes, it is obvious that boat manufacturers were more interested in obtaining an exemption for the boats even if the tax applies to motors.


Stan Darling: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister has talked to someone in the boatbuilding industry and rationalized the point that I was making earlier this evening. How can he justify the fact that the tax on, say, an Oldsmobile 98 or a Buick Electra is $75, and on a large outboard motor, say of 135 horsepower, it is $300, four times as much? Such a motor is used for three months in the year, whereas a car is used 12 months of the year, and we certainly appreciate which is going to burn the most gas. Would the minister give me his rationale here?


John Napier Turner: I spoke to that this afternoon and dealt with in some detail, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Hurlburt:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question regarding horsepower ratings. I feel there is some discrimination against people in eastern British Columbia and western Alberta since all horsepower ratings are taken at sea level, and in my area most of the lakes are at 3,000 to 4,000 feet elevation. When you leave sea level you lose anywhere from one and one-half to four horsepower per 1,000 feet, which means that in order to have the same power in their boat as someone at sea level, the people in my area have to buy a higher rated horsepower motor. The way I figure it, Mr. Chairman, the people in my area pay $16 more for their outboard motor than someone living at sea level.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have some difficulty responding to that, except to suggest to the hon. member that the altitude of the Ottawa Valley is starting to get to him.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 26 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

John Napier Turner: that Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill, C-49, is to implement the many important changes in personal and corporate income tax provisions proposed in my
Income Tax
budget of November 18. A number of these amendments form an integral part of the measures put before the House to give effect to the basic thrust of economic policy contained in that budget.
Members will recall that the essential objective of the budget is to deal simultaneously with the twin problems of inflation and slower growth. It is aimed at stimulating increased output and productive capacity, both to lessen inflationary pressures and to maintain satisfactory economic performance. It is aimed at reducing the real impact of inflation on Canadians and sustaining economic growth by moderating the prices of certain particular products, by maintaining real incomes, particularly of those Canadians least able to protect themselves against the rising cost of living, and by helping to stem the erosion in the value of savings.
I might point out to hon. members, in passing, that a number of other countries have also recognized that we must deal simultaneously with the problems of inflation and slow growth, the most recent being the United States' administration.
Several of the measures proposed in this bill, as in other bills giving effect to the budget, will serve a twofold purpose in meeting our objective. For example, the substantial income tax cut proposed for 1975, together with the automatic decrease provided through indexation, will reduce personal income taxes otherwise payable by more than 15 per cent. This will have a significant effect in moderating the impact of inflation on Canadian families and, by sustaining their real purchasing power, will also help to sustain real economic growth.
Similarly the measures to protect and encourage savings, such as the $1,000 exemption for interest, dividend and private pension income, and contributions of up to $1,000 annually to the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan, will help both to offset the adverse impact of inflation on Canadians and to provide the funds required to finance the increased capital investment so essential to maintaining the healthy growth of our economy.
To strengthen the position of incorporated small businesses, which form such an important part of our economy, the bill incorporates the proposal first put forward in the May budget, and reintroduced in November, to increase the annual limit on profits taxed at the low small business rate from $50,000 to $100,000, and the cumulative limit from $400,000 to $500,000.
To provide part of the additional revenues we consider necessary to maintain the proper fiscal balance in the months ahead, the bill also gives effect to measures proposed in the budget for increased income taxes, such as the 10 per cent surtax from May of 1974 to April of next year on profits of corporations other than small business, manufacturers and processors, and mining and petroleum companies.
In addition the bill also proposes new rules relating to corporate reorganizations, foreign income and other areas as part of the continuing process of tax reform.
I do not think there is any need to take the time of the House at this stage to elaborate further on the many
28626-36)4

January 28, 1975
Income Tax
amendments to the Income Tax Act contained in this bill covering the areas to which I have already referred.
I would like instead to deal at some length with the amendments relating to the taxation of the production income of the petroleum and mining industries, which have been the major source of controversy.
Since I brought down the November budget there has been a great deal of debate over the whole question of resource taxation in this House, and in the country. A considerable amount of time was also spent during the two-day conference of federal and provincial finance ministers in Ottawa early in December threshing out this same problem.
As I told provincial ministers attending that conference, however, much of the debate has been over issues that, in my opinion, are peripheral or irrelevant. There has been virtually no discussion whatever over what I consider to be the core issue. That issue is what constitutes a fair sharing of revenue from petroleum and mining as between industry, the provinces and the federal government.
During the course of the conference a number of provincial ministers acknowledged that in the end what the dispute boils down to is a matter of dollars, not dialectics. There has even been some passing acknowledgement among opposition members in this House that this is the heart of the issue. But no provincial government and no opposition party has, to my knowledge, yet revealed what it considers to be a fair sharing of production income between industry, the provinces and the federal government.
Before I come to this central question, however, I would like to comment on some of the other issues raised in the debate which, as I have already suggested, are largely peripheral or irrelevant.
First let me deal with the contention that through the resource measures proposed in the May and November budgets the federal government deliberately embarked on a confrontation with the provinces by deciding, unilaterally and without consultation, to disallow the deductibility of royalties, and in the process breached the agreement reached by first ministers at the conference last March.
Traditionally royalties imposed by the provinces have been a flat and moderate charge against a unit of production. It was the provinces, not the federal government, which first took the initiative over a period of several months in radically altering this traditional practice. They did so unilaterally and without prior consultation with the federal government. Through a' wide variety of new levies the provinces took steps to substantially increase their own share of resource production income and, as a consequence, drastically reduced the share going to the federal government. Whatever their form, many of these charges were, in reality, thinly disguised income taxes, and income taxes customarily have not been deductible since Confederation.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pointed out during the budget debate, the federal government sought without success to initiate a discussion of the whole question of resource revenue sharing during the first ministers' conference last January. In subsequent discussions and letters following that first conference and preceding the

March conference, the Prime Minister made abundantly clear the federal government's concern over the impact of these new provincial resource levies in eroding the federal tax base. He wrote:
We feel that we must preserve the effectiveness of the federal taxing power to raise needed federal revenues. Any action taken or contemplated by the provinces with regard to royalties,
Then he added:
-has to be regarded as being without prejudice to our freedom of action as regards federal taxation.
In the face of this pre-emptive action by the provinces the federal government found itself left with no alternative but to propose measures to parliament aimed at protecting the position of the federal treasury. These measures did not in themselves reduce the return to the provinces. They served only to prevent the provincial levies from undermining the federal treasury. Of course those proposals were first announced to the House of Commons in the budget in keeping with the time-honoured parliamentary practice.
From the train of events I have just outlined it should be apparent that the federal government did not at any time precipitate a confrontation with the provinces, nor did it violate either the letter or the spirit of the agreement arrived at by the first ministers at the conference on March 27. The provinces were fully forewarned before that conference of the federal government's determination to protect its tax base from erosion by new provincial charges. Furthermore, the question of the relationship of federal and provincial resource taxes never formed any part of that agreement, with the result that the budget proposals could not in any way be construed as a breach of the agreement.
Now I want to take up the suggestion that our various calculations on the relative shares of petroleum revenue going to industry, the provinces and the federal government under varying circumstances have been misleading because they failed to take account of the charge imposed on oil exports to the United States. Underlying this point of contention is the strong feeling in some quarters that the full world price should be paid for Canadian oil by consumers both at home and abroad, with the vast bulk of the resulting revenues being shared between the petroleum-producing companies and the provinces in which they are located.
The federal government has recognized for some considerable time that over the longer term an orderly increase in the price of petroleum would be necessary both to promote the development of new, higher cost supplies in the provinces, the north and offshore, and as a means of conserving supplies. But neither the government nor any opposition party in this House considered that the price for domestic oil sold in Canada should be determined solely on the basis of a world price established by a tightly-knit international cartel without any relationship to international competitive forces.
Along with every party in this House, the first ministers at their conference last March recognized the essential need to shield the Canadian people from the harsh impact being felt in other countries due to the abrupt and massive increase that was taking place in oil costs abroad. Members will recall that at that conference first ministers
January 28, 1975

agreed unanimously that a single national price of $6.50 a barrel should be established for a 15-month period to the end of June of the following year. I do not think anyone here would deny that that accord, based as it was on the fundamental principle of a reasonable sharing of the benefits and burdens of Confederation, has been very beneficial for Canada and for the Canadian people.
As a mechanism for implementing this single national price policy, it was agreed by first ministers that the funds derived from the export charge should be employed to cushion the price of high cost oil imported into Eastern Canada, and other oil-related costs. The federal government is not a beneficiary of this charge. In effect it acts only as a conduit for passing these benefits on to consumers in Eastern Canada, and to provinces qualifying for increased equalization payments.
Furthermore, the export charge is relatively short-term in nature, and the revenues produced from it will steadily diminish as the Canadian price moves more closely toward the international price and our exports to the United States decline. The export charge, therefore, is not a significant factor to be taken into account in considering the sharing of production income from petroleum over the balance of the current decade and beyond.
Let me turn now to the constitutional argument, namely, that our decision to disallow deduction of royalties and other similar levies infringes on provincial ownership and jurisdiction over natural resources and, as such, constitutes an attack on one of the cornerstones of Confederation.
As I emphasized in the budget, the federal government does not for a moment dispute provincial ownership and jurisdiction over resources. But provincial ownership and jurisdiction does not in any way preclude the right of the federal government to tax enterprises doing business in Canada, wherever located and whatever the nature of their business.
From our point of view the question of the deductibility of provincial royalties raises a very practical problem, not a constitutional, legal or philosophical problem. We would have been more than happy if we could have achieved the same financial result for the federal government by other means than disallowing the deductibility of royalties. However, the fact is that we could not conceive of any other practical way of achieving that result. I would like to provide the House with a few figures to illustrate this essential point. But before doing so I want to put the matter briefly in some historical perspective.
Over a period of many years, and especially since the second world war, the federal government, and through it the Canadian people, agreed to forgo a substantial amount of revenue from resource companies as a result of generous tax incentives provided to encourage the development of these industries and the provinces in which they were located.
Up to the end of 1973 only a handful of petroleum companies were paying any corporate taxes. Between 1947 and 1953 they paid less than $500 million to the federal treasury, while the provinces collected ten times as much, some $5 billion, through various kinds of levies.
Income Tax
Furthermore, millions of Canadian consumers also helped to foster the development of the domestic petroleum industry under the national oil policy, in effect from 1961 until very recently, by providing a guaranteed market for the western Canadian oil at above world prices. Between the time when the tax reform came into effect on January 1, 1972, and the end of the first quarter of 1974 there was a gradual increase in Canadian petroleum prices. The federal government's share of petroleum production income was running at around 5 per cent, and the provincial share, including royalties and provincial corporation taxes, was running at around 22 per cent.
In April of last year the price of Canadian oil was increased from around $3.80 a barrel to $6.50 a barrel as a result of the agreement reached at the first ministers' conference on March 27. If the existing provincial royalty systems had remained unchanged, the share of production revenue going to provincial governments would have increased to around 31 per cent-the share to the federal government would have increased to about 13 per cent. As a result, the government of Canada on behalf of the Canadian people as a whole would have begun to approach a fairer return from the growing profits yielded by higher prices and the advanced development of the petroleum industry. This prospect was radically altered, however, by the move of several of the provinces to increase substantially their taxes, royalties and other levies on the petroleum companies.
Alberta introduced an incremental royalty which average 65 per cent of the increased price of oil. Saskatchewan introduced a royalty equivalent to 100 per cent of the increased price. B.C. proposed new and heavy royalties on oil, and announced that the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation would appropriate most of any increase in the price of gas.
Now let me go back to my contention that there is no practical way by which the federal government could receive a fair and reasonable share of resource revenue other than by disallowing the deduction of royalties.
If the federal government maintained the existing tax system unchanged, which of course provides for the deductibility of provincial royalties, the interaction of the increased oil price and vastly increased provincial levies in effect before the budget would have drastically eroded the federal corporate tax base.
For the last nine months of 1974 the federal share of petroleum production revenue would have been slashed from 13 to 6 per cent, while the provincial share would have jumped from 31 to 42 per cent. Over the period to the end of the decade the federal share would have averaged only 8 per cent. Industry's share would have amounted to around 45 per cent, and the largest share-47 per cent- would have gone to the provinces.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, we agreed to allow the continued deductibility of provincial royalties but were foolish enough to abolish all other tax incentives extended to the petroleum industry, and taxed the companies at the standard corporate rate. In that case we would still fall far short of achieving what we consider a fair and reasonable share of resource revenue for the federal government. In those circumstances, leaving royalties deduct-

January 28, 1975
Income Tax
ible but eliminating all other incentives to industry, as some hon. members suggested, the federal share of production income earned in Alberta would be only 12 per cent, while in Saskatchewan it would be no more than 3 to 4 per cent.
If there is any remaining doubt in the minds of hon. members about the drastic way in which provincial action can erode the tax base of the federal government, let me provide another very revealing illustration. Suppose the oil royalty system put into effect by Saskatchewan prior to the November budget were adopted by other provinces. In that case the federal government's share of petroleum income under its existing tax system would have plummeted to less than 1 per cent! By contrast, the provincial share at today's prices would have been at least 60 per cent, and at world prices it would amount to around 80 per cent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, every other party in this House believes that the federal government is entitled to receive a fair and reasonable share of income from resource companies for the benefit of all the Canadian people.
In an interview in the Financial Post on June 29 of this year, the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Stanfield), clearly indicated his conviction that the federal government has a responsibility to take action when he said:
... if some provinces are trying to take too much or are eroding in a significant, or improper, way the tax revenues of the federal government or the right of the federal government to share in the profits of those corporations.
That stand is very consistent with the view which his government submitted to a federal-provincial conference in November 1963-when he was still premier of Nova Scotia-on the principles of fiscal arrangements between the two levels of government. In the light of the disparity in natural resources and economic development in the various provinces, his government said:
The federal government must retain a sufficient portion of the tax fields in Canada to enable it to discharge its direct constitutional responsibilities and to assist provinces with low tax potential so as to enable them to furnish a national standard of services to the Canadian citizens residing within their boundaries.
I do not quarrel with one word that the Leader of the Opposition uttered when he was premier of Nova Scotia-


Donald W. Munro: The key word is tax, not expropriation.


John Napier Turner: Speaking in the budget debate on November 27, the NDP leader in the Commons, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), said that the need for a strong federal government to deal with many of the problems which are national in scope "is beyond argument". He maintained that the right of all Canadians to a right to share in the benefits of the natural resources of this country was "so self-evident and so simple in principle" that no one-not even the provinces- were arguing against it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that brings us to the crux of the matter. Opposition spokesmen pay lip service to the principle of ensuring that the federal government receives a fair and reasonable share of resource income, but where do

they stand in practice? What do they consider to be fair and reasonable? As the Prime Minister said in his speech earlier in this Parliament, they will not tell us. Now is an opportunity for them in this debate to let us know where they stand, because we have to deal with these issues on a clause by clause basis.
The House is entitled to know. Does the Conservative Party subscribe to Alberta's original stand that the federal government-and through it the Canadian people-should be content to receive no more than the 6 to 8 per cent that would be its share if it maintained the resource taxation system unchanged? Do members of the New Democratic Party in this House subscribe to Premier Blakeney's apparent view of what constitutes a fair share for the federal government, something between 1 per cent and 4 per cent? If that is so, now is the time for them to rise and let the Canadian people know how they propose to handle the national politics of this country.
I would like to suggest to members of the New Democratic Party that there is simply no way in which they can reconcile their position in favour of the maintenance of a strong federal government and their support for the share of resource income that would go to the federal government under the kind of tax regime advocated by the Saskatchewan premier. In no way can one reconcile those two positions. It is worth recalling, Mr. Speaker, that the day after the budget last May the then Leader of the New Democratic Party derided the resource taxation proposals as "a laugh". This was Mr. David Lewis, then the hon. member for York South. He said:
Sure, the corporations will complain publicly. Surely they will object to the loss of some of their gains, but I am certain that when their presidents and directors went to bed last night they included John Turner in their prayers.
That is beautiful language, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: You needed the prayers.


John Napier Turner: I can say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I need all the prayers and all the help I can get. But still I have to accept the statement at face value because, as my colleague, the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) says, that statement bears the rectitude of a dying declaration.
I readily acknowledge that there are no absolute standards by which to determine what constitutes a fair and reasonable sharing of resource revenue as between industry, the provinces and the federal government. As I told the finance ministers' conference:
... in the final analysis that decision must involve a matter of judgment-a matter to be resolved by compromise between the three parties concerned.
Obviously the foremost consideration must be the maintenance of strong and viable resource industries.
January 28, 1975


Mr. Andre:: When are we going to have some policies to back that up?


John Napier Turner: It is vitally important that the companies should be able to earn a return that is sufficient to compensate them adequately for the risks they incur and to generate the funds required to meet the high cost of finding, developing and delivering the resources we will require in the future. It is clear, however, that there is a proper balance to be struck.
In the May budget I proposed changes in resource taxation which would increase the federal share of production income over that which would be yielded by the interaction of the existing tax system and the new system of resource levies established by the provinces.
During the intervening months leading up to the November budget we undertook extensive discussions with the provinces and the resource industries as part of a careful re-examination of our position.
We recognized that the outlook for the future supply of petroleum had become more uncertain and that, in the case of both petroleum and mining, the prospective costs of exploration and development had escalated significantly. For these reasons, therefore, we concluded that it was necessary to ensure that an increased share of production income was made available to the companies to enable them to finance these undertakings.
This brings us to the heart of the issue, namely, to what extent governments should pull back in total to provide industry with sufficient revenue to do its job and to what extent each level of government should pull back.
It is obvious that there is much more scope for adjustment by the provinces than by the federal government. In the case of petroluem, for example, the provinces between 1974 and 1979 would collect $22 billion from royalties and other levies, 53 per cent of production income, while under the May proposals the federal government would have collected only $9.5 billion, 23 per cent of production income.


Harvie Andre: That is not including the export tax.


John Napier Turner: I dealt with the export tax before the hon. member slid in through the curtains.
Nevertheless, in the November budget I indicated the federal government's readiness to pull back significantly. I proposed a two-stage reduction in the federal corporate tax on petroleum companies from 30 per cent to 25 per cent by 1976, and restoration of the 100 per cent write-off for exploration expenditures incurred by mining and petroleum companies from the 30 per cent rate proposed in May. By comparison with the May budget proposals, these measures would improve the position of the oil and gas companies in 1974 by around $100 million, and the mining companies by $15 million. On balance the resource industries would be about 25 per cent better off in 1974 than would be the case under the May measures.
Over the period from 1974 to 1979, the effect of these November measures would be to reduce the federal share of petroleum production income to 18 per cent from the 23 per cent share that would have resulted from the May proposals. The industry share of production income would increase from around 24 per cent to 29 per cent, and the provincial share would remain unchanged at around 53 per cent. Over the six-year period the federal share of revenues would be reduced from the $9.5 billion that would have resulted from the May measures to $7.5 billion-a
Income Tax
decrease of $2 billion. It should be apparent, therefore, that in both relative and absolute terms we pulled back very substantially.
Members will recall that at the conclusion of my remarks on resources in the November budget I appealed to the provinces to fulfil their heavy responsibility to the resource industries by doing their part to ensure that they obtained sufficient revenue to find and develop the new mineral and petroleum supplies we need for the future.
As I have already indicated on previous occasions, I very much welcome the responsible and responsive decision subsequently adopted by the Alberta government also to pull back substantially so as to ensure achievement of the objective we both share. While it has inevitably taken time, I believe that in the end the two levels of government have acted in that spirit of compromise and co-operation that has served to maintain the strength of confederation over the years.
The full extent to which Alberta plans to draw back is not yet known because the provincial government has announced its intention of consulting with the petroleum industry before determining what reduction will be made in its supplementary royalty rate on existing crude oil production if, as, and when the price rises above the existing level of $6.50 a barrel. Nevertheless, the changes in the Alberta system of levies already announced provide significant concessions, putting an additional $2*/2 billion into the pocket of the petroleum industries during the period from 1974 to 1979.
Taken together the federal and Alberta proposals would increase the cash flow of the petroleum companies by around $4'/2 billion to a total of about $14.7 billion between 1974 and the end of the decade. At the same time their share of production income would increase from approximately 29 per cent to 35 Vi per cent.
I am also pleased that the British Columbia government has indicated its readiness to take at least some modest steps to improve the financial position of natural gas producers in that province. We are happy to co-operate in working out arrangements between the two levels of government that will facilitate this development.
As I indicated to the House previously, I have been giving consideration to the question raised about the possible impact of the new resource taxation system proposed in the budget on the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. It is my understanding that gas acquired by the corporation both from Alberta and from within the province is supplied to Saskatchewan consumers essentially at cost after provision for its own administrative, operational and debt expenses. Assuming that to be the case, no element of royalty or similar levy by the province is involved, with the result that the Saskatchewan Power Corporation should not be affected by the fair market value rule contained in the bill now before the House. Since there has been some doubt regarding the meaning of "fair market value" in specific circumstances, I should like to advise the House that I intend to introduce a clarifying amendment.
From all that I have said, Madam Speaker, it will be evident to the House that in our judgment the federal share of production income that would be yielded by the

January 28, 1975
Income Tax
proposed new system of taxation of production income from mining and petroleum operations in the provinces is fair and reasonable. The steps taken subsequent to the budget by the provinces, particularly Alberta, also go some way to help ensure that a fair and reasonable share of production income is made available to the petroleum industry. We are co-operating with all three western provinces to establish a rebate program through the collection system that will facilitate an improvement in the financial position of the petroleum companies in a variety of ways.
I recognize, of course, that there are still other important issues relating to petroleum that remain to be resolved. There is, for example, the vital question of the extent and timing of any future increase in the prices of oil and natural gas, a question that undoubtedly will be of paramount concern during the meeting of federal and provincial first ministers in April. Crucial decisions also need to be reached on the over-all fiscal regime that will apply to resources in the frontier areas. While both of these issues are difficult and complex, I would hope they can be resolved satisfactorily within a reasonable time.


Harvie Andre: What about the principal business test?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) has asked what the allocation of revenue is under the principal business tests. Madam Speaker, that is what we are working out with the provinces. There is some dislocation affecting Alberta on the application of the test.
I have spoken in general terms, Madam Speaker. We will get down to discussion on second reading of the general principle affecting the budget, affecting particularly the resource industries, which provoked so much interest subsequent to the budget. We shall examine the bill clause by clause in committee of the whole, and I will be glad to discuss in detail, as hon. members expect, these measures, before they are put to a final vote.


Mr. Bawden:: Madam Speaker, will the minister permit a question?


John Napier Turner: By all means.


Peter Colwell Bawden: The minister elaborated on the government's backtracking and concessions. He complimented the Alberta government and said that the Saskatchewan and British Columbia governments have made concessions which will result in billions of dollars going back to the petroleum industry. Even though concessions have been made, does he not know that capital, people and machinery relating to the oil industry are leaving Canada as quickly as they can, for other countries? Is he aware of this? Second, since I think he is, does he not think that perhaps insufficient incentives have been given to encourage the petroleum industry in order to bring the level of petroleum exploration up to the level he thinks it should reach in Canada?


Mr. Peters:: Are you referring to your own company?


John Napier Turner: Madam Speaker, I have met, as the hon. member knows, with the drillers, with the 
Canadian independents, and with the international companies, and I am aware of the uncertainty that has been prevalent in the industry for the last 18 months. I suggest that part of the uncertainty derives from provincial initiatives; some of it derives from federal responses, and some of it from the extreme cost escalation in the industry. A good deal of it derives from the international uncertainty provoked by the operations of the oil cartel in the OPEC countries.
I said yesterday, in Toronto, that I hope that as a result of the meeting of first ministers in April and the preparations prior to that meeting, we can provide some certainty for the petroleum industry, indeed for the resource industry for the next ten years, so that those industries can undertake with confidence the risks of plowing in investments and bringing out the resources which we need for self-sufficiency, if we can obtain, by way of agreement, some stability in three areas-the first is taxation; the second, pricing; and the third, stability of markets. Without having argued the basis of the hon. member's general question, I have responded to him in a tone which I think he has the good sense to appreciate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, it is important to consider Bill C-49 in its proper context. This bill is the most important to have arisen from the budget speeches which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) made on May 6 and November 18 of last year.
The bill deals with the law relating to income tax. It is a lengthy bill of 286 pages. It contains 142 clauses. Most of its provisions, however, deal with proposed amendments which are technical matters. They are needed to correct the many imperfections in our income tax law and they arise from the needlesly massive revisions of the law undertaken by the government. In the main the proposed changes had better be dealt with in committee. But there is an important aspect of this legislation that should be fully debated in this House.
It is through the income tax legislation that the government receives most of its revenue-revenue which it, in turn, usually spends. To the extent that such revenue is lessened, government expenditures are lessened. In short, control the government's revenue and you control its spending habits. On the other hand, to the degree parliament permits excessive revenues to accrue to the government we facilitate future excess spending by that government. That is why we, of the official opposition, believe it is important that every member of this House should scrutinize the record of the government, and the record of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), before passing this bill which amends legislation that is so vital and fundamental to government spending plans.
For example, we should ask, has this government handled public funds responsibly and prudently in the past? Are the government's revenue forecasts reasonable? Have ministers done proper planning? Speaking generally, do
January 28, 1975

they even know where they are going? Most important, Madam Speaker, do they really need the taxes which they propose to levy on the average Canadian? The answer is, no. We have a big spending government and, to the degree its gushing revenues permit, it will continue to be a big spending government.
Former finance minister Benson was widely, and in many ways rightly criticized while in office. But, compared with the present finance minister, Mr. Benson showed the height of responsibility in fiscal matters. Look at the record.
In the four years previous to the present minister taking office, budgetary expenditures rose 49 per cent, to a 1972 total of $14.8 billion. In the current four-year period, if we include the Turner forecast as set out in the budget, for 1976 such expenditures will jump by 95 per cent to $28.8 billion. Most alarmingly one finds that personal income tax revenue since 1972, on the basis of the Minister of Finance's own figures, by 1976 will have risen 105 per cent. Considering the 95 per cent jump in government spending and the 105 per cent increase in personal income tax, how can the Minister of Finance state, as he did yesterday in Toronto, when referring to the last budget:
... We have attempted ... to stimulate growth through reductions in personal income and sales taxes, rather than through more inflationary increases in government expenditures.
Later in the same speech the minister had the gall, the nerve, to say this about his last budget:
I moved to inject additional stimulus into the economy in the least inflationary way by cutting taxes rather than by increasing government spending.
What a conversion on the part of a man who has tolerated the highest government spending in history. What an about face by a man who is now Minister of Finance and who has been a member of a government which has spent more money since 1968, the year this government took office, than has been spent at the federal level by all governments since confederation, that is in 100 years.
Did we really see a conversion on the part of the Minister of Finance in Toronto, or was he merely telling his audience what he thought they wanted to hear? If the Minister of Finance is sincere in wanting to curb government spending, if he truly believes taxes should be cut, he has not demonstrated his sincerity to date.
The personal income tax reductions contemplated in Bill C-49 are inadequate. The sales tax reductions, as set out in Bill C-40, and now passed, are unsatisfactory, considering Canada's present economic condition.
The economic outlook for 1975 indicates that the Canadian growth in real gross national product will be marginal, probably not greater than half our capability. Residential construction will fall in real terms by 16 per cent, exports will fall by 3 per cent, and inflation will remain at over 10 per cent. Unemployment will hover in the 7 per cent range. These are not my figures. They are figures prepared by the Institute for Policy Analysis of the University of Toronto, and they are alarming.
If the Minister of Finance continues to take no lead at the federal level to defeat inflation, we may well find that
Income Tax
in future years the 10 per cent inflation rate of 1975 will become the platform for even higher inflationary levels. Here again the Minister of Finance appears to be in the process of a conversion. Dealing with inflation, he now speaks about a program to be voluntarily supported in a national effort to gear down the rate of inflation. To date we have not learned any detail with respect to the program. We have not learned exactly what he has in mind. Instead, he appears to be stalking industry, stalking labour, looking for ideas, holding consultations and discussions.
It may be that the Minister of Finance is working on a prices and incomes policy. It may be that he intends to set some guidelines, or even to propose a social contract concept between the government and the private sector. However, to date he has not indicated what are his intentions.
Perhaps he will be the first Minister of Finance to hold such discussions with the private sector and yet not tell us what he is doing. In short, it may be that these ongoing dialogues are little more than an operation to fill in time. Perhaps the minister is waiting for the learned group of seven, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his six private advisers, to tell him what to do. So far, however, it has not been anything but pretty talk without even a pretty case.
It is time the minister became frank with the Canadian public. At these floating discussion group meetings what guidelines does he propose for price increases? What guidelines does he propose for wage increases? To what extent is he encouraging productivity in our economy? What incentive does he propose to ensure there will be greater productivity? What recommendations is he making with respect to improving Canada's export position? In short, does the minister intend to propose any anti-inflationary program or does he intend to extend three years of drifting with the economic currents to four years of rudderless indecision?
When we review the record of the Minister of Finance we find that his three years in office have been more froth than substance. They have been years of rhetoric rather than performance. Today, he has been Minister of Finance for three years. I do not imagine he is celebrating. Certainly the Canadian people do not have anything to celebrate. During those three years inflation has risen from an average rate of 2.9 per cent in 1971 to a current 10.9 per cent. A dollar today buys 78 cents in goods compared to a dollar in 1972. No one is hurt by such inflation more than the wage earner or salaried employee. His taxes are deducted from source and they keep rising, while the value of his take-home pay remains static.
In the third quarter of 1974 while personal income tax revenue rose a startling 28 per cent there was no real growth in the economy. In spite of this fact the Minister of Finance in his Toronto address yesterday lashed out at labour claiming that at the present time, to use his words:
The major driving force in inflation is coming from the rapid escalation of wage and salary costs as those who work press for increased incomes.
What a startling statement for any Minister of Finance to make.
Let me touch on unemployment insurance. Unemployment benefits paid through that commission in 1974 of

January 28, 1975
Income Tax
over $2 billion equalled the three-year payout before this minister took over from finance minister Benson. In the last three years the UIC has distributed $6 billion compared to $2 billion in the previous three years. The unemployment rate, however, has averaged 5.8 per cent in the Turner years compared to 5.7 per cent in the previous period.
From January, 1972, to the present, conventional mortgage interest rates have climbed from 9 per cent to 12 per cent, while house prices have jumped as high as 50 per cent, resulting in fewer and fewer persons being able to buy homes.
The reasons for our economic plight are easy to discern. Since the present Minister of Finance took the Canadian financial reins there has been real growth of less than 15 per cent, yet government spending has jumped 70 per cent, our money supply is up 56 per cent, and bank borrowings, including personal credit, are 82 per cent higher. Naturally this has produced inflation, inflation at the rate of 28.6 per cent.
Canada, with its abundance of natural resources and primary products, has been able to stand these increases better than could most other countries. We are one of the few developed nations which benefit from a worldwide boom in food and raw material prices. Without such resources Canada would have negative real growth at the present time instead of static real growth.
Canada will not be so fortunate in coming years. The magnitude of the government's ineptitude and mistakes will become evident. World commodity prices are falling as demand lessens. As a result our trade deficit in the current year will widen. Canada will have little real growth in 1975, yet inflation will rage on only slightly below current levels.
For the agile and fast thinkers 1975 may be a satisfactory year. Certainly, no one will benefit from rising unemployment. Some may benefit from inflation. For the majority of Canadians, however, inflation will continue to be a killer. It will continue to rob the pensioner, hurt the wage earner, discourage the young person trying to buy his first home, confiscate property, and it will confuse the investor who won't know which way to turn between recession on the one hand and government induced inflation on the other.
Public confidence must be restored. The Minister of Finance's mystery conferences with members of the private sector are not enough. Lack of candor and a lack of frankness on the part of the government will not restore such confidence.
Perhaps I have been too hard on the Minister of Finance. It may be that he has not been alone in creating our fiscal stew. We have learned of the existence of another economic advisory group in government. I refer to the Prime Minister's group of seven. Perhaps during debate on Bill C-49 we will learn more of the activities of this secretive group. What has been their input with respect to the November 18 budget or the May 6 budget? Clearly there has been some type of artist at work on these budgets. The results have been more impressionistic than realistic.
Could it be the true authors of these budgets are in the Prime Minister's office, or the Privy Council office? In

that event the Minister of Finance is just running the road show. He is Minister of Finance in name, while others prepare the budgets. He simply presents a budget on behalf of the other advisers and then tries to explain their deficiencies. We may in fact have something unique here-a phantom Minister of Finance.
We believe the tax reduction provisions in Bill C-49 are inadequate. They should be explained fully during the committee stage. We hope the Minister of Finance will be able to tell us why he refuses to give a substantial tax break to the Canadian public. They deserve it. It is clear, from his own figures, that he lifted an unnecessary $1 billion from the Canadian public in 1974. That was the year when direct personal taxes jumped a startling 27.6 per cent.
The minister proposes in Bill C-49 to increase the deduction with respect to personal income tax for 1975 and subsequent years by a mere 3 per cent. We believe this is not adequate. The deduction should be increased by a further 5 per cent and we intend to demand to know why it has not been increased by this further 5 per cent as a minimum, when we reach the committee stage. The amount of money which would accrue to the treasury under the present government suggestion, something in the order of $500 million, should properly be left with the taxpayers. If it is left with the government I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that the big spending ministers on the benches opposite will certainly get rid of the money, and the Minister of Finance will once again be obliged to whimper that he has been outvoted at cabinet meetings when he tries to impose restraint on government spending. Such government spending will be inflationary itself.
As I indicated in the debate on Bill C-40, we were disappointed that the government did not completely remove the sales tax on building materials. With housing starts slumping so dramatically it is hard to understand why the minister, or, for that matter, the group of seven, refused to eliminate the building material sales tax entirely. We are told it would have cost $380 million in lost federal revenue, but I can assure hon. members that it would have meant the saving of tremendous administrative costs, and, more important, it would have given housing a much-needed boost.
We believe the minister should explain why he refuses to index capital gains in response to inflation. The University of Toronto study to which I have referred, states:
Fiscal drag, which inflation would have generated with a tax transfer system without indexing, would have been sufficient to plunge the economy into recession in early 1975 unless offset by discretionary fiscal changes.
Indexing was an idea advanced by us. We intended that indexing should apply not just to incomes but also to the capital gains tax. We want to know why the minister has not seen fit to act along these lines. We find that the bulk of the minister's so-called tax concessions are the result of indexing, a Conservative proposal, and the partial removal of the sales tax on building materials-another Conservative proposal. The minister has adopted our ideas but he has carried them only part of the way. If the minister must copy our ideas let him do it accurately and fully.
January 28, 1975

Adjournment Debate BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The hon. gentleman spent a great deal of time dealing with the royalty question. I want to assure him that we are rigid in our view that the clauses in Bill C-49 dealing with the federal government's proposed encroachments into provincial royalty fields with respect to natural resources are unsatisfactory in their present form, and unacceptable to our party. Speaking generally, we hope the minister and the government to which he belongs will give up their tactic of confrontation in this important area. My hon. friend from Don Valley will have more to say on this matter during the course of the debate.
In the present inflationary period we believe business people should be given more equitable tax accounting treatment in respect to the carrying of their inventories and the replacement value of their assets. Again, this subject will be dealt with more fully during the committee stage.
Others in my caucus will be dealing with the inadequacies of Bill C-49. I refer, for example, to the housing measures which form part of this legislation. My hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands will deal with this aspect of the subject. My hon. friend from Prince Edward-Hastings will deal with our deteriorating export position and the failure of the 1974 budget to have any effect whatsoever on that worsening picture.
In conclusion may I say we agree with the minister's budget statement that, at the present time-
-the fiscal stimulus should come primarily from a further cut in taxes rather than from an additional increase in expenditures. I believe that tax cuts can help reduce prices and costs directly or indirectly and thus slow down the upward momentum of inflation. An indiscriminate or excessive increase in expenditures would exacerbate the pace of inflation.
We only hope the minister will match his words with meaningful deeds. It is not good enough for the government to say it will try to keep the increases in expenditure down to 15 per cent as the Minister of Finance has indicated. Let there be no doubt-if we in this House give the government excess revenue, the government will spend it whether the Minister of Finance tries to stop it or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is our duty to cut down the revenue available to this high-spending government. It is not sufficient for the minister to pretend he has made substantial tax cuts to the benefit of the Canadian people. In Toronto he made this statement-I notice he repeated it tonight:
As a result of the various tax benefits provided for in the November budget, as well as indexation, average income tax payable by Canadians in 1975 will be more than 15 per cent less than would otherwise be the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is a bit like a thief taking $100 from your pocket, handing back $15 and expecting you to thank him for not taking all of it.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


John Angus MacLean: Before we proceed with the adjournment debates perhaps I could ask the Minister of Finance whether it is the intention of the government to continue with this bill tomorrow, Bill C-49, or whether we shall revert to the discussion of Bill C-46, the housing bill?


John Napier Turner: Tomorrow we shall be dealing with Bill C-46. If that is disposed of we shall go back to Bill C-49. In any event we shall be discussing Bill C-49 on Thursday. The business for Friday has not yet been worked out between the House leaders.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Philip Bernard Rynard: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in the House tonight since I am once again raising the question of the necessity for establishing a school of tropical medicine in Toronto where there is a concentration of tropical visitors. In view of the great number of immigrants who came to Ontario in particular during the last few years, many from areas where cholera, intestinal parasites and infections run rampant, I sometimes wonder whether we living here realize the danger presented by these diseases.
In one area I visited some years ago I saw 19 infants die in a 24-hour period of gastro-intestinal infection. New diseases brought to Canada include whipworm, Chinese liver flukes, roundworm, and tapeworm. The great majority of immigrants, as I say, come to Ontario, with Toronto being the chief recipient. Many come here illegally, unknown to the authorities, and some perhaps even work in restaurants in that city.
Jet travel has enormously increased the spread of tropical disease. In the meantime we have not kept pace by training doctors or providing the lab facilities to handle the problem. For instance, two years ago 416 travellers returned from foreign countries with some infection. Since we have no school of tropical medicine we do not have enough doctors trained in this field to cope with the situation or to recognize such disease when they meet it. Consequently hundreds of these people run around in ill health and infect others.
I had a personal experience of a professional man who had visited the Middle East. When he came back he was seriously ill for some months. I got suspicious when he came to me that he may have had a tropical disease. We did stool cultures, he was treated and cleaned up. This cost a lot of money and health care.

January 28, 1975
Adjournment Debate
What do we demand of immigrants who work in restaurants? The first thing we demand is an X-ray. But how many of them have ever had a stool culture? I believe that when the Royal party visited Canada there were a few stool cultures done in some areas of Toronto, but why not a stool culture for everyone who handles food? Is it because we do not have the necessary facilities to do this that these are not done? This is the advice I have received.
As I have said, travellers are not checked on return from abroad. Nor are they advised by travel agents of the possibility of picking up some of these diseases in the places they visit. To indicate the rate of increase in such diseases, I understand there were around 350 infections in 1967; there were over 3,000 in 1974. We not only lack beds to treat these people, we lack the trained personnel. As a result it is likely that these diseases will continue to spread. As I say, many immigrants work in restaurants, and we owe it to ourselves to make sure they are given a stool examination.
I think it is only fair to mention that I understand a troop of players who were playing in Asia, as well as in Poland and Russia, returned to play at Stratford. They were found to have an infection which was nipped in the bud, and the troop went on to play at Stratford as scheduled. I also wonder about hockey teams, and other people who have gone over as spectators. How many of them have come back and are now carrying chronic infections? I wonder how many of them have been treated, and how much that treatment cost.
The jet age has introduced instant communication with all people of the world, most of whom have much lower hygienic standards than ours. This means we should use extreme caution in maintaining our health standards which are among the finest in the world.
I would suggest that the federal government require all immigrants, as well as individuals who return from travelling abroad, to report to local medical officers of health. I have not made reference to the hundred or so new cases of leprosy in the United States, or the fact that Bing Crosby, that well-known crooner, picked up a fungus while on safari in Africa which required an operation, following which he was released from hospital just a few days ago.
All of these things have taken place, but how much has the federal government given in aid to fight these diseases and solve these problems? How long will it be before the government establishes a department of tropical medicine in Toronto, where most of these cases occur, as a centre for all Canada where these cases can be treated?
By following this suggestion we would not only be keeping up our high standards of medicine and health care in this country, but also we would be preventing these diseases and cutting our OHIP health costs.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I always listen with great interest to the contributions to our debates by the hon. member, not only because of his experience in the House but obviously because of his professional expertise in the field of medicine.
The hon. member has talked about a certain problem which is and should be of concern to all of us, namely, the problem in respect of tropical diseases. In a previous

question directed to me by the hon. member he referred to "the galloping increases in tropical and parasitic diseases which has now gone beyond the ability of doctors to cope with."
It is true that in the last decade the number of reported cases of tropical diseases has increased, with the province of Ontario registering the biggest increase and the largest number of cases. It should also be noted that I am advised that no cases of the quarantineable diseases of small pox, cholera, yellow fever and plague were reported during the 1963 to 1973 period.
Observers feel that this increase is due to the increasing numbers of persons now travelling around the world and visiting Canada, and to the many Canadians returning home from abroad, such as tourists, missionaries, Canadian public servants, military personnel and representatives of agencies like CUSO and CIDA-I could go on and on.
I should like to say a word about the hon. member's question regarding precautions taken to make sure that travellers get proper medical advice and vaccination. Travellers proceeding abroad have recourse to current information provided through 23 medical travel information offices across Canada operated by the medical services branch of my department. In addition, my department publishes a comprehensive guide on immunization requirements and recommendations for international travellers. I would be pleased to provide the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) with revised versions, if he so wishes.
As for precautions taken to ensure that travellers are checked for proper vaccination when returning to Canada, travellers, returning from a country where certain diseases are prevalent will be asked for proof of vaccination against such diseases upon arrival at the place of re-entry to Canada. If such proof is not provided, vaccination is made available to them.
The hon. member also asked about what steps are being taken to increase the number of doctors in the field of tropical and parasitical diseases. The hon. member knows that the training of doctors falls within the provincial domain. The practice he has suggested is certainly one I have had in mind, and I intend to discuss it again with my colleagues.
I would like also to refer the hon. member for Simcoe North to the recent formation of the Tropical Medicine and International Health Division of the Canadian Public Health Association, which has resulted in an increased awareness and attention among health professionals to the diagnosis and understanding of tropical diseases.
In conclusion I would like to say that the government is aware of the problems posed by increasing numbers of international travellers and visitors to Canada. The Department of National Health and Welfare is consulting with the Department of Manpower and Immigration on measures that could be taken to protect the health of Canadians without impeding the free flow of travellers and visitors to Canada in the context of the present review of immigration legislation and policies.
January 28, 1975


CONSUMER AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF SUPPLY RINGS AND LIDS FOR MASON JARS TO PRESERVE FOOD-REASON FOR LACK OF PROTECTION FOR CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS
George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak about the shortage of lids for wide mouthed Mason jars in western Canada. I do so because I do not believe that the urgency of the question which I have put in the House regarding the shortage of such lids was fully appreciated by Mr. Speaker, by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and his department, by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and his department, and by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and his department.
The shortage of these lids in western Canada is very real. It developed first in 1973, but became a real problem in 1974. This matter must be solved now if we are to have a good supply of these lids in western Canada in 1975, because it is necessary to supply the steel plate to the manufacturers now to make it possible for the lid manufacturers to supply them in time for the canning season.
I realize that there are many people in eastern Canada who have not experienced this shortage and do not know how this whole matter could be solved. They believe that there is no urgency until the canning season comes around. However, if we are to have these supplies, now is the time to take action.
When I say that the shortage experienced in western Canada was real I should like to illustrate it by telling you a story of a constituent of mine who had 200 jars in his basement. During the canning season last summer he found that he did not have one lid for any of his jars. He spent some time and money calling the brokers, the wholesalers, across western Canada. He called every city in western Canada. Then he started calling eastern Canada, but he did not find any lids for his jars, until he was able to contact a broker in Montreal who had some of them. But then the problem was how to get them. It was not very easy.
The reason the shortage has developed over the years is that the suppliers of lids for wide mouthed Mason jars were in the United States. There are two suppliers in the U.S.-Kerr and Ball. They were able to supply the market because lower prices kept manufacturers from eastern Canada out of the western Canadian market.
There are two manufacturers in eastern Canada, Ber-nardin and Anchor Cap, but Canadian manufacturers cannot compete with those in the United States because of
Adjournment Debate
the policies of the government. Of course when a shortage of steel plate was developing in the United States in 1973-74, manufacturers there cut back on supplies to Canada. Manufacturers in eastern Canada did not have inventories of steel plate so they could not make the lids because they were still working on the quotas for the past three years.
My appeal is principally to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but I include the Minister of Agriculture because of the nature of the products being canned. He has been telling Canadians to produce food, but what is the use if the people of western Canada cannot get lids when they want to can the food they grow? Even the home gardener can help fight inflation by growing food, but he must be able to get the equipment when it is time to do the canning.
So I appeal to the department to do something to ensure that manufacturers in eastern Canada get the steel plate they need to manufacture the lids for western Canada where they are needed. We should not have to rely on foreign products; naturally when their production is low they cannot supply our demand.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have been advised that the Canadian manufacturer of lids for the wide-mouthed Mason jars has recently set up a second assembly line to increase their production.

A Canadian steel mill has also assured a sufficient supply of tinplate to cover this increased production which should satisfy all areas of the Canadian market.

At the present time, the tariff in that field is 17.5 per cent (most favored nation). The problem lies in the preference shown by a sector of public consumption for an American product rather that in the lack of protection given the Canadian manufacturer. When the American producer withdrew from the Canadian market, the Canadian manufacturer, who was producing at full capacity for his market, was unable to meet the sudden increase in the demand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The motion bearing to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 10.20 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, January 29, 1975