1971-11-25

Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 41(2) I ask leave to be permitted to table copies in French and English of the communique that was agreed to by all the Ministers of Agriculture in Canada.



FISHERIES


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent importance to the whole of Canada. The motion has to do with the conservation and protection of our marine resources and, because of the importance of the question, I sincerely trust it will receive the unanimous consent of the House. I might say that should it receive unanimous consent we would be prepared to have it dealt with without debate.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Lundrigan):
That the House commends the reference to the Fisheries Committee and the External Affairs Committee of the matter of conservation and protection of our marine resources and that the said committees be empowered to call witnesses and hear briefs pertaining thereto and, further, that the committees in question investigate the positive implications for Canada of the recent legislative move by the State of Massachusetts in extending its fish conservation and pollution boundaries 200 miles seaward.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador has proposed this motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. It requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.


Mr. Lundrigan:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in responding to Your Honour's inquiry concerning unanimous consent I respectfully submit that the members who said no did not hear the contents of that urgent and very
important motion which does not place anyone in the House in an embarrassing position by accepting it without debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that that is debate. The very purpose of the Standing Order is that, without debate, a member may seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion. I am sure the hon. member is not suggesting that the Chair should inquire whether all hon. members heard the motion and appreciate the contents thereof. I have to inquire whether there is unanimous consent. There is no unanimity. I am sure the hon. member has heard what I have heard, and therefore the motion cannot be put.



CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I wish to present a motion on a question of urgent importance. The urgency of the matter relates to the fact that the granting of pardons under the Criminal Records Act is a sham and a farce, and that it is imperative that amendments be effected to the Criminal Records Act at the earliest possible moment in order that the situation be rectified.
The present situation does not allow the elimination or eradication of a person's past criminal record. It does not remove his file from police files, and is no more than a general statement of the government's view which can be revoked at any time. In view of the fact that this was not the intention of the committee or of the House, I move:
That the Criminal Records Act be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in order that amendments can be proposed that will carry out the intention of the House with regard to the granting of pardons.
The motion is seconded by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales).


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
November 25, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question put on Tuesday by my hon. friend from Hamilton West the Prime Minister gave an answer involving serious accusations against Members of Parliament and members of the Public Service. Will the Prime Minister now tell the House if the investigations carried on with respect to the theft and/or leaks of cabinet and other confidential documents have progressed to the stage where it has been established that members of the Public Service and Members of Parliament are guilty as charged?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if we have such evidence it will not be put forth in a hypothetical manner as I did in my answer on Tuesday. If the hon. member wishes to look at the record he will see that I was saying that if such and such a thing happens-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -such and such consequences might follow. That is not an accusation, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: In light of the fact that I did look at the record very carefully, and in light of the Prime Minister's answer today and in view of his high position and, more important, his position as a member of this House, will he now withdraw the statement and the charges he made in the House on Tuesday last?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if there had been charges which I could not substantiate I would certainly withdraw them, but there were no charges.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Woolliams:: That is what I call mudslinging.



FINANCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding the $160 million special development loan program. In view of the fact that in the province of British Columbia the entire allocation of $21.7 million has already been applied for and there is still a long list of municipalities and, in addition, the two largest cities, Vancouver and Victoria, have not yet applied, and in view of the fact this would indicate there will not be sufficient money allocated to the province of British Columbia to meet the demands by the municipalities for capital works pro-

grams, is any consideration being given to increasing the amount of money, either the total amount of the fund or the amount allocated to British Columbia?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Not at this point, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister will recall that the original amount last year was $150 million and the government changed the formula slightly and increased the amount to $160 million. Has any consideration been given to changing the formula so that provinces like British Columbia would not have their allocation reduced as theirs has been from $39.8 million to $21.7 million?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that I shall table the method of calculation. This occurred in British Columbia because relatively the employment position there improved vis-a-vis other provinces. Last year there was a technical adjustment at the end in order to bring the figures up to date. At this point we have not considered making any such adjustment but we will take a look at the figures.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is some weeks since the minister promised to table those figures and it is difficult to be satisfied with the allocation until one sees the working papers. May I ask the minister when he intends to table the working papers?


Edgar John Benson: Very soon, Mr. Speaker.



SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM-PROVINCIAL USE OF FUNDS

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the previous question and is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that all the money allocated to British Columbia under the special loan development fund has now been used up, is the minister in a position to report to the House what the situation is for the other provinces?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will seek the information and inform the House and my hon. friend.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: My question arises out of a similar program announced at the same time and is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent announcement by his department that 30-year loans are available to exhibition boards for buildings and improvements and as the criteria for these loans cover only A and B class fairs-as an example, only six communities in the entire province of Manitoba qualify-is it the intention of the government to change the requirements so that class C fairs qualify and thus make this program available to more Canadians?
November 25, 1971


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in dealings with the fairs and exhibitions across the country the federal Department of Agriculture only deals with class A and B fairs. The provinces themselves deal with prize money and other grants to fairs from class C down. It seems to me that in the first instance we should be looking at least only at those with which we already have established relationships.


Mr. Hales:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the question asked was supplementary to the question asked previously.



JOINT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO CLASS C FAIRS

Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. So far as class C fairs are concerned, would he consider approaching the provincial authorities with a bilateral arrangement under which federal and provincial authorities could contribute together to assist class C fairs?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I could do that, Mr. Speaker, but of course the Minister of Finance has already, under many other programs, provided a great deal of money to the provinces, and I think most of it could be used for the fairs with which they have working relations now.


An hon. Member:: That is nothing but windowdressing.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Last Monday, I asked him a question about the Golden Eagle Company to which the federal government had apparently granted some $10 million to build a plant in St.Romuald.
Would the minister tell the House if, according to a federal-provincial agreement, the Quebec government has paid part of the cost of this plant?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the amount granted was not $10 million but $5 million and there is also a $5 million tax abatement under the former program.
As far as I know, the Province of Quebec has not paid part of the construction cost of this plant.
Inquiries of the Ministry



CLOSING OF CHEMCELL LIMITED-POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING NEW INDUSTRIES IN MONTMAGNY

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion a supplementary question on the same subject of the establishment of new industries.
Last week, I asked him a question about the development of new industries in Montmagny and he then implied that he would soon have good news to announce.
Could the minister say today whether new industries will be established in Montmagny in the near future in order to find jobs for the workers of the Chemcell soon to be laid off?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have good news. I don't know whether it is good news for the hon. member, but it is at least for the people of Montmagny. In fact, Consolidated Textile Ltd. have accepted the offer of a grant and will be establishing a plant at Montmagny, thus creating 150 jobs there and probably 300 after a few months of operation.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the unparalleled public interest in one of the drafts of the Gray report recently published and the comments of the Prime Minister and others to the effect that this would not in any way represent a total statement of the matter to the cabinet, has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to consult with the Minister of National Revenue and others with a view to publishing fairly quickly an official draft of this important document so that Canadians may have all the facts before them in considering this very important question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the matter, not the draft of the Gray report, as the hon. member calls it, but the question of publishing certain materials which in the form of facts and analysis were useful to the cabinet in studying this whole question. The minister has told me that he is giving very urgent consideration to a recommendation to cabinet to publish these as soon as possible.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I wonder as well, since there was some acknowledgment recently that a decision in principle had been taken in the latter part of July with reference to the mechanism of a screening agency, whether any further decision was taken since then, possibly after August 15, which would have reversed that earlier decision in principle?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without wanting to reveal in advance in any way the nature of the decision, it would be our hope to announce the government's position on this matter when we publish the material to which I just referred. We are working on a timetable now. As I say, I

November 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
hope that within perhaps a week or ten days the minister will be able to give a date on which the whole thing will be forthcoming.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I know the Prime Minister does not want to be put in the position of disclosing decisions taken by the cabinet. It was indicated that a decision in principle had been taken. Is it fair to say that this decision taken in principle still stands and has not been subsequently reversed or over-ruled?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order. The hon. member wants to know whether it is fair to say something. I do not think a question asked in those terms is in order. I bring to the attention of hon. members that many members are seeking the opportunity to ask questions and there should be a limitation on sup-plementaries. Perhaps we might have the co-operation of all hon. members in this regard.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Howard Lundrigan: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister been apprised of the recent legislative move by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts whereby that state extended its fish protection and pollution boundaries 200 miles seaward, and has he had an opportunity to assess the positive implications of this move for Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of it. I will certainly make inquiries to see what has really happened and look at the implications for Canada.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: In view of the fact this bill was passed by the Massachusetts legislature more than a week ago and has been the subject of consultation between the state department and the government of Massachusetts, may I ask the minister if he has had any discussions with the American state department with regard to their reaction to our taking similar action on our continental shelf to that taken by the sovereign state of Massachusetts?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to find out the attitude of the state department toward the action of the legislature of Massachusetts.



AGREEMENT BETWEEN BRITAIN AND RHODESIA


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is with regard to Rhodesia. Will the minister state whether Canada, before any change in her policy or in that of the United Nations with regard to non-recognition 
of an independent Rhodesia before majority rule, will seek a genuine and fair test of the opinion of all Rhodesians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity of perusing the agreement that has been reached between the Rhodesian government and the British government. It was just given to my office a relatively few minutes ago. However, it is my understanding that the agreement does provide for what the two sides hope will be an adequate means of testing the views of the Rhodesian people. Whether it is adequate is, of course, a question that will be open for discussion in many parts of the world.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the Canadian government retain economic sanctions against Rhodesia until the United Nations has had an opportunity to review the situation and decide whether the sanctions should be continued notwithstanding any unilateral action by the government of the United Kingdom?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the British government will seek international acquiescence in whatever action is found to be desirable by that government. We, of course, will take our own view of the situation in light of all the facts. At the present time, I do not think anyone has any intention of lifting the sanctions against Rhodesia.



REASON FOR CANADIAN ABSTENTION FROM GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOTE ON PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF MAJORITY OF RHODESIANS

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: What is the basis for Canada having abstained on a vote in the General Assembly on Monday of this week on the issue of ensuring that the rights of the majority of the people of Rhodesia will be protected in any settlement with the United Kingdom?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, one of the principal reasons was that we did not want to prejudge any agreement that had been reached between the British and Rhodesian governments and that, after all, the test as to whether the provisions are acceptable does not really reside with us. It resides with the people of Rhodesia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fundy-Royal for the third or fourth supplementary on this subject, not on the part of the hon. member. He is being recognized, but we will then go on to the next subject.


Mr. Fairweather:: Can we be assured that in connection with any settlement the wishes of the majority of the people will include those of the five and a half million black people of Rhodesia?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said in answer to a previous question, there is provision in the agreement between Rhodesia and the British government for the appointment of a commission that would be instructed to determine the views of the Rhodesian people.
November 25, 1971



REPORTED INVASION OF EAST PAKISTAN BY INDIAN TROOPS

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government received any information from our High Commissioners in India and Pakistan confirming or otherwise a reported invasion of East Pakistan by Indian army troops?


Mitchell William Sharp: All that I can confirm, and I need hardly do it, is that there are hostilities going on in the border areas between India and Pakistan. The government of Pakistan has informed us that an invasion has taken place. This has been denied by the Indian government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Has Canada taken any initiative in the United Nations in an attempt to bring the present outbreak of hostilities to an end and prevent it spreading more widely?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it is significant that neither India nor Pakistan wishes to bring this matter before the Security Council at the present time.



RECONSIDERATION BY NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD OF REFUSAL OF NATURAL GAS EXPORT APPLICATIONS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. It is reported by Reuters News Agency that the United States Secretary of Commerce, Maurice Stans, is presently discussing a trade pact with Premier Kosygin of the U.S.S.R. I quote:
The two foreign trade chiefs are expected to examine the possibilities of selling Soviet natural gas and oil to the United States and eventually, also copper from the vast untapped reserves of eastern Russia.
In other words, they will liquify natural gas and there will be a trade agreement between the U.S.S.R. and the United States for the delivery of this natural gas and crude petroleum. In light of this information, would the Prime Minister agree to have the National Energy Board review its decision with reference to the export of natural gas from Canada to the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Subject to verification in law, I do not believe the federal government has any power to ask the National Energy Board to review a decision. I will look into the matter. I just hope that this rapprochement between the United States and the Soviet Union will not be interpreted by obscurantist Americans as an anti-Canadian move.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not have any comment to make on the last sentence of the Prime Minister. Would the government be prepared to recommend that the members of the National Energy Board appear before the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources so that they could be examined by parliamentarians as to the reserves of
Inquiries of the Ministry
natural gas in Canada and the need for natural gas for domestic and industrial use in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure the hon. member would not want the government to tell people what their duty is. If they are convened by a parliamentary committee it is the policy of the government to stand outside and not interfere with decisions made by parliamentary committees.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask one further supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might do so, but again I would point out that we shall be running out of time soon and if there are many supple-mentaries on each question a number of hon. members will be disappointed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to put this question to the Prime Minister. Would the government be interested in evidence relating to the decision made by the National Energy Board, evidence which would be placed before the standing committee through examination of the members of that Board to determine the reasons for their judgment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, of course. If the standing committee comes up with some conclusions and a report we would be very interested in looking at them.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Secretary of State.
Is he aware that a man by the name of Verville-he was known at the time as Francois Gagne-Verville-who supplied the material used for hiding Paul Rose and consorts during the October 1970 crisis is now employed by the CBC, under the name of Pierre Gagne?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Simcoe North. I apologize to the hon. member for Simcoe North; the hon. member for Temiscamingue has a supplementary question.



INQUIRY AS TO ADVERTISEMENTS IN NEWSPAPER &quot;QUEBEC-PRESSE&quot;

David Réal Caouette: In the same connection, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister about two weeks ago whether he was aware that the CBC was paying for advertisements in the Quebec separatist paper Quebec-Presse.
Such advertisements appeared again in the same paper this week. Can the minister indicate today whether he has contacted the CBC on this matter?

November 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have. However, as I have not had a reply from the CBC yet, I cannot inform the hon. member of the outcome.



BROADCASTING


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. Is he aware of or investigating secular censorship of Sunday church services by radio, particularly in the Toronto area, which in many cases are the only means by which our senior citizens, the disabled, the crippled, the blind and those confined to hospitals or homes can participate in a religious service of their choice?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his question. Unfortunately, he only informed me of it yesterday. I have passed his questions on to the CRTC and the CBC, and will inform him of their replies as soon as I receive either or both of them.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the many complaints made to me about political slanting and biased political programming on the CBC television program "Weekend" last Sunday and every Sunday-it is sometimes known as the "NDP weekend show"-will the minister inquire into the alleged partisan NDP programming in order to restore the principle of Canadian justice that news programs give both sides of issues? For instance, when the program reported-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Colin David Gibson: -the Saskatchewan and Manitoba election results but not the Ontario results-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the hon. member's question is a representation.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.

It was reported yesterday that La Prevoyance, a company with assets of some $46 million, would eventually pass into American hands. I am told that no provincial or federal act can prevent that transaction. Since the question is important, particularly for French Canadians, does the Prime Minister intend to put pressure on or to make representations to the high officials of that company in order to prevent that transaction? If not, does the Prime Minister not believe that the time is ripe to put into effect the recommendations of the Gray report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that for the time being this news is still a rumour. I understand the importance of the point raised by the hon. member and I have asked for further information. If this rumour is well-founded, we will have to answer the question but, in the meantime, perhaps the hon. member could specify what he means when he says that we should apply pressure on the company? Pressure for what purpose?


Martial Asselin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I think I should answer the right hon. Prime Minister that it is not pressures but representations that should be made to the company in order that they understand that assets of $46 million should remain in the hands of French Canadians. I think we need these assets in Quebec.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker may I ask the Minister of Justice whether his attention has been brought to an alleged blanket condemnation of the Indian people by County Court Judge Collins, who allegedly referred to "the stupid Indians of whom we have so many"? Has the minister's attention been brought to this statement and, if so, what is he going to do about it? It is a kind of vocal genocide when a fine body of people such as the Canadian Indians receive this type of condemnation in regard to their citizenship.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this question was asked the other day, but at the same time I do not think an answer was given to the question so perhaps the minister or someone on his behalf might reply.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I have no information other than the story in the Toronto Globe and Mail. I did discuss the matter last week when in Toronto with the Attorney General of Ontario, Mr. Lawrence, and I have asked the chief judge of the County Courts of Ontario, Colin Bennett, to let me have a report.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister received a telegram from Chief George Manuel, president of the National Indian Brotherhood? Would the minister also let the House know whether or not this judge will be communicated with to ascertain what possible justification
November 25, 1971

there would be for a statement that, to say the least, is an outrageous slander of the Indian people?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman did begin his question by saying that this was an alleged statement. I do not want to assume anything until I have had a chance to get a report from the chief judge of the County Courts. As for the telegram from the brotherhood, it may well have reached my office and I will make sure that I read it personally.



REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT ON USE AND LEASING OF INTERIOR ELEVATOR FACILITIES

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the House if and when bids were called for the purchase of the Canadian government interior elevator at Lethbridge? Will the minister also inform the House which grain company is acting as agent at the government elevator at Moose Jaw, and whether the elevator has been leased, is under contract, or under what terms it operates?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to, the hon. gentleman that this kind of question should be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency the hon. member might like to give notice to the Chair and it will be given priority for consideration at the time of adjournment.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might rephrase his question and I will determine whether the rephrased question should be put on the order paper or not.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Will the minister make a statement on motions in the near future informing the House what the policy of his department is, and indeed of the federal government, in regard to the use and leasing of interior terminal grain facilities in western Canada, and explaining the basis upon which grain will be handled in these facilities?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think so, but I would be very happy to answer the hon. member's question if it is put on the order paper, and perhaps to expand on it a little.



HOUSING


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Has he received the report on the inquiry he entrusted to an hon. member and which dealt with the "Abeille" housing project? What was the scope of such an inquiry
Inquiries of the Ministry
and when will its complete report be communicated to the House?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the review that I announced some time ago of the Paravert Construction Company project is under way. It is a two-pronged investigation. First of all, a special group from CMHC head office is taking a look at all of the procedures followed in this case. Independently of that, two separate engineering consultant firms are examining the project from an engineering point of view. I inquired as recently as this morning where the engineering consultants' report stands, and I was told that it should be available to me in complete detail very shortly. When it is I shall examine it and advise the House whether there is any indication that further problems have developed.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister.
Can he give the House the assurance that no loan will be granted the promoters of the project "Abeille" by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation until the report on the enquiry has been made known to the House?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, a loan was made some time ago and the company that received the loan went into an arrangement for the benefit of creditors in June. Legal proceedings have taken place since that time, so the project is now owned by CMHC which totally changes the arrangements. Consequently repairs are being effected now. A guarantee has been extended to the purchasers of record as of that time and we are taking all reasonable measures to assure the people involved that they will not be hurt in the process.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the apparent concern and interest shown to the Nova Scotia credit unions last weekend at Halifax by the President of the Privy Council regarding Bill C-259, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether the more iniquitous sections of the bill affecting credit unions will be removed?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I disagree that there are iniquitous sections. However, we have been receiving representations from credit unions and from co-operative organizations and at the present time the government is considering them.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the President of the Privy Council stated the government was "listening to the recommendations of the provincial credit unions",
24372-6&j

November 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
may I ask whether the minister is listening and will remedial action be taken as a result of such listening?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would say I always listen to the President of the Privy Council.


John George Diefenbaker: You listen but you don't act.


Robert Muir: Do you act on his advice?



POLLUTION


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government has made any representations to the government of the United States objecting to the proposal and subsequent fact that Atlantic Richfield Oil Company at its refinery at Cherry Point, Washington, is dumping and is permitted to dump 3.7 million gallons of refinery effluent into the waters adjacent to Cherry Point?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, now that I have these facts before me I will certainly inquire and make appropriate representations, because I agree with the hon. member that this would affect the Canadian as well as the United States environment.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as it does do that in respect of Canadian waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Gulf of Georgia, an important migration route for salmon, can the minister say whether he has had any discussions with the Minister of the Environment to develop a policy on this matter?



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to advise the House whether Canada is going to take any initiatives at the forthcoming meeting of the Group of Ten with a view to bringing about some regularization of the world international monetary situation, or are we just going to slide along and hope for someone else to come up with the prize?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker. We have been carrying on discussions with various countries and we intend to continue these at the meeting of the Group of Ten and to take every initiative possible to help solve this very important problem.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated to the hon. member for Gan-der-Twillingate that he would look into the circumstances surrounding the pollution bill passed by the state of Mas-sachussetts, has he been made aware of the fact that the Russians are paying $100,000 for damage to fishing gear off the same coast and does he think we could apply for payment for such damage off our coasts?


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to restate my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact the U.S.S.R. has paid compensation to the United States government for the destruction of fishing gear off the coast of the state of Massachussetts, will the minister make representations to the U.S.S.R. in our dealings with them so we can collect for damage off the Atlantic coast?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it would be my expectation that if we could make a claim for damage of this kind the Soviet Union would pay it.



BROADCASTING


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Quebec government is proceeding with legislation to set up its own licensing system for cablevision, thereby obviating the need for CRTC licences, will the Secretary of State make a statement in the House as to the meaning of this legislation in relation to federal jurisdiction as determined by the recent series of meetings he has had with the Quebec Minister of Communications to which he referred in the House last Thursday?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to accept the allegations of the hon. member who seems to understand the whole situation clearly while in fact it is ambiguous for a very simple reason: all the bills he refers to fall within Quebec jurisdiction, as mentioned in the bill.
It does not rest with me to determine what the jurisdiction of Quebec is; so, for the time being, I find this bill very ambiguous.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State comment on the report that the Quebec government will not recognize any ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada which would challenge its plans to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the minister to comment on a statement he says appeared
November 25, 1971

in the newspapers. I would not think that a question asked in those terms is in order.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he received representations from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture as a result of their meeting in Hamilton, and is he prepared to consider their request for protection against the importation of subsidized farm products from the United States?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, but I have read the press report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is meeting with the British Minister of State, Mr. Joseph Godber, on Saturday with regard to the proposed Rhodesian settlement which was announced in the British House of Commons today and, if so, will he make a statement in the House early next week, if possible, on the attitude the government of Canada takes on this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes, I will be meeting with Mr. Godber in Toronto on Saturday morning. It would be my expectation that I will make a statement probably early in the week.



INCOME TAX


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in respect of the application of capital gains tax on basic herds. Are the minister and the government reconsidering their position on that aspect and are they prepared to hear briefs and listen to interested parties before the subject comes up again in the House of Commons?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I read the Senate report on the study it carried out in respect of this matter. I also listened with great interest to
Inquiries of the Ministry
my hon. friend in the House for a couple of days when he explained his view in relation to basic herds. I would be pleased to receive representations from other parties in this regard.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
When the United States went ahead recently with nuclear tests at Amchitka, the government voiced strong opposition. Besides, the minister received a number of protests from various Canadian organizations. Would the minister tell the House whether his department and Canadian organizations made similar representations to China when the latter conducted a similar test a few days later.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I believe this question has been asked previously, but the minister may answer it briefly if he wants to.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our ambassador in Peking has been instructed to present a note to the Chinese government.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the subject of the Amchitka test. It concerns a press report about three major earthquakes that have occurred in the general area since November 6. I should like to ask the minister whether Canadian researchers have studied these three earthquakes in this area and is the government currently in possession of the results of their research?


Mitchell William Sharp: Canadian scientists are receiving data and the matter is under study.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who answers to the House for the Wheat Board, but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister who may wish to take it as notice. In light of the deep concern expressed by farm representatives at the agricultural outlook conference held in Ottawa on Monday and

November 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Tuesday with respect to sagging farm income caused by seriously declining wheat prices, what action, if any, has the government taken in recent weeks to encourage the reactivation of the international wheat agreement?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No specific action has been taken along that line, but I should like to advise the hon. member that a great deal of action has been taken and we are probably going to have another record-breaking year for grain sales.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It has to do with the communique on the agricultural conference tabled today in which the minister states that provisions will be forthcoming to enable farmers to more readily acquire land and capital resources essential to improve their income, and also that programs will be directed to family-type farms. What will these programs be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister and to the hon. member who has asked the question that this kind of information should be given by way of a general statement.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Farmers will be forced off the land.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The decision you have just made focuses attention on many recent events that have occurred here which involve the Minister of Agriculture. Statements such as the communique concerning a major conference that the minister tabled today should not be tabled. Such statements should be made on motions so that opposition members may have the opportunity to look at them and express their opinions on them. Recently other statements have been made outside the House and outside Ottawa entirely. For instance, the statement on the fowl buying program was made on the east coast after questions had been asked in the House and after I had sent to the chairman of the Farm Products Marketing Board plans to carry out such a program. If the minister chooses to do it this way, he has that privilege, but it should be known that he is afraid to face the representatives of the people and make a statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member might have been raised by way of a point of order. I do not think it is a question of privilege. In fairness, I think the minister might want to reply, but I suggest there is no question of privilege before the House.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the communique I tabled was not mine; it was the collective agreement of all the ministers at the conference. If the

hon. member will read his mail, he will see he has had all the proposals-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is evidence of how we can get involved in difficulties. Certainly the hon. member's point was not a question of privilege. The minister rose on a point of order. This could go on all afternoon. I wonder whether that is what hon. members want to do. I have to rule that there is no question of privilege and no point of order.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I have another point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will listen to the hon. member and then rule on whether he has a legitimate point of order. But I suggest that when hon. members raise points of debate by way of a point of order they are not helping the efficient progress of the work of the House.


Robert Elgin McKinley: The minister is quite correct. I did receive this in the mail yesterday-I will say that-but at the same time a statement should have been made in the House regarding this important agricultural conference held here in Ottawa and the state in which agriculture finds itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises out of the statement made just now by the Minister of Agriculture to the effect that the communique which he tabled was not a federal government document. If that is the case, he had no right to table it under Standing Order 41(2).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should apologize to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East who had been recognized before, but we got involved in a question of privilege. Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed to ask his question quickly.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


J. Michael Forrestall: My question is for the Minister of National Defence. I wonder if the minister can give us any indication on the present status of arrangements to sell CF-5's to Venezuela?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: I am sorry that I cannot give a report on the deal, but we are hopeful that it will be consummated shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of a reply of the Secretary of State for Exter-
November 25, 1971

nal Affairs earlier this afternoon. May I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to lay on the table of the House a copy of a bill passed by the Massachussetts legislature on November 8 extending territorial jurisdiction seaward for 200 miles.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course anything can be done by unanimous consent, but the hon. member knows that is not the regular practice.


James Aloysius McGrath: My reason for asking for unanimous consent was the fact that the minister disclaimed any knowledge of this important bill affecting, as it does, a very important industry. So that the government can be advised of the contents of the bill and can react on behalf of the people of Canada, I should like to ask the unanimous consent of the House to table the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to ask the government House leader about the business for the rest of this week and for next week. Has the government any idea of when it intends to conclude this part of the session and what items it has on the legislative table?


Mr. MacEachen:: Tomorrow we will continue with the tax bill and then on Monday, and on and on. My hon. friend could help me in determining the future prospects for the House if he could tell me when I can get the bill passed.


Mr. Nowlan:: How many more amendments will you be bringing in?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I said, in addition to the tax bill and related tax bills that we have considered we have some items standing at the report stage which we would like to finish in this session. I think I have stated that already.


Edgar John Benson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, earlier today I promised the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands that I would table something very soon. "Very soon" is now if I have the permission of the House to do so.


Gerald William Baldwin: Under what Standing Order?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a further point of order. It seems to me that for the last ten minutes we have not made much progress because of points of order and questions of privilege.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I want to thank the minister for tabling the document and ask him-
Social and Economic Security


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. The minister sought permission to revert to motions to table the document. That was not granted and the document is not tabled. The matter can be reviewed tomorrow. The Chair has called orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


David Réal Caouette: That this House condemns the government for its failure to propose legislation establishing a social and economic security plan placing all Canadians above the poverty level.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the flagrant abuses of the welfare system now in force in Canada, we had to introduce this motion which does not reflect any narrowness of mind, but certainly a desire to enable all members to clearly express their views, to make useful suggestions so as to give the Canadian people, not a welfare pittance as is the case now, but a genuine social and economic security plan placing all Canadians above the poverty level.
Recently, the Senate Committee on Poverty Published its famous report establishing the poverty level and suggesting correctives in order to provide all Canadian citizens with a standard of living exceeding at least that famous poverty level widely known in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to quote an economist who is a professor at the London School of Economics-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Temiscamingue-

The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to intervene while the hon. member was attempting to make his point on the motion that is before the House, but I am finding it extremely difficult to follow him. I have questioned hon. members sitting around me and none of us seem to be getting the interpretation of his speech. In view of the fact that we are trying to follow the thoughts of the hon. member, in order to refute or support them, I wonder if Your Honour in the very near future would look into the matter of this new apparatus through which we get the interpretation.
With a great deal of respect to Your Honour, I have to say that it is not as good as the previous system. We are having continuous difficulties with the translation of members' speeches, and when this continues we are at a loss to know what is actually going on. As a result, we

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
have to refer to Hansard the next day. It appears to me the volume of amplification is distorting the words, as a result of which we do not hear very much at all.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter raised by the hon. member has been looked into previously. There have been difficulties with the new system, and we will continue to try to impove it. I might say that as the hon. member was speaking I listened to him directly with one ear and to the interpretation with the other ear, and did not miss a single word of what he was saying, either in French or in English. Perhaps there may be something wrong with the apparatus in that part of the chamber. We will, of course, look into the matter without delay.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am much obliged to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) for his words. We too have noticed rather often that the new sound system is really poorer than the previous one, and when some members are whispering it is twice as difficult to follow those who are just addressing themselves to the House. I do not blame in any way the hon. member for Hamilton West for cutting in. He is absolutely right. When some member speaks in English we like to hear the simultaneous translation. We would be pleased if the sound system would work adequately.
I was just saying that everybody has his economists; the Liberals have theirs, the Progressive Conservatives too and even the New Democrats! Strangely enough, all these economists cannot agree.
The Liberals give a different interpretation to the theories of Progressive-Conservative and New Democratic economists as well as to those of the founder of Social Credit, Major C. H. Douglas. I believe what is needed in the first place is some agreement among economists so that laymen like us may better understand economic, political and social matters.
At any rate, I would like to quote, as this point, Professor A. A. Waters of the London School of Economics, the exclusive institution where most of our economists were trained and received their degree. According to an editorial, Professor Waters had this to say;
"In Great Britain as well as in the United States (he could have added in most industrialized countries of the world),-
-the same problem exists in all developed countries-
-we have noted the simultaneous development of a runaway inflation and of high rates of unemployment-Stagflation appears as a new phenomenon which needs to be explained.
On last July 25, the economist made a speech at the University of Monash, Victoria. On that occasion professor Waters stated his new findings. I continue quoting:
Professor Waters added:
"The association of uncontrolled inflation and a record unemployment rate has been a-
-that is exactly the situation we are facing in Canada-
-puzzling phenomenon for economists and the authorities ... Theories on inflation-unemployment have been strongly challenged by the last two year's experience."
Referring to John Maynard Keynes-
-the most eminent economist whose theories our governments have been trying to follow or have been following for about 25 or 30 years-
[Mr. Alexander.)
-the economist Waters said that he asserted that if there is full employment, an increase in total demand should result in rising prices. Consequently, many Keynesians-
-adepts of Keynes-
-like Professor Paish, foresee that a high level of unemployment is linked to price stability and a low unemployment level to increased prices. Alas, neither conventional economists nor disciples of Keynes are able to make predictions even remotely related to what we are witnessing today.
They are completely out-of-date. They no longer know where they stand with their theories.
Conventional economists can perhaps find readier justification since theirs are long-term predictions.
Let us take action today to obtain results in 50 years. Not short- but long-term results.
Keynes disciples have no excuse whatever. They claim that such a theory is based on short-term forecasts and policies.
Let us settle this right now. Let us build an expressway to hire as many people as possible in order to fight unemployment. Such a project will last six months but let us not think about what will happen after. This is a shortterm policy.
"Moreover, Keynesians have also failed to explain cohabitation of these two strange bedfellows: inflation and unemployment."
Professor Waters admits also:
"Unfortunately the economists' inability to explain stagnation and inflation is not a simple and isolated case. I think it is symptomatic of a general endemic uneasiness .. . Numerous treatises on economics maintain that tighter money together with greater budget surpluses will first reduce the excess demand, then block rising prices and after a certain time decrease employment and production. However facts are quite different. The facts seriously contradict texts taken out of treatise on economics."
-The lessons of the last twenty years are clear. Events are far different, in fact almost the opposite, of what books tell us.
Books are read and studied. Then, twenty years later, we find out that reality is totally different from what the books say. It must be noted that the one who said that was not the leader of the Social Credit, but an economist, a professor at the London School of Economics.
Now, to go back to the quotation:
Let us admit simply that we have no worthwhile theory on the short-term monetary adjustment dynamics in the cost/price process. This is an honest admission, but not a desperate one.
In fact, he seeks a solution himself:
I feel that in the last few years, economics failed, humiliatingly so.
This is the confession of an economist.
Mr. Speaker, this is why, in the present situation, in industrialized countries which do not know what to do with their products, we offer a solution. My colleagues and myself are moving today a motion and we ask all members, Liberals, Progressive Conservatives or New Democrats, to study our proposal. It is in that sense that some cabinet ministers have already talked. They have even recognized their failure and the fact that their promises could not be realized in the present system. I read in the November 21, 1968 issue of L'Action of Quebec City, a statement by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) who said, and I quote:
The "just society" will probably never exist.
November 25, 1971

The minister said that and he now indicates he is convinced of that. If he would accept our help, that just society could be established throughout Canada. We offer to the minister suggestions which he should discuss seriously, which he should try to understand instead of laughing at them. He knows there is no solution under the present system.
He may drain his department of all the funds possible in order to help industries barely survive, but after six months, this has not yet created jobs or settled the problem. And this government has been in power for three years. I believe that the minister is sincere when he seeks solutions, but he is working in a context where solutions are practically impossible, in a context of indebtedness, in a context where we are not the masters of our credit but the slaves of a financial system controlled by a handful of individuals who order us, most of the time from the United States, what to do in Canada. And we call our Parliament a sovereign Parliament.
I said the day before yesterday, for instance, that nothing prevents Parliament from allowing the Bank of Canada to grant loans. Besides, the law provides that the Bank of Canada can grant loans to the provinces, but the latter do not borrow due to the terms of repayment. The Bank of Canada has the authority to make loans to the provinces and municipalities for a period not exceeding six months, pursuant to section 20 of the Bank of Canada Act. All we have to do is to change the term "six months" for "60 years." Moreover, it is the period of time which we set for Indians and some underdeveloped countries. Let us allow the provinces to borrow through the Bank of Canada for six-month periods. The government takes nearly six months to set up its winter work program. When it comes to make expenditures, it is already time to reimburse; then the works are suspended. Nothing can be done.
Mr. Speaker, the minister stated on April 9, 1969 in an article entitled "The six imperatives of social justice" the following:
The first imperative of social justice is that there must be a sufficient number of jobs.
It is true. Two or three years later, the minister says: I do as much as I can, but there are no jobs, it is merely an objective which we set. Now we are trying to achieve that objective. They are not taking the necessary means to do so. For example, they have been merely endeavouring to achieve that objective for 25 years, but to no avail.
I keep on quoting:
-This is a basic economic question, but also an essential social matter.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister-and, by the way, I am happy to see him sitting in his place-that, having been directly engaged in labour and union business and having held for several years the position of president of the CNTU, he is very much aware of the fact that the purpose of economics is not merely to provide jobs but to satisfy the needs of the human being. Employment or unemployment do not matter much; we must make sure that the needs of the people are satisfied, if production allows it. And the minister certainly has little doubt that the Canadian production is sufficient to guarantee to all people the essential economy of security with freedom.
Social and Economic Security
I shall now state the second imperative, that is working conditions. We do want that people be treated as human beings and not like dogs. We all know that.
I continue the quotation:
The third imperative requires that services be available to people who need them in order to benefit from job opportunities.
Everyone agrees on that.
I continue the quotation:
The fifth imperative implies that people will get help in order to satisfy the basic needs. This is the first goal of family allowances and subsidized housing and one of the objectives of assistance programs.
The sixth imperative is that people who are absolutely unable to earn their living should nevertheless receive an adequate income. This is the purpose of the disabled aid programs and others of this type; it is also the basic object of general assistance programs.
Mr. Speaker, that situation exists throughout Canada, especially in the province of Quebec.
This morning I received a letter from the Saguenay region. In fact it came from Les Buissons. A mother with eight children, whose husband died some time ago, in 1970, describes to me in that letter how she collected some insurance and used it to build a house in order to shelter herself and her eight children, one of whom is four years old. At present she gets a monthly welfare payment of some $230. With that amount she must support a family of nine, meet the ordinary expenses, pay for the heating, the electricity, the telephone and the upkeep of the children.
This mother now has to live on $230 a month, in a rich country like ours, although one of the government's priorities is to help reach the basic objective of welfare programs so as to give needy people a chance to lead a better life.
Is the government going to maintain that a mother with eight children can live on $230 a month? That woman keeps going to her district welfare bureau, in the Saguenay area, only to be told by the chief officer: The criteria prevent us from giving you assistance. So, because the criteria forbid their receiving assistance, a mother and her eight children, who have to attend school, are left to live in abject poverty.
Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of similar cases in Canada, and yet the government still hesitates to introduce legislation which will provide assistance to Canadians with low incomes or no income at all.
I have with me another declaration made by the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), entitled: "Towards a just society."
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion seems to indicate that there will never be a "just society". His colleague, the hon. member for Papineau, says: "Towards a just society." As far as he is concerned, he is going there, but the minister says: You are not going. But he says he is going anyway!
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Papineau declared and I quote:
Instead of having a guaranteed annual income plan which we are presently unable to afford,-
I become incensed against such brainless people who maintain that we cannot afford a guaranteed annual
9882

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
income. We cannot afford it, but if war should break out tomorrow, the hon. member who is presently absent, would be the first to vote several billion dollars to set up the Canadian armed forces, war industries, youth enrolment and so on. He would be the first one to vote for it. Even if it cost $10 billion they would find the money. They would tell us, it is because we are facing an emergency situation. It is urgent.
Is the situation not urgent nowadays when we go down to Montreal and we are afraid to walk down the street, to encounter terrorists, to hear a bomb explosion?
The minister was recently on station CKVL to answer questions that were being phoned in on the Frenchie Jaraud program. When he came out he could have been ill-treated by the Lapalme employees. We are in a situation when we have a bomb here, terrorists there, bloody demonstrations. Is that not urgent? Does emergency simply mean going to fight on other continents and leaving oppression go its way here at home before we wake up, take action and introduce legislation acceptable to the population?
Is this not an emergency? Why are those people protesting? Why do the young no longer respect family, school, provincial or federal authority? It is no longer wanted. They do not realize that even after they have done away with our society, they will have to abide by some kind of authority. Montreal's Michel Chartrand would take over and enforce his authority with the help of his clique, put the people in a strait-jacket as Castro does in Cuba or as the leaders in communist or socialist countries do to their population.
Would Canada stand for this? Is it not high time that we wake up the silent majority which would rather wait for the bombs to explode instead of making changes?
Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to help the Canadian people to live. Was there ever a more stupid argument? And to think that it comes from an hon. member who deems himself responsible. I would say he is featherbrained; he does not understand anything, he does not want to understand, he is impervious to understanding. Unfortunately he is absent today but I shall repeat that to him at the earliest opportunity, when he will be back in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I will keep on with the quotation:
-we want to develop furthermore an income protection system-
Imagine! The citizens have no income and we are going to protect them. As to the establishment of a guaranteed annual income, it is impossible; we cannot afford it. As for the people without an income, we shall guarantee them that they have no income. That is exactly what it means. I should say the argument is quite bright and comes from a fairly learned economist. I keep on:
-we want to develop further an income protection system in favour of classes of Canadian citizens who deserve to get assistance:
older people in need, large families with a low income, retired people, disabled and handicapped people and all those who can and are willing to work, but who on account of the present economic conditions are unable to find employment.
There is a glaring inconsistency in what the hon. member for Papineau said. In another article, under the heading "Elimination of poverty-Collective responsibili-

ty" it is reported that the president of the Quebec Caisses populaires, Mr. Rouleau, directly blames the system. I quote:
In Canada, says he, following a substantial increase in family allowances and especially in allowances according to the number and age of the children, two thirds of the poor would be eliminated, according to professor Henripin.
In Quebec, we spend large sums of money for welfare institutions of all kinds, but we are always reluctant when it comes to really helping the basic institution of our society, namely the family. We pay for instance from $75 to $200 per month for a child in an institution-
Therefore, it is true. When the child lives with his family, nothing or almost nothing is allowed. People have to draw the child from his home in order to get a decent pension. If the mother requests custody of her 5 or 6 children, social welfare officials refuse. They tell her: Madam, let your children leave home and then we shall pay up to $200 per month for their maintenance. If you keep them at home, we shall give you $10 per month. Can you imagine such a legislation! All the more power to Mr. Rouleau for pinpointing the weaknesses of the system.
Mr. Speaker, I have only a few minutes left. A while ago an interruption cost me 4 or 5 minutes. Therefore, I should be able to express my suggestion. I am not allowed to speak over 30 minutes. I was so advised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) not long ago.
We are suggesting the establishment of a social security plan as advocated by the Social Credit Party of Canada. I do not wish to take the time of the House to read a document, but if my colleagues allowed me to do so, I would have it recorded in Hansard. The figures would be shown in the official record and I would not need reading them. May I have the permission-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In all respect, I would suggest to the hon. member that this procedure is not at all in order. In so doing, we would be adopting a new procedure, and it would not be profitable for the House if hon. members, in the course of their remarks, were to request that some documents be recorded in Hansard and be considered as part of their speeches. For the information of his colleagues, the hon. member should try to summarize the document. Then, it would be part of his speech. Besides, I have no doubt that his colleagues will grant him the extra time he needs.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have enough time, I think, to read the whole piece rather quickly. Here it is:
Since every Canadian with an income of $15,000 or more a year is already assured of his social security it is therefore proper to suggest to following:
Tax exemption on any income under $3,000 for all single persons
Tax exemption on any income under $5,000 for all married people
Exemption of $500 for each child
Allocation of a vital minimum to all those earning less than $15,000 a year according to the following standards and without any condition.
If the fellow is working and earns $5,000, this amount is added to his social security.
November 25, 1971

Here, we help directly all the students in Canada, and I quote:
Single, 18 and over, $1,500; married, without children, $2,500; married, with one (1) child, $2,750; married, with two (2) children, $3,000; married, with three (3) children, $3,250; married, with tour (4) children, $3,500; married, with five (5) children, $3,750; married, with six (6) children, $4,000; pension for all persons 60 and over earning less than $15,000 a year, $200 per month; the spouse, of any age, $150 per month.
That means that if a man retires at 60, and his wife is 48, she will not be caught in this crazy system we now have. Madam, she is told, you are 48, you are not entitled to a single penny. Go and work, wash floors, windows, or offices, but you have no right to your pension because you are not 60. Yet, the spouse gets $150 a month, exactly as the pensioner receives $200. This would mean that a couple would receive $350 a month, which is not too much. They could get an additional income of $2,000, $3,000 $5,000 or $6,000 a year while going about their business. The government would not withdraw their pension because they would have chosen to work. That would be an incentive to personal initiative instead of encouraging people to cheat under the present welfare legislation. People will hide the fact they earn a few dollars so that they will not be caught and be deprived of their welfare payments.
Well, with this kind of program, people would not cheat. They could go about their business, earn $5,000, $6,000 or $7,000 a year, and at the same time receive social assistance, that would be an additional income that would enable them to purchase the goods they want. The fact that people would be encouraged to work would result in increased national production.
Mr. Speaker, that social security system will allow every Canadian to work and earn an annual income of $15,000 or less. If a person earns $9,000 a year and is married, the first $5,000 are not taxable. The amount of $4,000 is taxable if the couple has no children. With two children, $3,000 will be taxable, and so on. That is the restriction. One is not entitled to work if he is to be on welfare. That is what we do away with. It would mean replacing the whole welfare system by a social security system which would put the huge resources of Canada at the service of the Canadian people who build this country.
Then we could say: We have again become masters in our own home, masters of our economy, of our production, of our distribution and of our consumption.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I am naturally pleased to be able to make some comments on the Creditiste motion before us today. I feel they should be commended for introducing this motion, which is so timely and important in view of the conditions which exist in our country today, especially that part of it which concerns the approach of the government to the alleviation of poverty. However, I must disagree with the members of that party when they state that the government has failed to propose any economic and social measures. The government has introduced measures, but they have certainly not achieved the desired results. We are hearing enough about economic measures these days, but we are not hearing anything meaningful about social
Social and Economic Security
security measures to fight the blemish of poverty which is so prevalent across this nation.
When the new regime took over in 1968, it was good to hear the pledge in the Speech from the Throne that the first priority was going to be the fight against poverty, and the assurance to the people of Canada that there would be equality of opportunity for all Canadians wherever they may live. This was followed by statements to the same effect, but in different words, made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet colleagues right across the country. Somewhere along the way the problem of poverty fell further and further down the list of priorities. Over the past four years, it has been relegated to an exercise in delaying tactics. Now, every time there is a problem in the country, we set up some kind of organization to study it. More study groups, councils, commissions, task forces and associations are set up and sponsored by this government. It is now one of the biggest industries we have in this country today. I am not entirely against this type of approach to some problems. However, it would be most interesting to know how much time and money has been spent on studying the problem of poverty in Canada, with no action.
After four years, Mr. Speaker, I still cannot reconcile to my satisfaction just what is the purpose. In 1968, when I made my maiden speech in the House, I referred to the mountainous studies on poverty that had been completed at that time. I was amazed that the results of the study by the Economic Council of Canada brought about the startling conclusion that poverty was real. It is worthwhile mentioning the study made at that time by the Economic Council of Canada. They said that poverty had become a major social problem in Canada. This was four years ago. The Economic Council of Canada described it as "a national disgrace". I quote from this study.
We believe that serious poverty should be eliminated in Canada, and that this should be designated as a major national goal. We believe this for two reasons. The first is that one of the wealthiest societies in world history, if it also aspires to be a just society, cannot avoid setting itself such a goal. Secondly, poverty is costly (in terms of lost jobs, lost incomes, lost taxes).
We then started all over again, first with whirlwind trips across the country by the minister then responsible for housing. This only resulted in embarrassing situations. Next, we had studies on nourishment. We even gave grants to associations to study their own problems. Where are we today, Mr. Speaker, almost four years later? All we have now is a new definition of poverty. If anyone cares to read the Senate Committee Report on Poverty, he will find that almost the whole first section is directed to the different meanings of poverty as defined by the Economic Council of Canada, the Social Development Council and some distinguished gentlemen who have given their versions in books and statements.
While on the subject of the Senate committee report, I must say we have now reached the end of another phase of studying the poor. We have again made the complete circle. The result of the study shows that the welfare system is no good and the government has not been dealing with poverty adequately. We are back where we started. I wish to make it clear that I do not intend any criticism of the hon. Senators who comprised the committee. They deserve commendation for the time and effort
9884

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
spent travelling across the nation to involve themselves in this serious problem. It is obvious from their report they did their job well.
I wonder what the purpose of their mission was. The main recommendation arising out of the report is that the government implement a guaranteed annual income program using the negative income tax method on a national basis, and that the program be financed and administered by the government of Canada. I do not know what liaison there was between the government and the committee, but before the report was even published, the government announced a program to spend $15 million over the next three years to carry out pilot projects in the various provinces using the guaranteed annual income. We have had first reading of Bill C-264 which will provide a family income security plan. What do we have that is new, Mr. Speaker?
The Canadian Council on Social Development agrees with this type of program for Canada. Evidently the government agrees or it would not be spending $15 million on pilot projects, at least I hope not. Our party indicates support of such a program which is reflected in a recently released policy paper. Many other responsible organizations also agree. Everyone agrees on the implementation of such a program, but perhpas in varying degrees, such as what figure should be used as the poverty line.
Even the four mavericks who left the Senate committee in disgust for various reasons agree with the principle of a guaranteed annual income. With the greatest respect to the committee, what is so new about some of the other recommendations? I am sure everyone in this House agrees with their recommendations with regard to economic policies, consumers, education, health care, housing, law, manpower systems and day care centres. We have been tossing these around for days, months and even years, but we are not much farther ahead.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the problem is very simple. The facts are very basic. There are almost 4.5 million poverty stricken Canadians, They are human beings, Mr. Speaker, men, women and children. They need help and it is our duty to recognize their needs as human beings. They elected us to govern because they had confidence and trust in us, and we must show them humane consideration. We must stop treating people as statistics on computer cards. Surely to God, most of us here have seen the suffering of the poor in every one of our constituencies. Surely, we must all be aware of children who are undernourished and who do not have enough to eat. Surely, we have all known of the sick who cannot afford to go to a doctor-even if there is a doctor or a hospital within reach in some of our more remote areas.
Certainly, some of us who are concerned have seen citizens become blind because they could not afford a pair of glasses. Certainly, we have seen people's minds and bodies deteriorate because of lack of medical attention, even to the extent of losing their initiative and will to exist. And they have lost faith in us who govern. We have all witnessed the hovels in which some people are forced to live. When are we going to realize what our priorities are in this country, Mr. Speaker? I agree that pollution is a most serious matter, the pollution of our land, sea and 
air. But is it not true that the bodies of poverty-stricken people are being polluted through lack of nourishment and the atmosphere under which they have to live, which can also affect the future generations?
Certainly, it is important to foster bilingualism in Canada, but does it hold priority over the necessity to alleviate poverty? Is it necessary that the poor be able to ask for help in more than one language? It is true that we have a duty to stand in this House and condemn hostile countries for torturing human beings, but are we not just as guilty right here at home for allowing many thousands of our children to grow up undernourished? Yes, Mr. Speaker, we must have national unity, but how are we to accomplish this in our great nation when 20 per cent of our population continue to suffer in poverty and lose faith in our government? It is long past time to put politics aside and start using some statesmanship. It is time we meditated a little on our purpose here. It is time we took stock of our duty to the people we represent. It is long past time we stopped studying and started to act.
I was interested yesterday in hearing the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) say, with sincere feeling I believe, that we should approach the problems of the Indians in a non-partisan manner. I endorse that idea, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge him to get his Prime Minister to agree to an all-party conference to eradicate poverty. As the minister said yesterday, he has nothing to hide and his books are wide open. So, let us get all the books open. Let us find out why the family income security program was delayed and why it cannot be put into effect right away. Let us find out from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) just why it is we cannot afford a guaranteed income plan, why it is there is so much delay in coming to agreement with the provinces who need increased funds under the Canada Assistance Plan to pass on to the blind, the disabled and other indigents. Let us open up the books of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Andras) and find out why it is that we cannot provide enough homes for the poor, especially for those who live outside urban centres.
We are often criticized for wasting time in the House, Mr. Speaker, so why do we not have an open debate on poverty in the House of Commons during which we could receive straight answers and have an exchange of ideas? Or let the leaders of the various parties select some of their members to meet in an effort to solve this embarrassing and serious problems as a priority mission. If we cannot afford the cost, then let us tell the people why. I am sure the leader of our party would give the government good ideas in addition to the one on tax changes which they accepted. I am sure he would not mind advising them on such subjects as full employment, incentives to work under the GAI Plan, ideas for job opportunities and retraining programs.
One of the statements I should like to quote comes from a book by Walter Stewart which is called "Shrug". I am not usually critical, but I think since the statement comes from an outside source it is worth putting on record. He says:
When I think of these people, and all the others I have seen, whose stories I have teased out of them in my line of work, when I think of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians mired in pover-
November 25, 1971

ty, brutality, squalor and despair, I find it hard to accept the claim that the Trudeau government has hurled itself at the task of creating a Just Society, for I can find no trace in its legislative record of anything that touches the lives of these people in a meaningful way. Their numbers have, in fact, been swollen, first by the anti-inflation drive that froze new housing construction, then by the tight money policies which threw more and more people from the submerged third of society out of work. We have had welfare legislation that tinkers and fiddles and adjusts old, out-moded legislation so as to turn it into new out-moded legislation, we have had amendments and sub-amendments and regulations and directives, but we have not had, not once, not anywhere, any impatience or urgency or thrust toward social or economic reform.
No one expected the government to solve poverty in Canada- not with a fifth of our people and nearly half our rural families below the poverty line laid down by the Economic Council of Canada. What we did expect, what we had a right to expect, what we were led to expect, was a real, concerted, concerned attack on poverty and inequality. We have not had that. An examination of this government's legislative record shows it to be almost barren of meaningful social legislation. You needn't take my word for it. The Liberal party, always well-organized, puts out a mimeographed memorandum called "Liberal Government Achievements", which includes a list of all the legislation passed since the brave words of the first Trudeau Throne Speech rolled into the somnolent hush of the Senate Chamber in September, 1968. It is, to the casual reader, an impressive list, all the way from an act to amend the Judges Act, through such nuggets as the Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act, the Saltfish Act down to an act to repeal the Leprosy Act.
There have been some sensible, worthwhile measures, which I'll discuss in a moment, but despite all the fanfare for a Just Society that preceded the Trudeau climb to the throne, despite the dashing to and fro of phalanxes of Trudeau aides, despite the disciplined muscularity of the Trudeau machine in the House of Commons, there has been precious little in the way of real government achievement.
It is as if the Prime Minister embraced Michael Oakeshott's description of the ruling role which is 'to restrain, to deflate, to pacify and reconcile, not to stoke the fires of desire but to damp them down'. It isn't so much that the Liberals since 1968 have succeeded in damping down the fires of desire, as that they have tried earnestly to do that, and apparently to do little else-
But together with the relief of poverty, we must not forget the pledge of the government in 1968 to afford opportunity for all Canadians, including opportunity for those who are employed but who are still living below the poverty line. Every Canadian, even those who are poor, is proud to be Canadian. And they want to work. They do not want to be on welfare rolls. It is to this end that we must strive to show the leadership which all Canadians need and for which responsibility we are charged.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will be dealing with particular segments of the motion which I hope will make some impression on the government. Finally, I repeat, in a non-partisan manner. We have delayed too long to bring about meaningful programs to combat poverty in our country. I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will offer us some words of wisdom as to the government's intentions in the area of economic and social policy to bring some hope to the poverty stricken of our country.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are among us many members who are deeply grateful to the Social Credit party for having put this motion today.
Social and Economic Security
The leader of that party clearly outlined the situation of poverty in Canada and he duly reminded the government that the purpose of the country's economy should be above all the welfare of the population as a whole. He referred to many facts illustrating the complete failure of government policy in this regard.

The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), who has just spoken, made at least one point which in my opinion was outstanding, and which should be in the forefront of the minds of all of us as we discuss this subject today: At the present time more than 4.5 million Canadians are living in poverty. More than one third of these poor people are children under the age of 16. I suggest this fact alone should cause the government to decide that it should begin now to grapple seriously with the human problems in the economy, just as it has been grappling for a long time with the economic ones. It seems to me we have spent a long time dealing with the cement and concrete of the industries of this country; it is high time we began to consider what is happening to our people, our homes, families and children.
This has been brought vividly to the attention of all of us by the recent publication of the Senate committee report "Poverty in Canada". I was rather struck with the initiative that the Senate committee had taken. According to the report, in May 1970 it conducted a public opinion survey, through the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion, the results of which indicated that most Canadians considered $6,500 to be the minimum acceptable annual income per family of four as at the date of the survey.
Following this the Senate committee on poverty promptly set a figure that was $1,500 lower than the Canadian people believed was the acceptable minimum income, which I think is a very revealing indication that the Senate is completely out of touch with the needs of the people of this country, at least the needs of those living in poverty. I suggest its statement "That the Senate committee poverty-line incomes are not generous is demonstrated by this public opinion survey" is a masterpiece of understatement. I believe that the Senate committee on poverty, the Croll committee, has one fatal flaw: Instead of attempting to set a guaranteed income at the poverty line, it decided it could go one better and set a guaranteed income 30 per cent below the poverty line.
This proposal has been properly described by some authorities as a glorified welfare program, and by others, such as Dr. Baetz of the Canadian Council on Social Development, as guaranteed poverty. This is something like putting a band-aid over a serious cancer. You are hiding the sore from view and believing you have effected a cure. To solve the problem of poverty in this country by suggesting a minimum income that is 30 per cent below the poverty line is, in my view, nothing more nor less than an insult to those who already are suffering more than enough.
Thousands of people in poverty are asking the government for help, and a Senate committee produces a report recommending that these people have an annual income 30 per cent below the poverty line. No wonder the four

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
staff members quit. No wonder they recommended an income that would provide sufficient for people to live on, rather than to merely exist. And no wonder, in final desperation, they pointed to sources where the required money could be found, which included $5 million a year by abolishing the Senate. We have been describing to the government for days and weeks ways and means to raise this money. We have pointed out that if the big corporations of this country paid their fair share of taxation as other people do, the extra revenue would go a long way towards meeting the needs of people in poverty. Yet this government has turned a deaf ear to our pleas, paying no attention to what we say.
I do not deny, and neither does any other member of this party, the need for building up the economy. As a matter of fact, none of us wants to see the introduction of a guaranteed income without at the same time giving those who are able bodied the opportunity to work and earn an income. What we are objecting to is the absence both of income and of work, and the silence of the government on this issue. I should have liked to see some of the government leaders give their opinion that the Senate committee report on poverty was unworthy of those who are supposed to be the senior statesmen of this country. I suggest that any body of people that calls for a guaranteed annual minimum income that is 30 per cent below the poverty line deserves to be removed from its position as the lawmakers in this country.
I was pleased to see a report in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen concerning a statement made by the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Canadian Council of Churches, the Reverend Floyd Honey, who had this to say about poverty:
Maybe we should demonstrate in the streets. Whatever we do, let us make no mistake about it, it is going to cost money if we are going to take this seriously as an objective.
Then, he went on to criticize the Senate committee report on poverty by saying it did not deal with conditions that create poverty. Instead, he said, the report deals only with measures to relieve the worst misery of those who suffer from it most acutely. Reverend Honey called on delegates to work "toward turning the church into an effective lobby for the poor instead of a chaplaincy service for the comfortable". I suggest that for the church that is strong language. I trust Reverend Honey will be acclaimed a worthy secretary of the Canadian Council of Churches and that he was reflecting the views of that body.
I was very much impressed with something the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), who is now in his seat, said not very long ago when dealing with a criticism that is made of people who are poverty stricken, and particularly of those on welfare. In a speech he made in Toronto on September 30 last he had this to say:
But the opinion that the average welfare recipient is a healthy loafer cannot be supported in fact, and we know it. Let us look at the figures assembled for the Task Force on Alienation in the summer and fall of 1970. Breaking down the welfare population, the permanently disabled represent 41 per cent of the total. Mothers raising families on their own are 26 per cent. The older age group constitutes 9 per cent of the total. Those with a temporary disability or illness are 8 per cent of the total. Those who are employed but are being supplemented because of insufficient income represent 3 per cent of the total. Together, these amount to

87 per cent of the welfare population. Only 13 per cent of the population is made up of the unemployed employables.
Even if only 13 per cent of the population in receipt of social assistance is made up of unemployed employables, what is the government doing to provide work for them? I know all about the DREE program. The government says it will provide work, but I have been checking the names of the firms which have been receiving money and have found great discrepancies between the amounts of money being provided and the number of jobs expected to result. This is not the government's money, it is the taxpayers' money. We should make a very thorough investigation as to whether this money is being well spent. Even if it were being well spent in every way, the private sector of this country could not provide anything like the number of jobs required to give people work, or even to do pioneer work which must be done in respect of the new service jobs we require. Little groups are doing some pioneering in this field. Most of them are private or voluntary groups. In my own city such a group is trying to pioneer jobs for women as social work aides, teacher aides and child care workers. I hope the government will pioneer jobs along this line for these women when they are trained.
Why is the government not providing the lead in getting jobs started on a large scale? This is the way to handle poverty. Apparently only 13 per cent of the people now receiving social assistance are unemployed employables. If we are content to keep that great number of people on social assistance, there is no way poverty will disappear. When you keep people on social assistance year after year you might as well cut off their wind-pipes because you are cutting off their access to work, their self-expression, their communication with other people and the opportunity of growing and developing. You are cutting off all these things, and practically shutting them up in jail with a diet that is not much above bread and water.
We have to deal with poverty on a two-pronged approach. We must provide a minimum income which must certainly not be set below the poverty line and enough work for the people who can work full or parttime. I think of that poetess who wrote some years ago the best of all God's gifts is work, and the second is rest. We are giving these people far too much rest, and rest and rust are very closely allied when it comes to human beings. Some of you saw the program on television last Sunday night about a young executive who was highly placed in his firm but was told that because of business conditions he would have to be let out. He was let out and the rest of the film showed the terrible heartbreak and struggle he had. He had to let his car and his house go; his family lost its access to good things such as vacations, amenities and so on. He travelled around to all the employment agencies and asked among his friends but could not get a job. He became bitter and his confidence left bit by bit. In the final shot, we saw him looking over a bridge down at the railroad track wondering whether he had reached the last stage and should commit suicide. Finally, he decided to keep his options open a little longer in the hope that something would turn up. I am sure that everyone who saw it was horrified and upset by this film.
November 25, 1971

Yet this is the kind of thing that is happening daily in thousands of homes across this country. It involves not only those who are caught in the trap of poverty, but those a cut above it as well who are afraid of being dragged down by the general effects of so many people already unemployed. Poverty is a terrible cancer which is eating away at the body politic and if we do not deal with it we will all be affected in the form of a steady deterioration of our citizenship and the quality of living in Canada. The time is coming when people will not put uo with this any longer. We found out yesterday that one of the poor sectors of Canada, the native Indians, certainly mean business in definite way. Incidentally, they were at the Council of Churches meeting as were representatives of the National Black Coalition of Canada. These are people who are not going to be kept within the artificial boundaries of being Indian, black, poor or female. These boundaries are no longer effective. I wish this government would do something about this problem of poverty before there is more suffering.
Those are the things I wanted to say. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that we in this country have to come to grips with the situation quickly. If we do not, we can see a preview of what will happen by looking at some of the great cities in the United States, where they did not act soon enough and where even the affluent dare not go out of doors after dark. There is fear, guilt and terror beginning to stalk the land in a big way. Let us prevent Canada from developing along those lines. There is time to act, but only if this government sets now as its top priority the creation of an environment with opportunities for suitable and useful work which will allow our citizens to participate in a meaningful way in the life of this country and enjoy the good things their own efforts and those of our forefathers have made possible.


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, and in doing so I shall endeavour to confine my remarks to the measures implemented and those to be implemented by the present government in the field of social security. Canada's nationwide social security system is recognized as one of the better ones in the world. It has achieved this status largely since the Second World War by extending programs to cover different contingencies and by improving the coverage and benefits under these programs to form a comprehensive system. Under the system, the federal government provides basic income support common to all residents of Canada. A partnership between the federal and provincial governments provides flexibility in social services according to individual provincial needs.
While it is recognized that there is room for marginal differences in income support measures between provinces or within provincial areas, basic measures to provide a Canadian minimum must be country-wide if interprovincial migration to employment is to be facilitated. The development of Canada's income security measures within the past decade has been dramatic. Cardinal among the provisions by the federal government to give people new security have been the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan with its many types of benefits-the Quebec Pension Plan is its counterpart in that province- and the Guaranteed Income Supplement to the Old Age
Social and Economic Security
Security pension, under which next year a married couple can receive a maximum of $260.10 a month, and a single person as much as $137.70.
The Canada Assistance Plan, an important companion measure, is a federal-provincial program through which the federal government supports the provision of adequate financial assistance, welfare and health services to persons who have no other income or whose income is insufficient to meet their needs. The individual provinces design their own welfare programs and administer them, sometimes in conjunction with municipalities. The federal government meets half the cost of financial assistance and of welfare services provided to persons in need. The provision of assistance and services at the provincial level enables the provinces to tailor their welfare programs to meet different regional needs. In November 1970, the federal government tabled the white paper on income security for Canadians, some proposals of which parliament has already put into effect.
The white paper proposed to shift the weight of federal government direct payments more in favour of people in need, as evidenced in the considerable increase in payments under the guaranteed income supplement to the old age security pension. It also provided a major rationalization of income security programs to contribute substantially to the prevention and alleviation of poverty in Canada by redistributing to the best effect the money already in the system.
The white paper proposed improvements in the conditions of millions of low income people, the saving of hundreds of thousands more from falling into poverty, and the improvement of basic income protection for most people. Under its proposals, available resources would be concentrated more upon the people in the greatest need; the improvement of programs and making them poverty oriented would reduce the dependence of people on social assistance and assist low income families with children. A major anti-poverty measure to assist greatly low income families with children proposed in the white paper was the family income security plan, familiarly known as FISP, which would replace the familiar family allowance program.
This program of federal payments would concentrate national resources upon families with the lowest resources, as measured by income, through a new extension of the guaranteed income concept. Representations by interested organizations and individuals and discussions between the federal government and provincial governments resulted in revisions of the program proposals. These were announced in a statement to Parliament by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) shortly before the summer recess.
While the new proposals retain the anti-poverty concept of selectivity by placing substantially larger sums in the hands of low income families, they embody significant changes. They extend the program to children aged 16 and 17, improve benefits, introduce a formula based upon family size, adjust the income floor of $4,500 by an additional $500 a year for each additional child, smooth out the rate of reduction and, of particular importance, make FISP nontaxable. The revised FISP will benefit an

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
estimated 2.14 million families, with about 1.25 million receiving maximum benefits as compared to the 640,000 previously expected to be eligible. This will distribute an estimated $800 million annually as against present payments of $650 million.
During the five years preceding 1971 the basic old age security pension was altered significantly. The eligibility age was reduced gradually from 70 to 65 and the basic benefit was increased from $75 to the present rate of $80 a month. In 1967, the special needs of low income older people were recognized by introduction of the guaranteed income supplement to the old age security pension. It provided an additional benefit of up to $30 a month on the basis of an income test.
The shift in weight of federal government direct payments more in favour of people in need proposed in the white paper on income security has already been demonstrated by major increases in payments this year under the guaranteed income supplement. These increases have been in effect since last April. Recipients of the guaranteed income supplement are entitled to a maximum 2 per cent annual escalation of the combined total of their old age security and their guaranteed income supplement to reflect price increases. As of April next, a married couple receiving the guaranteed income supplement could get as much as $270.10 a month in lieu of $255; a single person, $137.70 in place of $135. In 1971 approximately a million people have benefited fully or partially from changes in the guaranteed income supplement by having substantial additional purchasing power placed in their hands through direct federal government payments. Through the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement, the federal government will distribute an estimated $2.2 billion in 1971-72 directly to Canadian pensioners.
Since its introduction in 1965, the Canada Pension Plan has become familiar to most employed people in Canada as a keystone of social insurance. It not only provides contributors with retirement pensions in addition to the old age security pension, but protects their dependants if they die, just as it protects contributors if they become disabled. Unlike the old age security pension, the guaranteed income supplement and FISP, however, the Canada Pension Plan is a contributory program into which the self employed, employees and employers pay on the basis of pensionable earnings. Its counterpart in the province of Quebec is the Quebec Pension Plan, and there is portability between the two plans just as there is with the Canada Pension Plan throughout all other provinces in Canada.
While the white paper on income security proposed technical changes to increase benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, these cannot be effective before January, 1973. There is a statutory requirement that three years notice of major changes be provided to permit consultation with the provinces. There is also the continuing need to maintain comparability between the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans so that this insurance system maintains national standards. The proposed changes, however, would have a profound future effect on the income levels of almost all Canadians. Higher pensions would reduce greatly the chances of individuals and families falling into poverty. Extra protection for widows, disabled workers

and their dependants would provide assistance to people who have often been forced to fall back on welfare.
Social assistance, an important component of income security, is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments which design and administer programs to suit their particular circumstances. The Canada Assistance Plan enables the federal government to meet half the cost of social assistance and health care services provided or supported by the provinces and municipalities to persons who have no income or whose income is insufficient to meet their needs. It also makes it possible for the federal government to share in up to 50 per cent of costs incurred by provinces and municipalities to improve and extend welfare services.
The Canada Assistance Plan provides federal sharing for costs of benefits for persons who require financial support; supplementation, where needed, of benefits paid under other programs; supplementation, where needed, of earned income; child welfare, including adoption services, foster home care and institutional care; health care services which are not covered by federal-provincial hospital or medical care insurance programs; care in homes for special cases; preventative and rehabilitative welfare services; and programs to improve the work capacity of persons who have particular difficulty in securing or retaining employment. It is estimated that the federal government will contribute more than $686 million to the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan in 1971-72. This, together with a comparable expenditure by the provinces, will help some 1.4 million persons through social assistance payments, including over 100,000 children who are in the care of child welfare authorities. Most of these children live in foster homes.
The White Paper on Income Security points out that although improvements in federal income security programs will make many people independent of social assistance, or less dependent on such aid, there will be a continuing need for social assistance. For this reason, the federal government is collaborating with the provinces to secure needed improvements in these essential welfare programs. Major changes in unemployment insurance which go into full effect next January will greatly improve income protection for people in the labour force, reduce dependence on social assistance and improve unemployment benefits substantially. One of the significant improvements is the introduction of sickness and maternity programs.
The vast sums paid to Canadian residents in unemployment insurance represent an additional element of great magnitude in the federal government's involvement in income security and in evolving measures to improve the economic well-being of people in need, to reduce the hazard of personal economic disaster, and to provide income security for millions whose ability to achieve it individually is extremely limited.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure all my hon. colleagues that the government is genuinely concerned with the welfare of the citizens of Canada, and one only needs to travel abroad to realize this.
November 25, 1971


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support the motion put by my leader, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette).
The notice of motion reads as follows:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to propose legislation establishing a social and economic security plan placing all Canadians above the poverty line.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe the non-confidence motion comes at the right time. For the last few months, the government, the opposition parties and inquiry commissions of all kinds, even Senate committees, have been considering the problem, or rather the solution, of an economic and social security plan for all Canadians.
Today, I would like to draw the attention of the House on a much debated aspect of establishing such a program, that is the determination of standards to define the poverty level.
The Economic Council of Canada states that more than 700,000 Canadians, among the aged, live below the poverty level. And how does the Economic Council of Canada define poverty?
At pages 104 and 105 of the Fifth Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada, published in September, 1968, it is stated, and I quote:
To feel poverty is, among other things, to feel oneself an unwilling outsider-a virtual nonparticipant in the society in which one lives. The problem of poverty in developed industrial societies is increasingly viewed not as a sheer lack of essentials to sustain life, but as an insufficient access to certain goods, services, and conditions of life which are available to everyone else and have come to be accepted as basic to a decent, minimum standard of living.
Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada believes that poverty is not determined by the size of one's income, but rather by a state of mind. I could say that being poor is feeling that one's rights are not recognized and that one does not have the minimum required to survive.
The Western Quebec Social Service in a special bulletin dated December 1966 reported as follows:
Poverty appears to us mainly as material destitution, lack of wages, low incomes, etc. We seldom pause to consider the moral aspect of poverty and it is perhaps there that poverty shows itself more extensively and painfully.
A socio-economic study alone could determine the extent of poverty, but it is not difficult to see poverty and find in each city and village families with an inadequate income suffering from illness or unemployment, families deeply in debt, families with poor accommodations, families that are ill-fed and undernourished. There is also a social and moral aspect of poverty which is not less frequently found: broken families, irresponsible parents, neglected and abandoned children, delinquents, penniless old people.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Service which has made several investigations in Montreal and elsewhere recognizes that it is difficult to determine who is poor or destitute.
Poverty exists in Canada, that is certain, but we must first find out, through all these investigations, who are the poor. Thus, in the report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty, at page 175, one can read the following:
Social and Economic Security A PROPOSAL FOR A GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME
The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a signatory nation, states, in Article 25:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
The Senate Committee is firmly convinced that the time has now come for Canada to incorporate the right to an adequate standard of living for all Canadians into the Canadian Bill of Rights. It is also clear that an adequate standard of living in the Canadian context is dependent on the security provided by an adequate income. The acceptance by Canada of an adequate minimum income as a matter of right for all citizens is the principal recommendation of this report.
The provision of a Guaranteed Annual Income to all Canadians is more than an anti-poverty measure: it is an idea whose time has come. If properly designed, implemented, and operated, such a plan will restore to decency and dignity those Canadians who, through no fault of their own, have been stigmatized and demeaned because they are unable to earn an income adequate for themselves and their families. It will also protect all Canadians from loss of income through accident, illness, technological progress, and the many events that can deprive any of us of our income and make us poor.
Here I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this report refers to technological progress in Canada. In the last few years, technical progress has created and improved the machine, replaced many human workers and created for ever I think, in Canada an almost permanent poverty, that is unemployment. To palliate this unemployment which will exist, a guaranteed income will have to be established.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate committee has highlighted the problem we are concerned with. Poverty must be considered very seriously and it is up to the government to take remedial measures, not for political reasons but with a real concern to help all Canadians.
Every day, Mr. Speaker, I receive scores of letters from my constituents who are in untenable situations. Poverty does exist and it is very easy for us as members of the House of Commons to come into contact with these sad cases.
As far as I am concerned, I must say that every Saturday when I receive my constituents at home, I have to witness some very sad scenes. Sometimes they are aged people or wage earners who for some reason are unable to provide for their families and come to me for help.
The present system is such that the people who are asking for what is due to them must humble themselves and, psychologically, that is deplorable. It is high time for the government to consider this problem and to carry on what we are proposing today, that is a system of economic and social security placing all Canadians above the poverty level.
Mr, Speaker, Le Petit Journal of July 8, 1971 featured the following article, and I quote:
One third of the people of Montreal are poverty stricken.
To day, in 1971, a Montreal family whose total annual income is below $6,000 is considered as a "low income family," poor that is.
To establish the poverty level at $6,000 a year, sociologists started from the fact that families with an annual income of $6,000 or less have to spend 76.5 per cent of their income on their basic needs-food, clothing, and housing. This figure is higher than the

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
70 per cent standard established by the Economic Council of Canada.
On the other hand, the Montreal Diet Dispensary established at $3,990 the cost of meeting certain minimum basic needs for a family of two adults and two children. This amount is only enough to keep a family from starving altogether. We can add another $2,000 if all minimum basic needs are to be met, which sets the poverty-or deprivation-level at approximately $6,000.
This amount only allows a family to make both ends meet, without enabling them to make any plans or to meet urgent needs such as illness, and so on.
Now, in Montreal 33.1 per cent of families earn less than $6,000 a year.
Which means, to put it bluntly, that one third of Montreal's population lives in a state of poverty.
These 33.1 per cent of poor people are divided into several categories. There are poor people, poorer people and very poor people. The "poorer people" would include, for example, the bachelor earning $40 or $50 a week or the family man earning $70 or $75 a week.
In my riding, there are family heads who work every day for a weekly salary of $65 to $70. This means that these families are deprived of the bare necessities and that they live in dire poverty.
I proceed with my quotation from Le Petit Journal:
The "very poor people" are those whose sole income consists of social welfare benefits. In Montreal and within the municipal boundaries only, there are 85,000 persons who can be labelled "very poor"; they include 40,000 ongoing cases in the social welfare files to which should be added 45,000 dependants.
Such a situation, Mr. Speaker, indicates beyond any shadow of doubt that there are among us typical instances of extreme poverty and it is about time that the government should set their minds on correcting this state of affairs. This situation actually exists and I think that it is most important that federal members who are sitting comfortably in the House, well-heated and well-paid, should become aware of the situation.
If I may be allowed to do so, I would call the attention of the House on an article published by Le Petit Journal and which, in a nutshell, would be summed up thus; the geographical distribution of poverty requires that one should know which region of Canada is involved.
In concluding my remarks, I hope that I have convinced hon. members that poverty does exist and that it is urgent to solve the problem.
The Social Credit Party of Canada has a solution to offer which I think would be ideal in helping to solve this problem. In my opinion, this solution is precisely that mentioned by my leader, the hon. member for Temisca-mingue, and namely to guarantee to each and every Canadian, whatever his situation, provided his income is under $15,000, a guaranteed income, depending on his personal commitments and the size of his familly.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to commend my colleagues from the Social Credit party for presenting this motion to the House and drawing the attention of hon. members to the serious problem of poverty and want.
However, I think this problem should be considered under two aspects, namely that of local poverty and that of unequal opportunities in certain areas and for certain individuals.
Not enough can ever be said about the need to adopt measures that will correct these social inequalities. We agree on the diagnostic stated by the movers of this motion even though we sometimes find it difficult to agree on the required remedies.
It would be dangerous to increase the frustration of the poor by deceiving them with inefficient remedies. There is a tendency sometimes to propose quite simplistic solutions which do not truly take into account the complexity of the problem. I mean, if solving this problem were only a question of financial measures and advances from the Bank of Canada it would be really too simple and we could very easily cure our local problems.
We could then have export products for the underdeveloped countries which would be happy to accept our proposal to solve their problems. But everyone can see that it is much more complicated and even those who put a strong emphasis on those problems are often opposed to taxation.
One must agree that if we are to declare war on poverty the participation of each and everyone is necessary, and so are sacrifices. To say that we have found money to wage war and that we have not found any to solve the urgent problem of poverty would be simplifying the problem. It is a demagogic way of bringing about a solution.
One must remember that during the war the national debt was multiplied by five and the income tax increased in the same proportion. If the Canadian population wanted to go through the same sacrifices we might have part of the solution to those problems. But it is obvious that the emergency of the times of war, just like fire burning a property, calls for solutions that are not in time of peace acceptable to the population as a whole.
Does that mean that the program is not urgent, that we will not have to pay the price and make sacrifices to find the right solution? We must really want it but it must also be recognized that the problem is very complicated and very difficult to solve and that there will be no magic formula. It will be the end result of the co-operation of the entire Canadian population.
To level out regional disparities it will be necessary to give a new dimension to the problem, and that is participation. I believe we are going the wrong way sometimes about that problem because we do not give enough consideration to the solutions brought forward by people who are the first concerned in that matter, namely the poor people of the underdeveloped areas. We try too hard perhaps to design solutions conceived only at the higher government levels instead of pooling the desires of the people concerned and the means, for the poor people, of considering a solution to their own problems as well as the solutions advocated by high authorities.
I am thinking here of the problems faced by the Eastern Quebec Planning Bureau as to the pilot area, and let us not forget that only $70 million out of the $271 million voted for the five-year plan were spent while so many needs existed.
The big problem that was faced there was that it was difficult to secure the local participation and it consisted also perhaps in the special way technocrats and senior
(Mr. Beaudoin.]
November 25, 1971

officials advocated solutions without giving enough consideration to the desires of the people concerned.
And in that field, I believe that instead of considering the establishment of new structures we should improve the existing ones and provide municipal councils, which know better about those problems, with modern solutions and structures, in short regroup them into local governments with the same social ambitions where one would have a feeling of belonging, in order that these area governments may take the responsibility of area planning and of implementing the programs needed to cope with the situation.
Had we had such a regional government in the Lower St-Lawrence and Gaspe, the Grand Portage, the Metis and the Magdalen Islands areas, had we, with the help of experts, those I call architects, and that of the local owners and citizens, looked for solutions to all problems, we would have obtained better results; indeed, the amounts voted for that purpose not only would have been entirely spent but would have proved insufficient.
Now, remedies to the problem of poverty at the individual level are harder to find. Whereas the mover of the motion proposes a universal social security plan, the government, through its legislation, is bent instead on studying selective solutions. The governments want to study the question of income under two main aspects: the protection it should get and the support it needs.
Some income programs are being more and more criticized for their being universal, that is that most Canadians, if not all, are eligible, whatever their income may be. In some cases, payments are being made even to people already largely provided for. Family allowances, and in particular those granted to young people, belong to that category.
Now, the new government plan is designed to correct that situation and to channel the tax dollar through to the families most in need, in order that all the able-bodied recipients be encouraged to find a job. Moreover, some flexible aid is available to those who need it only on a temporary basis.
While trying to remedy the income deficiencies and to reduce poverty, the new plan will help stabilize employment, wages and prices. The protective aspect of social insurance is emphasized instead of the universality or the automatic right to benefits.
The family allowance plan has failed to channel funds where the need was the most urgent. It is estimated, for example, that in 1971, 24 per cent of family allowances will be paid out to families with an income under $5,000, while 76 per cent will be paid out to families with a higher income.
Under the present Family allowance plan, which provides for the payment of allowances on a universal basis without any means or needs test, it would cost $80 million a year to increase the benefits by only $1 per child, there being 7 million children in Canada. Doubling the rate would account for additional expenditures of $560 million a year.
The need for a family income security plan is quite obvious. It accomplishes an equitable distribution of the taxpayer's dollar, allocating it to those who need it most,
Social and Economic Security
without however depriving of any motivation those able to be part of the active labour force.
Besides, the white paper was intended to co-ordinate all the elements of social security, in order to allow Canada to develop a completely integrated welfare program, a program which will undoubtedly set an example to the rest of the world.
The plan is a step in this direction. This Family Income Security Plan, as its name very aptly puts it, will complement the old age pension, the guaranteed income supplement, the unemployment insurance and the Canada Assistance Plan.
Consultations with groups, individuals and provincial governments have led to an agreement under which benefits from this new plan will be based on three fundamental criteria: The number of children, their age, and the family income.
More than two million families, it is expected, will draw benefits under this new plan and about one and a quarter million will receive maximum benefits, that is children of poor workers and welfare cases as well as most mothers who are the sole supports of 300,000 children.
The highest monthly benefits in the plan will amount, as perhaps hon. members wish, to $15 for each child under the age of 12 and to $20 for children aged 12 to 17 inclusively. However, in order to ensure an equitable distribution of the taxpayer's money, the monthly benefits for each child will decrease as the family income increases.
It has been decided to set the minimum income of a family with one child at $4,500. Thus, the family whose annual income is $4,500 and which includes only one child will receive the $15 maximum benefit if the child is less than 12 years old.
With each additional child, a family will be entitled to receive a minimum of $500 more, while being paid the maximum benefits. In other words, a family including two children will be paid the maximum benefits as long as its income does not exceed $5,000. In the same way, a family including three children will be entitled to the maximum benefits as long as its income does not exceed $5,500. The minimum income of a family may increase by $500 per year for each child after the first one.
During the discussions which preceded the drafting of the white paper, it was suggested that benefits should cease when the family income reached $10,000 annually. But it was later decided not to impose this ceiling. The maximum income that a family may receive will depend on the number of children and on the rate of decrease.
Not only will this plan replace the old one, it will extend coverage to the young people of 16 and 17. It will also replace the former youth allowances program. It is the result of the wishes and requests made by various groups and the provincial governments.
This plan gives the provinces enough leaway to set up their own priorities with regard to additional programs and family assistance. In fact, higher payments, based on selection, will provide the provinces with a basis from which they can develop the kind of family assistance they prefer. Similarly, the income scale adopted by the new plan can serve as a criterion for the provinces, thus spar-

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
ing the citizens the compulsory means test at both federal and provincial levels.
It is quite important to remember that those benefits will be tax-free.
I pointed out earlier how important the integration of that program into a comprehensive income security scheme would be for all Canadians, a scheme taking into account the need for both protection and welfare.
An important aspect of that integration is how the plan will complement the federal unemployment insurance program. While continuing to draw unemployment insurance, the unemployed who have a large family will be encouraged to find a job. In addition, the plan fits equally well with the provincial as well as the federal welfare programs.
What are the basic factors of that total income security program? We have already explained the special role that will be played by the Family Income Security Program.
We have also shown that it will be closely related to unemployment insurance. Major changes will be effected within the unemployment insurance plan as from January 1972. Such changes will protect to a greater extent the income of those people in the labour force. In fact, there will be less dependent on social assistance or welfare and the unemployed will be in a better position. A considerable improvement will be the introduction within the framework of unemployment insurance of sickness and maternity benefits.
The large amounts of money which the Unemployment Insurance Commission is paying to Canadian citizens represent another contribution of the federal government to income security. Unemployment insurance is meant to improve the economic situation of the needy.
Old age pension and its guaranteed income supplement are another way for the federal government to help Canadians. In the five years preceding 1971 , the old age pension was considerably changed. The eligible age was gradually lowered from 70 to 65 and the basic benefit was raised from $75 to the current rate of $80 a month.
In 1967, there was recognition of the particular needs of older people with low income through the introduction of the guaranteed income supplement linked to the old age pension. The supplementary benefit could reach $30 a month according to the established income.
In accordance with the intention of the federal government of changing direct payments for the benefit of those who needed them most, the guaranteed income supplement has now been increased. The higher allowances have been effective since last April.
From April 1972, a married couple who receives a guaranteed income supplement could get as much as $260.10 a month instead of $255, and a single person could receive $137.70 instead of $135.
In 1971, about a million people benefitted, in part or in full, from changes to the guaranteed income supplement.
The recipients of this supplement are also entitled to a maximum increase of 2 per cent a year of the combined amount of their old age pension and their guaranteed income supplement. This measure is intended to fight the cost of living increase.

The federal government will have paid, in 1971-72, in old age pensions and guaranteed income supplement, about $2.2 billion. This money will directly fall into the pockets of retired Canadians.
Since its implementation in 1965, the Canada or Quebec Pension Plans are viewed by labour as the corner-stone of social security. They not only supply contributors with a retirement pension over and above the old age pension, but they are also conceived to protect dependents in case of death or disability.
However, the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan differ from the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement and the new Family Income Security Plan in that they are contributory and extend to self-employed persons as well as to employees and employers who contribute to it.
Although the Minister of National Health and Welfare recommended technical changes in his white paper in order to increase Canada Pension Plan benefits, these changes will only be implemented in January 1973.
The reason for this is that a three-year delay is required by law in the case of major changes in order to allow for consultation with the provinces.
The additional protection provided by these changes for widows, the disabled and their dependents will help those who very often have to turn to welfare. Finally, of course, the Canada Assistance Plan allows the federal government to support provincial programs in this area. The federal government assumes half the cost of welfare which the provinces provide for people with no income, or whose income does not allow them to meet their most basic needs. Ottawa also assumes half the cost of provincial prevention and rehabilitation services.
Old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada Pension Plan, unemployment insurance, the Canada Assistance Plan and, now, the Family Income Security Plan are altogether essential steps on the road leading towards a comprehensive income security plan in Canada.
We realize that it does not mean the end of all social issues in Canada, that failing a miraculous cure all legislators and all the people should try by every possible means to find a solution to the serious poverty problem.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), hon. members might permit me to read the proceedings for the adjournment motion this evening. 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 are as follows: The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Sko-berg)-External	Affairs-South Africa-Government
policy respecting position of non-whites; the hon. member
November 25, 1971

for Brant (Mr. Blackburn)-Indian Affairs-Future of Mohawk Institute.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Caouette:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to propose legislation establishing a social and economic security plan placing all Canadians above the poverty level.
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the hon. member for Temisca-mingue (Mr. Caouette) who brought this subject to the attention of the House. The reduction and elimination or poverty in Canada involves many facets of our society. First, we have to improve and make more effective all of our welfare programs. Second, and one of the most important, we have to expand our economy to provide jobs for the people. We must train those who have been unemployed for long periods, so that they will be able to enter the labour market. We must also reduce taxes. This involves the lowering of taxes both from a personal standpoint and a corporation standpoint. The elimination of poverty must involve a drive for adequate health services, and this is what I propose to speak about this afternoon, to help improve the deplorable, physical and psychological conditions which characterize many of Canada's poor.
The Canadian Medical Association points out that even in the most affluent nations like Canada and the United States, 20 per cent of the population or one-fifth of the people are poor, but it is this 20 per cent that suffers 75 per cent of all the major illnesses. There is talk of escalating costs in the health field. This is where we must start; this is the key to the solution.
Statistics on the health of Canada's poor are indeed appalling. A report published by Montreal City Health Services indicates that the health of privileged children is five times better than that of poor children. Many of the poor children suffer infectious disease on a ratio seven times higher than that of privileged children. Nine out of ten of the poor children eventually need hospital treatment, while only two out of ten of the privileged children enter hospitals. In other words, the cost of hospitalization for the poor is almost four times as great as it is for the affluent. This constitutes an economic problem which must be borne in mind when dealing with the cost of health care in medical terms.
How shall we meet this challenge? Obviously, we must try to prevent illness in the poorer children, and in order to do this we must see them before they become ill. A method must be devised of having these children checked in a preventive medical clinic rather than sending them to a treatment clinic or to an emergency unit in a hospital
Social and Economic Security
where they wind up in a bed costing $50 or more per day. The economic aspect of this approach is graphically illustrated when one considers that hospitalization costs comprise 60 per cent of the total amount spent on health, whereas the hospitals meet only 15 per cent of the total demand for health services. This was emphasized by none other than Dr. LeClair, deputy minister of health, when he stated that too much money was being spent on cure and too little on prevention. He went on further to say that governments had been taking the coward's way out in their approach to health problems. I do not know whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) agrees with him, but it does not appear that he is influencing the minister much. Incidentally, Dr. LeClair was the dean of the new medical school at Sherbrooke. According to him, it has been forecast that at the present rate of escalation health and education costs will use up all the projected gross national product by the year 2,000. So, something must be done.
In spite of the mounting expenditure in this field, very few concerned people are happy about the state of medical care today. They are unhappy about the lack of preventive medicine, about the dismal effects of inadequate nutrition. It is estimated that 40 per cent of the poor live on unbalanced diets. A better system of preventive medicine would not in itself cure all the evils. Diet has a direct effect on health. So do consumer buying patterns. Some of the labour unions in the State of New York have recognized this fact and have concerned themselves both with diet and with consumer buying. Indeed, they will provide a shopping service which takes into account cost to the consumer and dietary sufficiency. They will also ensure that adequate diets will be provided for pregnant women. Statistics show that metabolic toxemia in later pregnancy causes, among other things, one-third of all infant deaths up to the age of one year.
This leads us to one conclusion. If preventive medicine is to be practiced correctly, we must have more doctors. This is the key to the situation. It may cost $50 for a complete check-up to prevent hospital treatment later, but if we can prevent hospitalization we shall save $50 a day and more, depending on the length of time for which a patient is hospitalized. If a patient were in hospital for seven days, for example, he would pay $350 or more depending upon where the hospital is located, in addition to the cost of the doctor's care and laboratory expenses. Early diagnosis, the discovery and prevention of long illnesses, would keep down hospital expenses. Many diseases, for example, cardiovascular complaints, arthritis and respiratory ailments, can be dealt with effectively if they are seen early enough. Then, there is cancer, which kills about one in seven, and which is nearly always curable if it is removed early enough. If it is not, the patient is subjected to a long period of hospitalization, suffering and death. The stakes are high.
They key to the solution is more doctors. If there is any question about this, the report of the World Health Organization shows that Canada, one of the affluent nations, is among the worst of the lot. Russia, for example, has twice as many medical doctors on a per capita basis as we have in Canada. That is shocking. The Canadian people deserve better than that. But Russia also has partly-trained doctors called feldshers who practice factory

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
medicine and work in outlying areas. Russia is aiming for a ratio of 3.6 doctors per 1,000 people. Canada, in the next decade, will be hard put to it to provide one practicing doctor, a general practitioner, for every 1,500 people. How can a doctor in Canada today carry the load he is expected to bear? He is drastically overworked, and anyone who visits a doctor's office or an emergency unit at a hospital can confirm this. Many of us, I suggest, should do this from time to time to find out what is going on. Because of overwork and consequent fatigue, a doctor in Canada today simply cannot deliver top medical services. Little Israel has the same number of doctors per capita as has Russia. France, United Kingdom, West Germany and the United States are all ahead of Canada.
If further proof of our neglect in providing the necessary number of doctors is needed, the World Health Organization estimated that the desirable ratio is one physician per 1,000 people. In these circumstances, is it not shameful that more than 600 students with the correct qualifications could not be admitted to our medical schools? If I were Minister of Health I would be taking a long look at that situation, because he and the government are failing to provide the number of doctors that the nation requires. But the government refuses to listen. Wailing and moaning about escalating health care costs, they are like the little boy who put his finger in the hole in the dyke. He tried to stop the leak, and this is what the government is doing. I wish the minister was in the House today. I know he has other duties. Time after time I have asked him to see what could be done. For the last four years I have asked that medical schools be run on a year-round basis, cutting the cost and increasing the number of doctors produced by shortening the course from six years to four years. The buildings are there, we have the teachers, we have everything required. Why is this not done?
Let me say this as a final plea. In the war against poverty, it must never be forgotten that preventive medicine has a very large part to play. If disease and illness are to be prevented, indispositions must be spotted at an early stage. It follows there must be sufficient doctors engaged in the practice of preventive medicine to check these people and prevent illnesses of long duration.
I have put the figures on the record. I hope the minister will read what has been said this afternoon by many of my colleagues and will take some action. Let him get his head out of the sand and remember that while he has been doing nothing people have been suffering and dying because of the inadequacy of our facilities for the practice of preventive medicine. This is a question that appeals to all hon. members because it is not a partisan one. It is a matter that affects people all across Canada. We must take some action to deal with the situation and the government has a part to play.
I well remember, as Your Honour does because you were here at the time, the cutbacks made in the health resources fund set up to build medical schools and centres to train doctors. To me this was a deplorable mistake, after the government had deceived the people by bringing in what it said was a full medicare plan. This the government has to answer for, as it must answer for the current
[Mr. Rynard.J
shortage of doctors. I do not put the blame for this on the federal government alone but on governments of all levels. Not only are we unable to provide sufficient doctors for the Canadian people; we steal and import them from other areas in the world where there are even less doctors than in Canada. This, in itself, is deplorable.
As a result of this debate this afternoon, I hope the minister and his government will examine what can be done. They have been considering the situation for a long time; let us hope the government now treats it as an emergency and does something.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the motion presented in the House today by the Social Credit Party of Canada is extremely important because it brings forward solutions which would partially, if not totally, solve the social and economic issues that plague so many people and give responsible Canadians serious cause for worry.
Last year, on November 24-exactly a year ago yesterday-I spoke during the debate on Bill C-181 to provide temporary emergency powers in order to check terrorism in Canada and I said the following:
For many years, we have been warned by competent persons that if we did not reform our economic system, we would suffer from very serious social troubles. Only three years ago, American economists and sociologists, in a letter addressed to the President of the United States-
He is not just a nobody.
-stated that the first condition to avoid an unprecedented economic and social disorder would be to secure for each individual a guaranteed minimum income.
This cannot be a myth because those are the words of an economist warning the President of the United States that we must come to such a state of affairs, since the physical possibilities are there. In order to avoid disorder, he told the President:
Since our country is close to the United States, obviously the warning served to Americans applies also to Canadians. Monopolies, trusts, economic dictatorship, all these keep on ruling the roost-
What I said in 1970 applies also to 1971, and I resume the quotation:
under the benevolent eye of this government. Financiers keep on controlling this country's money supply and credit and thus, they distribute the lifeblood through the economic system whose life is in their hands.
There, Mr. Speaker, is the main cause of the disorders that we live through and which also create misery and unemployment, as well as a lack of confidence from the younger elements of our present society.
We must at least be realistic and listen carefully to what young people are saying. I have a dozen young people at home. I listen to their remarks and I worry for them since our large and beautiful Canada offers them no challenging future, a country where one should be able to breathe more freely. Also young people should be able to set up a home and look to the future with confidence. If young people want children, that is their business, but let them enjoy security and the prospect of a decent living.
Last year, again, I stated:
So far, government authorities have met this disorder by displaying police machinery. Certainly it is the duty of the state to
November 25, 1971

protect its citizens against aggression by those who threaten its legitimacy. However, it is also its duty to control the greediness of those who squeeze the people, of the big financiers who have abusively increased interest rates, one of the main causes of inflation and unemployment.
A social and economic situation cannot be remedied the way a bomb is defused. In a certain sense, when democratic governments have to rely on police forces to restore the prosperity and security of the country, it means they are gradually losing the game.
When groups of citizens, even if they are a minority, come to contest the legitimacy of government and to doubt the ability of public institutions to govern properly, when they resort to violence and disorder, it is a sign that something is wrong with the system.
This is an indication that it is most urgent that we should pass from the mere denunciation of the effects of violence to the consideration of its causes.
When solutions are proffered, serious minded people will sometimes say that this is demagogy, that the proposals are naive, that we must keep on beating around the bush and keep our imperfect system even though some older parts are worn out, in the hope that they can be adapted to the machinery and end up operating in a normal way.
Referring to violence, one notes that the situation is almost unchanged since last year. We have witnesses, this year, a number of demonstrations here and there.
Some situations have actually arisen that were of concern to every Canadian who wishes to live in peace and security whilst going about under normal conditions.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) travels across Canada surrounded by police forces as was recently the case in Quebec City. I am not making up that story which was published by the newspaper Le Soleil on November 13, and I quote:
Police forces steal the show from politicians.
When I was a little boy and used to read in the papers that Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and the great politicians of that time were going about-


An hon. Member:: Ah, ah!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Whatever hon. members might say, I am referring to a situation that has happened and which is now menacing our own country.
When the Prime Minister cannot travel without such protection, something disturbing is happening. It is up to hon. members to talk about those things in Parliament to try and improve the situation. Let us wake up while there is still time! Some people are sleeping over a volcano and do not know it!
There was a very interesting caricature published in the newspaper Le Soleil. The caption was short but it spoke for itself. There was a man saying, "I inherited a small factory-He was very happy, very radiant. "I make a little $75,000 a year-". I am very glad for him. "I spend my winters in the South!" How lucky can you get! "I might say I am perfectly happy-but-". But there is a question mark. The man says, "I wonder why people are demonstrating in the streets?" Everything is going well for him. Everything is perfect so he asks himself why people are demonstrating in the streets. That is what he is
Social and Economic Security
asking himself. But he does not want to look any further. He does not try to find out. He is just wondering.
So the government appointed a commission to analyze the economic conditions and determine if there were really poor people in Canada and if their lot could be improved. The Croll report on poverty talks about income security but the Prime Minister commented the report by saying it was impossible to realize. Here are comments published in the newspaper Le Soleil on November 13, 1971, under the heading: "Trudeau thinks nothing more can be done in the field of welfare and unemployment without jeopardizing other priorities". He was answering questions put to him by a newspaper man who asked him this:
Are your income programs adequate at this time?
The Prime Minister answered:
-I wish there was more money for everyone in Canada-
-More could be spent, but then there would be less money left to build bridges, highways, public buildings ... If money is shifted, as you say, if our priorities are changed, naturally it would be possible for instance to eliminate the police, the army, the firemen and the mail carriers. People would then come to the post office to pick up their mail and they would put out fires with their own hoses.
I was amazed when I read that. Frankly that upsets me. I hope the Prime Minister was misquoted, because I am convinced that he is much more clever than that. Besides he has often proved it. I will quote shortly some of his remarks at a press conference.
I do not understand why the Canadian government, particularly the Prime Minister, thinks it is impossible economically to provide income security for all. That is similar to what takes place in a family. That is what fathers and mothers are doing when raising children. As far as the youngest of the family is concerned, he is insured security at the table, in his bed, in the kitchen, in order that his basic needs are satisfied and when that duty has been accomplished, the others are forgotten, even if they have more, even if we must spend more for them because we have fulfilled our mission to insure the youngest one of the family security and the satisfaction of his basic needs.
That is our aim. We do not want to make all Canadians millionaires, but we want to provide the working class, the weak and the needy with the necessary revenue to satisfy their basic needs, that is income security.
Is the gross national product sufficient to provide the necessary goods to meet the demands of consumers provided with a guaranteed minimum income as suggested by the Social Credit? The Prime Minister is supposed to answer that question. About a month ago, the Prime Minister stated, during a press conference, that in 1971 the gross national product will reach some $95 billion. He also said that in 1961 it was in the vicinity of $40 billion. He spoke the truth when he gave those figures. It means therefore that over a period of ten years, the gross national product jumped from $40 to $95 billion. It also means that Canadians are industrious workers, that our economic system, where productivity is concerned, is truly efficient and that we must continue to develop it that it might become even more so.
In 1970, the gross national product in Canada amounted to $48 billion and according to the Prime Minister it will

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
reach $95 million in 1971. This means that during a year the rise of the GNP will be $11 billion, while there will be fewer active workers. Indeed, several thousand Canadians able to work will not have contributed to increase the gross national product. This means that machines kept on producing. But who did this? Canadians. Let us read the statistics released by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in its September 1971 bulletin. Production in man-hours is given. In agriculture, it went up from 100, as the basic figure, to 177, in ten years. That is almost double. In industry, it went up from 100 to 140. In business, it went up from 100 to 141.
If we can increase our gross national production at such a rate, and if Canadians have contributed to that production, I submit this: Just as in a family, when together we managed to have a good crop and draw a good income, the whole family must benefit from it. Not the neighbours. One may sometimes help the neighbours in need, but first of all, one must help the members of one's own family. So, considering present conditions and the efficiency and output of the workers, we should allow the latter to enjoy the benefits of their work by increasing their purchasing power.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I will finally become convinced that the opposite is true, but I feel that it is impossible, in a country such as ours, to attempt to establish a balance between the volume of production and the money supply by way of wages. In our system, because of inventions of all kinds, that is impossible. If we stick to the old saying: If you want a share of the production, you must contribute to it through your work in order to receive a salary which will enable you to buy the goods that are produced, we are in error. I believe that we should change our way of seeing things and try to understand that this system, in the field of production, is truly efficient, and that the necessary steps should be taken to ensure a minimum income, a minimum of well-being, something which will enable anyone with guts to live a normal life.
And as explained this afternoon by the leader of the Social Credit party, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), if some workers are able to get a large income, in the order of $15,000, so much the better for them since the country will be none the worse for it. Instead of getting discouraged people will be given incentive to work. And in 1972, if such a system were applied, the gross national production might rise to $120 billion.
There, Mr. Speaker, are the effects of a sound economy which would permit a normal life.
A while ago my colleague the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Gendron) was talking about complex problems. Now and then he would deliberately make them more complicated. I get along well with the hon. member for Temiscouata. I respect him and I think he respects me as well. I once had evidence of this. We differ on the means to take to solve problems. However, I shall not tolerate his saying that Creditiste proposals are simplistic and demagogic. I shall not accept that. Why? Because, in my opinion, hon. members sitting on this side of the House are as serious as those sitting to the right of the Speaker. We have a role to fulfill in this place: stating 
problems as they exist in Canada, in our areas, and trying sincerely to put forward solutions to make them disappear or at least to improve the situation.
I hesitate to say this as I bear malice towards none, but it would be hypocrisy to seek to defend a system which keeps two Canadians out of five in undeserved poverty. I am not the one who says so, Mr. Speaker, it appears in the Fifth Annual Review of the Economic Council and in the report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty in Canada, two government agencies, paid for by Canadians to seek out the causes of discontent in this country.
Any attempt to persuade the people that more cannot be done, that there is no other way, that it is quite normal for poverty to exist in the midst of affluence is a disservice to the people and if we pursue such a course we must necessarily build more prisons. We built one in Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines in 1969 at a cost of $32,450 per inmate. I heard a news report this week to the effect that the upkeep of one inmate costs $10,000 per year. Would it not be more realistic to decide on ensuring a minimum guaranteed income to people 18 years old and over, which would cost much less than maintaining inmates in prisons? They would thus be guaranteed freedom and would work towards building up the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up. [English]


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is of extreme importance. However, I am reminded of the Niagara Falls conference in 1969 at which my party brought the question of poverty and all its implications to the public attention. At that time, when words such as "guaranteed minimum income" were mentioned, it appeared to me that the whole country became excited.
We are now facing a most important social problem and it seems to me that we need a program for an income development plan. In other words, we have to create incentives to keep people working. Let me take the example of a businessman in Hamilton who employs someone at $100 a week. The man whom he employs wishes a raise of $20 and the businessman says he cannot afford it: he says, "If you want to look at my books, here they are. As a result of expenses, and so forth, I cannot give you that raise". The employee says, "That's fine. If you can't afford it, I'll quit", and he goes on welfare and receives approximately $80 a week. There is a significant point to be made here. It means that rather than a source being available to the employee which would provide the extra $20, all he can do, because of the complexities and archaic set-up of the system, is to go on welfare and receive $80.
We must try to develop an incentive to get people to work-particularly the unemployed, because most of them want to work. Only about 3 per cent of the unemployed will not work. Therefore, we must give them some incentive which will make them realize that it is much better to work, because when they are on social assistance they cannot improve their lot. In other words, when you make a dollar while on social assistance it is not automatically deductible. This is extremely important when you are trying to assess a particular program to eliminate one of our great social evils.
November 25, 1971

One of the important statements which appeared in the report of the poverty committee reads as follows:
The elimination of the scourge of poverty from the land is a vital national goal. It cannot be achieved without the compassion, the understanding, and the co-operation of the Canadian people.
When I think of that statement I am reminded of the blind, the working poor, the handicapped, the widows with children, the undertrained and the aged. I know that we are all concerned about them and the Canadian people are prepared to become involved. In my view, the aged should receive the highest priority. I receive from senior citizen constituents many letters which make me extremely despondent because it seems to me that with the $80 that is fixed and the $55 which is on a sliding scale-the $80 not being subject to any particular cost of living bonus-they cannot make it. I do not have to tell you of the frustrations and anxieties that they experience. Surely our aged people are deserving of more consideration than the government has given them.
When we talk about poverty in Canada, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about approximately five million people who are living at or below the poverty line. What does this really mean? It means that we have people who are deprived. On the other hand, it means that we are impoverishing the economy. We are losing $1.5 billion to $2 billion that could go into the development of the economy. All this means lost productivity. Then we must mention health services, welfare services and legal aid services. All of these added together spell a tremendous problem.
I would like to concentrate for a minute or two on the working poor, those who should be receiving our sympathy-those who, as I said before, have the frustrating experience of contributing to our society but who are not getting any benefit from it. They continue to punch a clock in order to remain a productive part of the mainstream of our economy. We expect them to have faith in our political and economic systems to which they give so much and from which they receive so little.
We have to face realities when we consider any program designed to provide a guaranteed annual income, whether it be through a negative income tax or other means. Over and above everything there is what I consider to be the most important policy, that of full employment. In order to end poverty we must first be prepared to transfer substantial funds from the middle and upper income classes to the lower income classes. This is a prerequisite; without it there is no sense in talking about ending poverty. We will have to convince the upper and middle income classes that a fairly substantial transfer of funds to the lower income classes is necessary in order to assist the poor-unless, of course, we call for a drastic reduction in living standards all around.
The second thing we must be concerned about in this area is that if we intend to abolish poverty, our whole thinking must be reassessed in terms of spending our tax dollar. We have been spending much of that dollar on low priority programs. Here I mention the money that we have spent on the B and B Commission. I am not saying that it is wrong to implement its recommendations, but I wonder if it should be one of our main priorities when we
Social and Economic Security
have five million people living at or below the poverty line.
Foreign aid is another matter that must be considered. I believe the target is to spend 1 per cent of our gross national product on aid for undeveloped countries. I think this is a fantastic assessment of man's interest in mankind when we have in Canada five million people living at or below the poverty line. Then there is all the money that was spent on the Bonaventure and the hydrofoil craft. We shall have to re-assess where our tax dollar goes if we are to treat the problem of poverty seriously.


Mr. Danforth:: We have to establish priorities.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We have to establish priorities, as my hon. friend from Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) has suggested. Canadians are generous but they are also extremely practical. They want to know what the results may be and where their money is going. In other words, they want a comprehensive study undertaken of all programs before running blindly off into the realm of a guaranteed annual income, because they know that someone has to pay the shot. There has been considerable debate on the question of elimination of poverty through the adoption of one scheme or another. We should not rush headlong into a guaranteed annual income scheme until we have made a comprehensive study of the entire problem.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has indicated that a guaranteed annual income scheme would cost us $3 billion. The Croll Committee, without taking into account a guaranteed annual income for those at the upper level of income of the poverty line, estimates that such a scheme would cost about $1 billion. I maintain that the Canadian people will not stand for such a scheme unless they know it is adequate and has low administrative costs. We must find a system of transferring adequate funds to the lower income classes at relatively low administrative cost.
As indicated by the report of the Senate Committee on Poverty in Canada, something like $4,364,000,000 was spent on federal and provincial income security programs in 1969-70. This covered the whole gamut of social insurance programs such as the Canada Pension Plan, the Quebec Pension Plan, unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation, veterans pensions, old age security, guaranteed income supplement, family allowances, youth allowances, social assistance programs for special groups such as the aged, the blind, the disabled, veterans, Indians and Eskimos, mothers allowances, unemployment assistance and the Canada Assistance Plan.
What concerns a lot of people is that many generalities have been expressed with respect to those who are on welfare. A vocal minority of Canadians are concerned because they believe that the vast majority of those on welfare are what can be called perpetual welfare cases. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has done many things for which he can be commended, and on the other hand he has done things for which he cannot be praised. But one thing he has done is to break down the figures in this respect. His figures-and we should keep them in mind-show that only 2 per cent or 3 per cent of those on welfare are what could be called types who are prepared to beat the game. If we are to maintain our credibility when we talk about these programs, one point

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
that must be stressed is that only 2 per cent or 3 per cent of those on welfare attempt to beat the system.
What bothers many people is that there are employable individuals who refuse to work. So far as I am concerned, a minimum of assistance should be given to that type of person. A lot of people are very concerned about this problem. It seems to me that we are giving assistance to people who do not need it. We should reassess our priorities in this regard.
The motion before us reads:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to propose legislation establishing a social and economic security plan placing all Canadians above the poverty level.
The motion is not quite correct. The hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon) gave a list of programs that the government has introduced. He told us how much money is being spent, how the programs are working and said that Canada is a great country in which to live. I do not think anyone would question the last statement-but there are so many programs that it is a real fiasco. The policy has no long-term goals. The federal and provincial governments are involved in administering and financing income security programs. Under social insurance we have the federal government dealing with unemployment insurance, veterans pensions and the Canada Pension Plan, while the provincial governments deal with workmen's compensation and the Quebec Pension Plan, comparable to and co-ordinated with the Canada Pension Plan.
Under demogrants the federal government deals with old age security, family allowances and supplementary family allowance programs in Quebec and Newfoundland; provincial governments deal with Quebec schooling allowances. The guaranteed income is administered by the federal government. We have social assistance administered by the federal government, dealing with war veterans allowances and social assistance for Indians on reserves, and Eskimos. Then we have-


An hon. Member:: Slow down, Line.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I read that too quickly, and I extend my apologies. What I am trying to say is that we have an extremely complex plan with no long-term goals.
There is a booklet called "Canadian Business" which tells what is wrong with the present system. Reprint No. 7009 is entitled "Guaranteed minimum income: there's more than one answer". I was very impressed with this little reprint by James L. Clare because he talks about the "existing social welfare income maintenance schemes" and then asks several questions. The answers to every question except the second one is "No," and the answer to the second question is "Often none".
The questions and answers are: eliminates poverty, no; incentive for poor to work, often none; breaks "poverty-cycle" and removes need for public housing and other subsidies to the poor, no; readily and fully understandable to poor, no; visible and open for comprehension by nonpoor, no; takes care of sporadic and seasonal unemployment most readily, no; eliminates testing, no; eliminates "snooping", no; minimizes administrative overheads, no. It appears to me that the structure that has been set up is

meant to maintain poverty. This is what a lot of people find disturbing.
I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, but let me say that no matter what type of program we have, we still must have a policy of full employment. This is the key.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Maclnnis) indicated that approximately 13 per cent of the people within the five million I mentioned are employable unemployed. So it does not matter what we are talking about in terms of full employment, whether it is 3 per cent or 4 per cent-but certainly is is not 7.1 per cent seasonally adjusted. I think that is scandalous when we think of what the results actually mean. Here we are really perpetuating poverty by creating unemployment.
We do not have time now to go into all the ramifications of this problem. When you do not give the people of Canada purchasing power through development of our economy it is not difficult to see that the butcher, the baker and the candlestick-maker are deprived of income. That is why I am concerned about the attitude of the government and about this tax bill which affects vital institutions in our country.
I think of our multinational corporations and how the government is not willing to throw a little "shaft" into them and thereby get more money from them. At this time, too, the United States is bringing in the DISC program. Then there is the recent surcharge which, as things get rough, will probably go as high as 15 per cent. This government brings in capital gains and a labour bill that certainly had the business community-I am not saying "up in arms" but they are questioning the attitude of the government. If we are talking about increased productivity which leads to increased employment, how can we accept the competition bill that was brought in? It would upset the whole nation.
I see the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) laughing. I do not want to get to him because-


Jean Marchand: Increased productivity does not create employment; that is the problem.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: His program is creating unemployment in some areas in order to create employment in other areas. I do not think we have heard the last of that.


Jean Marchand: Name one case.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We need incentives, and as long as the government proceeds-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
November 2>b 197^
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we heard this afternoon several speakers of the opposition parties-


John Howard Lundrigan: How do you know that, John?


John Carr Munro: I was here and heard some of them. I heard all I could stand. As I say, we heard several speakers of the opposition parties talk about the question of poverty. I must say that many of the comments I have heard before. Some of them have some validity, others do not. Some of them were pretty empty of any real, suggested remedies to correct the situation. I often suspect that is the case because some of the remedies invoked are rather unpalatable, politically, for some of the parties to embrace and therefore it is safe to adopt a critical posture but say little about them.
The constant refrain some hon. members indulged in was that all our welfare, income and social policies are fragmented and overlapping and that the resources made available under these programs are inadequate for the job. We have all heard that before. Really, what is implicit in remarks of that kind is the suggestion that it would be nice if we could introduce one over-all policy-I think it has been referred to as a better policy-under which we could rationalize the many policies into one piece of legislation covering this whole area.
I think hon. members were really referring to a guaranteed annual income, although to judge from the notes I have of remarks made when I was absent no representative of any party really embraced the guaranteed annual income as the philosophy on which his party was prepared to stand or which it would advocate in the next election. I will be interested to learn this evening whether any opposition party is prepared to embrace, as part of its philosophy, the guaranteed annual income. If any party is prepared to endorse it, at what level will it endorse it? Will its members be talking about the poverty lines mentioned by the Economic Council? They are well known. Or will they talk about income that is a fraction of the poverty line income?
Also, will the members of such a party talk about costs, and where they will find the money necessary? Even if they do not want to go into the cost implications of the program, are they advocating or will they advocate a guaranteed annual income? With the possible exception of the Creditiste party, the parties in this House have failed to adopt the position of unequivocally embracing this concept.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister is speaking and I would ask, what is his position? Never mind what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) thinks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The minister has the floor.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of something or other-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please.
Social and Economic Security


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister, in common with his cabinet colleagues, has been coached about some kind of common attitude to the effect that the opposition must provide the answers. We want him to spell out the answers to this problem and to indicate if there is a change of position on his part.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Will the hon. member please resume his seat. The hon. member's question is a matter of debate. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has the floor.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, perhaps during the remainder of this debate the opposition will have a chance to clarify its position. It can make clear what it means when it talks about the "fragmented" approach to welfare. Perhaps the opposition will tell us what policies they would advocate in order to correct this situation.
I hope to lay out this evening the government's position with regard to the guaranteed annual income and some of the difficulties we have encountered with regard to it. It is often said that if you have a guaranteed annual income, you can phase out many programs-in fact, discontinue them-and the funds expended on some of the programs will be offset against the cost of a guaranteed annual income. That is partially true, but only partially true.
I would be interested to hear those who advocate a guaranteed annual income tell us just what programs we should phase out or discontinue. For example, would they discontinue the unemployment insurance program or the Canada Pension Plan, both of which are social insurance schemes? Considerable moneys go into both these programs from the private sector. Individuals make contributions. It costs the individual money. Not many members in the opposition would suggest that these programs be discontinued.
Opposition members refer to "a great multiplicity of programs" and how they should all be rationalized. However, when you start to identify them one by one, not many people stand up and say they should be discontinued. Certainly, I am not advocating that we should discontinue these programs. I think they are good. I can think of people from both sides of this House who worked hard for them. They have been of real benefit.
Unemployment insurance provides income for an individual who has experienced an unfortunate occurrence in his life. He finds it necessary to turn to unemployment insurance. The principal unfortunate occurrence is unemployment and immediate cessation of income. There are sickness and maternity benefits, but let us talk about the unemployment aspect. The benefits received from unemployment insurance are preventative. If a person has little savings it prevents him from immediately falling into welfare and into the poverty cycle. It gives him an income which he earns through his contributions. It is social insurance. It is preventative. It tides him over the transitional period until, hopefully, he can find employment. There are not too many people who would say we should discontinue that program.
There are not too many people who would say we should discontinue the Canada Pension Plan. It provides

Social and Economic Security
benefits for people who are experiencing a multitude of unfortunate occurrences such as premature death of the breadwinner. It provides benefits for the widow and the children. I do not think anyone would suggest that this plan should be discontinued.
The principal protection under the Canada Pension Plan for the contributor is his retirement benefit and that of his wife. He has earned those benefits through his contributions. It provides an opportunity for him to maintain a standard of life analogous to that of his working days. It is supplemental to the guaranteed income supplement and old age security. I have not heard any members opposite suggest that this program be discontinued, nor will I make this suggestion. It, too, is preventative.
On the happening of these occurrences, whether it be attaining retirement or on the death of the breadwinner, there is an income that is guaranteed. That income has been earned. It often prevents the beneficiary from falling into the poverty trap. With both unemployment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan we have a net that prevents these people, on the occurrence of any of these unfortu-rate happenings, immediately falling into welfare and poverty. They may have some savings, although they may not be great. On the occurrence of any of these unfortunate events it is not necessary for them to use all their savings and then fall into the poverty cycle.
What are some of the other programs these people talk about in our "fragmented" approach to income security? I touched on unemployment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan. No one is standing up and cheering about discontinuing those plans. Let us talk about old age security. It is a universal program, a demogrant program.


Robert Elgin McKinley: You are cutting off the people who save their money.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: It is our right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The Chair would like to hear the hon. member who is speaking.


John Carr Munro: I see a great deal of validity in the comments, "It is a right, "They should have it, "They paid for it through their taxes." Many of the things this country affords people to a greater or lesser degree are done through taxes. I do not see any hilarity about discontinuing the universal part of the old age security payment that goes to all Canadians and, incidentally, costs hundreds of millions of dollars.
We have social insurance programs that we are going to keep, such as unemployment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan and, with a high degree of unanimity, agree we are going to keep the old age security. What other program does the opposition suggest we should discontinue? Is it family allowance? The family allowance program is universal; it goes to all families in this country, irrespective of their income, in the same way as old age security. Families of millionaires receive family allowances just as any senior citizen receives the old age security. Perhaps there are some who would discontinue this program in terms of its universal connotation.
Will these people support the government now in what we are suggesting? We are suggesting that the family 
November 25, 1971
allowance become selective, income-tested and go to those in need. We have to discontinue some of these programs if we are to reallocate our resources in order to get more of our money through the public sector to those who really need it. We have suggested that FISP be made selective, income-tested and redirected to families in real need. We are also suggesting that it goes a long way to build in incentives in our society.
I do not agree with some of the excessive statements that are made, but we have all heard it said that far too many people are receiving welfare who do not deserve it and should not be getting it. In fact, I have heard people say that the benefit levels for welfare are so high that there is no longer any incentive to work. I find those statements incredible in most circumstances; however, that is what we hear. The family income security plan offers incremental income to the working poor. There is an incentive to keep working. A person will receive incremental income to maintain himself and his family in better fashion.
I hope it is apparent that in terms of moving to a guaranteed income approach the government is prepared to take certain tangible action. We have taken it in the guaranteed income supplement for the aged. That is now an income-tested program. It has allowed us to most advantageously use our resources for over one million Canadians who need it. They prove they need it by filing applications stating why they need more than $80. This has allowed us to set income floors at realistic levels, certainly far more realistic than was the case a few years ago. We can now start to pay $260 to a couple and $137 to a single person. Inadequate as that may be, a few years ago we were at the level of around $80.
I repeat that one million Canadians are now receiving all or part of the guaranteed income supplement. That is the philosophy of this party: we are going to tailor some of these programs and shift them over to an income-tested approach. We are going to start to move toward a guaranteed annual income in this way. However, we are not going to be deceitful to the degree where we will say, "Let's discontinue or rationalize all these programs and get into one over-all program" and, when faced with the necessity of making a decision as to whether some of them should be discontinued, not have anything to offer except silence.
We have stated clearly that these social insurance schemes should be continued and we have indicated the manner in which we believe the resources going into university programs should be changed so as to reallocate those resources to areas of greatest need.
I move, now, to consider another program and I suggest this is really the program some people are talking about when they talk in terms of a guaranteed annual income. I refer to the traditional relief arrangements. "Let us not pay them welfare any more," they say, "let us pay them a guaranteed annual income."


J. Michael Forrestall: Get them jobs.


John Carr Munro: First, let us talk about the people on relief or welfare. I think a high percentage of these, almost 90 per
November 25, 1971

cent-one study established the figure was 87 per cent- are totally outside the work force, incapable of ever entering the work force. They are the sick, the disabled, deserted or divorced wives with children to support, with children to raise, and so on-people who through physical or mental incapacity could not in any case enter the work force. Is it suggested that with respect to this component of those on welfare we should replace welfare payments by a guaranteed annual income?
Perhaps that would not be a bad idea. We don't have to worry about incentives there, about what effect it would have on the desire of people to be involved in constructive work. But what levels are they talking about? Do they suggest we should pay these people a guaranteed annual income at the poverty line? If they do, I should like to hear it. This is one area in which in all conscience we should be ready to move as soon as possible. But I have not heard many specifics from the other side; from the opposition I have heard mostly rhetoric.


J. Michael Forrestall: Give us access to your information.


John Carr Munro: I have read in the Croll report that if it be considered too costly to move to a guaranteed annual income immediately then it suggests we should pay 70 per cent of the poverty line. Many of us have heard that suggestion. But if we pay 70 per cent of the poverty line to hundreds of thousands who are completely out of the work force and who cannot re-enter it, what do we accomplish? All we have done is replace one welfare scheme for another. We have institutionalized poverty and, in fact, disconnected these people from certain services which are valuable to them.
Very few people talk about how a link-up will be accomplished. Some say that when people who are now on welfare wish to work, we should find work for them to do. I agree with that and I believe we are moving in that direction. The time has come when we are prepared to admit that the private sector, in days of advancing technology, cannot hold out much prospect of making jobs available for all Canadians who want them. This being the case, the public sector will have to move in increasingly to create job opportunities in the public service and through the help of voluntary associations.
Some of the programs we have adopted acknowledge this proposition, although I have not heard them extolled with any degree of enthusiasm by hon. members opposite. However, I would draw attention to the Opportunities for Youth program through which the government intervened directly this summer to provide job opportunities for our youth. Moreover, there are the policies recently announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), under which local initiative has assisted in providing job opportunities, the subsidies offered to industry for training workers, creating jobs which will be of tangible benefit not only to those directly concerned but to the country as a whole. So we are moving to provide job opportunities for some of the individuals who are now on welfare and perhaps we shall move further in that direction.
But while we talk about a guaranteed annual income for those who are permanently out of the work force, I certainly hope we are also thinking about a guaranteed annual income for those who are already engaged in the work force at lower rates of remuneration. Otherwise we
Social and Economic Security
are building in serious disincentives. Suppose a married man who is not working is paid a guaranteed annual income of $4,000 a year. Is somebody who works and earns $4,000 to be given nothing? What is the incentive there? They have to receive something. Our cost projections indicate that here alone we are talking literally about hundreds of millions of dollars. So when we talk about these programs and about those which should be discontinued, taking account of the offset through the discontinuance of certain benefits, we are contemplating new expenditures which would amount to perhaps $2 billion a year.
This brings us to the next question. Where is the money coming from in the short term? We are being asked to move in with additional resources in this particular area while being confronted with legitimate demands to create job opportunities through a number of different programs. I do not think it is possible to do both these things at one time and do either well.
I should like to review briefly the record of the government in this field. I do not think the government has anything about which to be apologetic. I believe our Canada Assistance Plan, the plan we agreed upon with the provinces in 1966, is providing valuable assistance to those in need, albeit at levels which are often inadequate. We are moving into new areas by asking the provinces to take advantage of other aspects of the assistance plan, costs of which can be shared between the federal government and the provinces. I think that is progressive legislation.
Recent legislation to provide an adequate income to senior citizens through a marked increase, the second biggest increase in Canada, under the guaranteed income supplement is a step that is of tangible benefit to roughly one million Canadians. The Canada Pension Plan, which was brought in with the help of some members of the opposition but under the authorship of the government, has been and will continue to be of real benefit to hundreds of thousands of Canadians. I think the new benefit structure under unemployment insurance brought in by my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), will be of real assistance to people in our work force who may be temporarily unemployed for a short time. Policies of this kind, together with the one we are now advocating in terms of FISP, doubling and in some cases almost tripling the benefit structure for families in the lower income groups, will provide the supplemental income necessary in many cases to put the poor above the poverty line and to give them some sense of adequacy and decency.
With our record of concern and accomplishment in the field of income security, and if the House acts on some of the recommendations that we have made, we will be able to make tangible, worth-while and constructive proposals that will lead to the alleviation of poverty.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I put a brief question to the minister? I have listened for the last 20 minutes to his apologizing for the government's stand on the guaranteed annual income. But why is the minister prepared to offer the provinces $15 million of the Canadian taxpayers' money in an effort to assess the value of a guaranteed

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
annual income through pilot projects? Is that not a waste of money, in view of what he has now said?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate to the House-I suppose the hon. member was not listening-that the guaranteed annual income poses, to me at least, some very serious questions that have to be answered. I am not as sure as I once was that it is the panacea that many have claimed it is, and I think another look should be taken at it. One of the things we should look at is the effect it has on incentive. We should also look at the level at which the guaranteed annual income should be paid and whether or not we are just institutionalizing poverty.
The advantages of such a proposal must be closely examined. One of the best ways to find out the answers to some of these questions is to undertake experimental projects. Many of the provinces agree with this. Provinces of all political complexions, think that we should have experimental demonstration projects in the guaranteed annual income field which over the course of the next year or so that we might find concrete answers to some of these questions.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the minister whether the experiences in New Jersey and in numerous parts of the world which have carried on this sort of experiment have been fruitful? Do we have to go on spending $15 million in order to find out the answers to the four or five questions that the minister has raised? Is our poverty so unique that we have to spend so much money to find answers to the problem?


John Carr Munro: The experiment in New Jersey is hardly sufficient on which to base an answer, especially since it has not yet completely concluded. The New Jersey experiment may provide some answers, though it was a very limited experiment involving relatively few people.
My next comment in relation to some of the things the hon. member has just said is that I do not feel a guaranteed annual income project carried on in another country is much of a guide to us in Canada. The circumstances might be entirely different, as might be the environment in which the projects are conducted. In addition, the sense of values might be quite different. I do not think we would get many accurate answers from an experiment conducted under those circumstances. In view of the fact that we are talking about spending billions of dollars on a new system of income guarantees that is thought by many to offer concrete hope for many people, I do not think that spending $15 million on a few experiments of our own is at all wasteful.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of this opportunity to give my opinion on the present situation and especially on the motion under discussion, which reads as follows:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to propose legislation establishing a social and economic security plan placing all Canadians above the poverty level.
Mr. Speaker, why do we have poor people in Canada? Can the present system have been any good, considering it led one third of the population to stagnation and poverty?

Mr. Speaker, that is the result of our planned economy where a certain amount of steering is noticeable. Otherwise the results would be different. But that planned economy has brought poverty to some of our fellow citizens and has made it possible for others to become rich.
Mr. Speaker, we do not want equality for all people, but we say that Canada has surplus products which should be distributed to the needy. In fact there are surpluses a plenty as shown by official statistics in recent years. And we do not know what to do with those surpluses. There are surpluses, but there is also poverty.
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with those who say that poverty exists in Canada. We do not have poverty in Canada but abundance, and I ask the minister to find a way to distribute this abundance.
We live in abundance and we don't know what to do with the surplus production. We seek all kinds of ways to export the goods we produce because we want to sell our surpluses. There are some Canadian citizens who are undernourished; they would need some of that surplus production and through appropriate means we could distribute it in order to meet the needs of our people, those we call the "poor", who have nothing to eat.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) was saying a short while ago that the present system does not provide the means to solve the problem. In his opinion, jobs should be secured for all citizens. But the only way to create jobs is to borrow and invest. In order to invest, it is necessary to borrow and to repay the loan together with interests. So more is taken from society than what is actually invested.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are increasingly vulnerable to the shortcomings of the system. One hand gives while the other takes more away, thus aggravating the economic situation and increasing the number of poor people.
In order to understand well the present trend of the Canadian economy, under the direction of its financial, economic and political elite, it is only necessary to take a look at the past from 1934 until now. The results of our national economic system cannot be due to chance but are the consequence of haphazard management by qualified Canadians to whom we entrust the administration of our public and social affairs.
Every Canadian is interested in a fair distribution of the national product destined to consumption and to capitalization for future years.
We produce first to meet the needs of the citizens and then to provide for the security and the development of Canada in years to come.
Thus the purpose of production is twofold: consumption and capitalization. This is what the minister fails to study.
The Bank of Canada was established in 1934 in order to balance the management of our economy. Let us see, in the light of the figures I will quote the orientation given by financial and political authorities to the production in relation to consumption and capitalization.
In 1934, the gross national product was $4 billion, consumption $3,600 million and capitalization $400 million. Consequently, 10 per cent of the GNP was capitalized.
November 25, 1971

In 1945, production amounted to $12 billion and consumption to $10.8 billion. Capitalization totalled $1.2 billion, that is another 10 per cent of consumption. The mean capitalization was kept at 10 per cent.
In 1960, production amounted to $36 billion and consumption to $27 billion, that is a level of consumption of 75 per cent. Capitalization stood at $9 billion. The latter went up therefore from 10 per cent to 25 per cent in 15 years.
In 1971, production amounted to $90 billion, consumption to $54 billion and capitalization to $36 billion equivalent to 40 per cent of consumption.
A balance was struck in 1944 when capitalization stood at 10 per cent. In 1971, it jumped to 40 per cent. We are over capitalizing and this is where the minister should intervene. As can be seen, the more we produce, the more we capitalize and the less we consume. Consumption, as a result, is tremendously reduced.
All efforts are directed toward production, capitalization and productivity to the prejudice of consumers.
From 1934 to 1971, we have been through depression, war, prosperity and inflation, and we have now returned to depression, unemployment and increasing poverty. In the face of an ever increasing and potentially unlimited production as evidenced by the experience of the last 40 years, it becomes urgent to pause, to stop and even to reverse the trend immediately to avoid the catastrophe which becomes imminent day after day.
Let us focus our attention on the 1971 statistics and see how the abundant production of this year is divided between consumption and capitalization. Once again, the gross national production amounts to $90 billion. That is wonderful. The consumption stands at $54 billion. We consume 60 per cent of our production. There is therefore a deficit in consumption. We capitalize $36 billion, namely 40 per cent of our consumption. That is too much. A breakdown of capitalization gives the following: $6 billion comes from individuals and $30 billion from corporations.
Before capitalizing too much, we should consume enough. That is what the minister never understood, that is what he should learn because it is possible to balance our economy, to capitalize less and to make more products available to consumers, so that consumers may benefit by the national production and the production surplus.
A study of national accounts shows clearly the pattern of national economic activity, under the supreme authority of the government, that has the overall control of production, distribution of production in consumption and capitalization between individuals and corporations.
After all the economic operations for the year 1971 are in one can see that individuals capitalize only $6 billion after paying their expenses and taxes. Corporations capitalize $30 billion annually after paying their administration and operating costs and their taxes.
Those results are not accidental. They are forecast and calculated in advance according to methods known to experts but often unknown to the population, the underprivileged and working classes which are more and more deprived of the benefits of increased national production.
Social and Economic Security
To illustrate this, may I say that the production in 1926 stood at $5.15 billion and that the basic tax exemption was $1,500. May I also point out that in 1971 when production totals $90 billion, or $4,200 per capita, the tax exemption compared to the production is $1,000. Since 1926, the tax exemption went down from $1,500 to $1,000 and there are some who say that we are doing much for the population of Canada when the cost of living has perhaps increased by 200 per cent compared to the gross national production. So the working man in increasingly deprived of the product of his income as he sees his tax exemption being steadily reduced compared to the national production per capita.
From 1929 to 1933 the tax exemption was equal to three times the national production per capita. In 1970-71, it is only one quarter of the national production per capita. During that period the situation has deteriorated to the extent that the tax exemption decreased from three times more to four times less than the national production per capita. That is the reason for unemployment and poverty.
Accountants, economists, administrators, and ministers are all in a position to appraise these computation methods and the prejudicial impact they have on our national economic balance while the people's buying power is steadily eroded and production is forever increasing, at least as far as production costs are concerned.
With the same national production per capita since 1944, that is to say when the family allowances were established, they have always been set at $6 and $8 per month for children from 6 to 14.
From 1944 to 1971, the national production increased from $11 to $91 billion and no way has been found to have the 7 million children under 16 enjoy it although they make up one third of Canada's population.
I am blaming not only the minister but also the government and all hon. members for failing to see this problem clearly and for not distributing the surplus production in proportion to the consumers' needs.
Whether the per capita production be $1,000 or $4,200, family allowances are set at $6 and $8. And now, in connection with the family allowances, the government is wrangling with the provincial governments; there is talk of taking from those who already do not have enough so as to give to others. In fact, no solution has been found to this problem. Again it's utter nonsense while our poverty level and our troubles are increasing and when we can but forecast an even more serious situation in the future.
The 1971 national accounts therefore show that public and private companies have capitalized $30 billion for the future, that is one third of the current year's national production after paying their administration costs and taxes. The time has come to open our eyes and realize that the best things, even in moderation, can become dangerous. Indeed, a $30 billion capitalization on a $90 billion production is obviously exaggerated, especially when consumption is lacking on the part of the dependent citizens short of personal purchasing power and having to rely on the productive citizen or on society in general to keep alive.
Thank God, these are not haphazard results. They derive from a well planned orientation, from a scientific technology devised and directed by experts and university

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
graduates specializing in money matters, economics, politics, or the social, industrial and administrative sciences.
There is no question of entirely spoiling a system which does so well in planning production, capitalization and even to a great extent consumption for the 8,700,000 Canadian producers contributing to production and earning wages for their work as well as interest on their principal.
Mr. Speaker, there remains only to plan a guaranteed personal income for the $13 million dependent Canadian citizens in order that every Canadian without any income from work or capital can be sure of a guaranteed vital minimum, large enough and planned according to his needs and the production capacity.
Such is the situation in which we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker. That is where we should focus our efforts. We should ask our great experts, politicians, economists and others to see to it that the surplus production is distributed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like others who have spoken in this debate today, I should like to commend the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) for placing on the order paper the motion that we are now discussing. I think I can also say that the debate has been a very interesting one. All of those who have taken part have been obviously sincere and earnest in their desire to get rid of poverty. I think that all of us realize, as the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) put it, that poverty is a cancer that can destroy our society.
Although I have paid tribute to those who have taken part in this debate for the sincerity and earnestness of their approach, I must say that I disagree with many things that have been said. It does seem to me that many of the ideas and proposals that have been made fly in the face of one basic, fundamental fact. That fact is that you do not get rid of poverty simply by paying people money because they are poor. When that is done, no matter what title may be given to the payments, the result is that the poor are kept in their poverty.
If I may use the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, there are many measures that have the effect of institutionalizing poverty, and that goes for any scheme that gives money to people simply because they are poor. We have to find a much better way, and I hope that even this day's debate will result in some new thinking about this important issue.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare was quite right in asking that spokesmen for the various parties in this House should make clear where they stand with respect to the guaranteed annual income. I am afraid that is a phrase which a few years ago was capable of at least two different definitions, but the developments which have taken place have narrowed the field. It used to be that one could say he stood for a guaranteed annual income when what he really meant, as I did, was that he stood for universal programs, for demogrants. I still think

that that is a good connotation to put upon the phrase "guaranteed annual income". However, because of developments that have taken place in other jurisdictions, and because of the use of the title "guaranteed income supplement" with respect to the attachment to old age security, and because of the way in which the Croll report uses the phrase "guaranteed annual income," it has now come to mean something in the nature of the negative income tax. It has now come to mean a program under which, by use of an income test, people are given money to bring them up to a certain level.
I have to say that if the guaranteed annual income means that, if it means what is set out in the Croll report, I am not for it any more than is the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). But I am for a guaranteed annual income as I see it. I am for universal programs. I am for demogrants to designated groups in our society.
I said earlier that the fundamental fact that all of us who want to get rid of poverty must face up to is that we will never get rid of it by programs that institutionalize poverty, by programs under which money is given to people simply because they are poor. Programs like that keep them poor, start their children off poor, and as a result we will go on having a society in which not just 25 per cent by perhaps even a larger percentage of our people are poor throughout their years, despite the potential affluence of a country like this.
What bothers me most of all about the recommendations in the Croll report-and many people use the kind of language that is in that document-is that it generously criticizes all of our present welfare programs, saying they are a hodge-podge, saying they are no good, saying they do damage to the poor, and then it suggests another one. The Croll report proposes just one big welfare scheme that would be much easier to administer because it is on a one-shot basis, but I suggest it is far removed from the realities of the situation.
That applies not only to the Croll report. I submit it applies to much of the thinking of the present government. I was with the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he was criticizing those who are prepared to drop a number of our programs-he specified some of them-in favour of one over-all scheme. But I am not with him when in the administration of this phase of this government's activities he moves away from the universal principle and moves into more and more income-tested programs.
I hope the minister is not going to say, "Oh, there is Stanley again, still preaching the same old thing he has preached for the last 30 years."


An hon. Member:: Thirty-five years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thirty-five, 40 years, or whatever it is. I submit that in advocating universal programs and demogrants I am not advocating anything that is old-fashioned. It is welfare; it is the means test that is old-fashioned. I am advocating what is going to come, the day of universal allowances, of eco-
November 25, 1971

nomic equality. Let us move in that direction, not backward as so many want to do.
I submit that the minister, because he is well versed in this, is aware that the programs under government jurisdiction that do the most for the morale and the spirit of our people are the universal programs. Old age security does it. Granted, the minister has spoiled it a bit by the income test he has attached to a portion of it, but the basic $80 is still there as a universal right that is earned simply by age and residence; and compared with what the old, means test pension did to the souls of older people, that pension is a godsend, not only in terms of dollars but in terms of what it does for their morale.
The same thing is true of the Canada Pension Plan. It has not been around very many years yet but it is having its effect, not only on those retired who are drawing the small pensions already available but widows and those suffering illness or accident get the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan, and they get those benefits as of right. They paid for them with the contributions they made.
The same is true of unemployment insurance and family allowances. For all of the light criticism that there is about family allowances because some people get them who may not need them, the fact is that that payment has meant a great deal to millions of parents, mothers in particular, and I say it has been a good program across the years-good mainly because it was a program based on a universal right.


John Carr Munro: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


John Carr Munro: If the hon. member is advocating emphasis in terms of universal payments and, getting away from the selective income test approach that he has identified, that we take in some of our programs, I would ask him if we are to guarantee income floors-and for the sake of this particular argument we will take the poverty levels spoken of by the Economic Council-and if we are to guarantee income floors to everyone in Canada, and here I am talking about young married couples and couples with children-I am not talking about just those people who are out of the work force-would he make payments of this nature to everyone in Canada?
Let us say that here we are talking about roughly $4,000 for a man with a wife and two children. Would he pay that $4,000 to virtually everyone in Canada and somehow recover it back through the tax system? Is that the way he would approach an income floor?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is precisely the direction in which I think we ought to move, and I think that is precisely the direction we shall move, given time. I think the minister should take the first steps in that direction now, instead of taking the reverse steps that I believe he is taking despite the enunciation of the good principles and intentions that we heard from him tonight, just as we have heard from him on other occasions.
The minister talked about what we are going to do for the working poor. For heaven's sake, let us stop using that language. When we use that language and treat them accordingly, we are condemning them to be working poor for the rest of their lives-and that goes for their children
Social and Economic Security
and their children's children. We have to move in the direction of equality in our society that will establish the kind of floor the minister has mentioned, or perhaps even a higher floor, and this as a matter of right to all Canadians.
I have heard the question asked today and previously: Who will pay for the cost? What will we tax the upper and middle income people in order to do this? That is a problem. I know that very well, but I submit that is nothing compared with the cost we are imposing on 25 per cent of our people by keeping them in poverty, the human cost, the cost in morale, and the cost in spirit. If we believe Canada is the kind of country where human beings count, we ought to see this as a top priority, getting our income so distributed that we do something for the souls and the morale of our people. And we do not do that the Croll way or by the backward steps the minister has taken, steps which I think are contrary to the views he holds.
The minister looked at me a few minutes ago when he talked about some of the help that the government got from this side of the House with a certain program a few years back. During that time I got to know the minister well. It was before he became minister-and I think he agrees with me on this. I urge him, from his place in the cabinet, to say "No" every time he can to any of these retrogressive steps, and to say "Yes" to forward steps in terms of universal programs and demogrants.
Instead of saying that we cannot do it because we cannot immediately pay $4,000 to every family in Canada, I say let us start with certain defined groups. I still think we can improve the pensions we pay to our older people, but I must not spend too much time on that subject because whenever I get started on it the first thing I know is that my allotted time is up. However, I still think there should be a substantial increase in that basic $80 a month.
I think the time has come to provide for pensions at age 60. I have said this a number of times and the government will hear from me many times until we get it. I advocate pensions at 60, both old age security pensions and Canada Pension Plan benefits, on a voluntary basis, in other words for those who are prepared to leave the labour market. I would not make any other restrictions so far as drawing these two pensions are concerned, but I do say that people who leave the labour market should get these two pensions at age 60.
I believe that the federal government should have quite a bit to say about its action in providing superannuation for civil servants at age 55 after they have 30 years' service. This sort of lead should be given to industry and society generally. A pension after 30 years of service to an employer, public or private, is fully justified, and it is time such a practice became general. These steps also have the effect of creating employment for those who are younger, but I shall not get off into that tonight as I want to make precise suggestions of what I think the government should pursue. One is in the area of the old age security, increasing the amount which is now $80 to a higher figure and making it possible to pay both old age security and the Canada Pension Plan benefit at age 60.
Another area in which the government should move ahead on the kind of basis I am advocating is with respect
9906

Social and Economic Security
to family allowance or FISP, as the minister wants to call it. I wish the minister would not establish that cut-off line above which people do not get any family allowance at all. If he wants to make a difference-he is in power and I am not-he could make it the way he has with the old age security, establish a basic amount for each child that everyone gets on a universal basis and, if you will, have something more for those whose incomes are lower.
Another place where the demogrant or universal principle could be applied would be for mothers in the homes. I trust my colleague for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis) is applauding this. I know she is-


Winona Grace MacInnis: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -for it is her
idea and mine too. This is one area where we should now establish a demogrant, a universal program of payment as of right which would take care of many of the relief and welfare difficulties that face our people. It would do this on a basis that will be good for the morale of those homes, for it would be a matter of right. I would give it not just to the mothers who are part of the minister's working poor; I would give it to every mother who is at home raising her children in addition to what is paid to the children themselves. It would cost money, say some of my Conservative friends. Of course it would, but nothing in terms of the costs to the souls and spirits of our people because they live their lives in poverty and their children and grandchildren have to do the same.
There is a precise program. Put your family allowance, if you will, on at least a partly universal basis and pay it across the board and add to that a demogrant to the mothers who are at home or, for that matter, women who are at home, whether mothers or not. These are areas where we can start. The minister, I know, is thinking in the right direction because of the question he asked me. He would like to move in the direction of a universal grant to all the people of Canada. He is young enough; he will see that day. So shall I, for that matter, Mr. Speaker-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is questionable.


J. Michael Forrestall: You have undermined your credibility- it is a question of 40 years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When I came here they told me we would never get the means test off the old age pension and that we would never get the amount of the pension up to $40 a month. If you have seen these battles won as I have, you know you are on the right track; and if you stay at it you will see still further victories.


Mr. Deachman:: And the Liberals have done all of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Croll way is all wrong. He would wipe out old age security. He lost my support when he proposed that-but apart from the fact, he puts the whole of the solution to the problem of the poor on the basis that makes them all recipients of one big, grand welfare scheme. The Munro approach-at least the one he is implementing, not the one he really believes in-is to go for selectivity, to go for income tests and means tests. This has the effect of saying that we give money to people-why? Because they are mothers,

because they are wives, because they are a certain age, because they have lived in the country a certain length of time? No. Because they are poor. So they stay poor.
I suggest, therefore, that what we should do is extend the principle that has worked the best, the universal principle. My friend in the back row over there likes to boast of what the Liberals have done. They have done a lot through the pressure from this side of the House over the last 50 years, Mr. Speaker, but they know from their experience that the programs that have worked best are those that have been universal, those that have followed a demogrant principle. I say, for God's sake, for the sake of the people of this country and for our future, let us move still further in that direction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I must advise the minister that if he wants to ask a question at this time, because of the fact that the time allotted to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has expired he may only ask a question with the unanimous consent of the House. Would the House give the minister permission to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: He needs to ask a lot of them.


John Carr Munro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to thank hon. members for allowing me time to ask this question. I asked the hon. member whether this universal benefit would be paid out at levels we have not yet attained-far from it-to everyone in Canada, and recover the money through taxes. This is putting an awful lot of money through the system. Once it is paid out we have to try to recover moneys of a nature we have never put through the tax system in Canada. There would be great problems inherent in implementing the recovery rates necessary at the high income levels for the benefits paid out. I imagine the hon. member has given some thought to the problems inherent in that type of approach, and I should like to hear his views.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I say that the minister is quite right in his description of how I think the matter ought to work, namely, that the grants be paid universally and that the income tax be used to collect back from those who do not need it. The minister says that this involves a huge operation in terms of dollars. I hope I do not appear too much of a person out of the past if I say that I remember reading in Hansard that the late Hon. Charles Dunning said more or less the same thing to the late J. S. Woods-worth when he asked for a pension of $20 a month-it was a good idea but the dollars involved would break the country. Yes, it is a big operation, this kind of money being paid out and coming back. I submit, however, that what it would do for the morale and spirit of our people and the vitality of our economy is worth it.


An hon. Member:: Recycle it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says it is a form of recycling. If recycling works in other fields, it will work in this area too, as indeed it already has.
November 25, 1971


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of this opportunity to express my opinion on as serious and important a matter as that of poverty-which could be eliminated through the establishment of a social and economic system, as was suggested by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) in the motion under discussion. However, it seems to me that blaming the government for failing to propose legislation establishing a system designed to fight poverty is an exaggeration and is far from the truth.
Unfortunately, we in Canada keep considering the problem of poverty in different ways. We should find solutions and, above all, implement them. The hon. member for Temiscamingue blames the government for failing to propose legislation. Like many other members, I cannot agree with him.
On the contrary, the liberal government has neglected nothing to date. Although it has probably been unable to correct the situation, it has left no stone unturned in the present circumstances.
The minister spoke to the House a moment ago, summarizing the attitude of the government by saying, I believe, that the government had nothing to apologize for. On the contrary, the government and the Liberals should be proud of their efforts, of their achievements to date and also of their program for the future. He also recalled that many have responsibilities in this field. The federal government has great responsibilities because of the action it must take at the level of the national economy, but the provinces also have theirs, all the more so since some of the legislation related to poverty comes under their jurisdiction. Moreover, all citizens should unite to fight poverty, one of the heaviest burdens the country has to carry during this period.
No need to try to sum up all the measures this government has adopted recently. Nevertheless, let us recall those dealing with unemployment insurance. The tax bill is not all bad. On the contrary, there are many improvements that will help better the lot of the middle class and of the poor. The government has also deployed great efforts to find housing for the poor, notably in cities.
The government has taken steps to improve the living conditions of needy veterans, not to mention the proposals mentioned by the minister with respect to income security.
Estimates concerning federal funds to be spent on the income security plan and on social programs for 1969-70 were around $5,328 billion whereas the provincial share amounted to $2,845 billion for a total of $8,173 billion. Something has obviously been done. We cannot rest on our laurels and we are confident that more will be done if all of us work together in order to solve that problem.
But from what I have learned it also seems to me that, after all, the liberal party has been the first to introduce social measures and to urge other governments to continue that socialization program. As far as the present government is concerned, it does everything to strike at the very roots of poverty.
Social and Economic Security
We recognize there are still several things to do. I think the minister admits it. Every possible effort is made. If the problem is difficult to solve, it is perhaps due to the rapid change in technological and scientific fields, which creates difficulties for a majority of the people preventing some to integrate with those who had the opportunity of going further.
However, we hope Canadians will take their responsibilities in that area. It might also be-and I think the government is considering that hypothesis-that we are now dealing with the symptoms. It may be too difficult or impossible to reach the root of the problem, if we examine the last report of the Senate Special Committee on Poverty. Indeed, the committee was constituted within the framework of our institutions and it helps the government consider the question seriously. In its report the Senate Special Committee deals with the symptom of the poverty problem in the following terms:
The system has failed because it has treated the symptoms of poverty and left the disease itself untouched.
It is probably a little like a person having a headache because he has stomach trouble. He is given aspirins instead of being treated for his digestive ailment. Yet it is first necessary to know the cause of the disorder and then to remove it. It might be a real cause, difficult to find out because of the complex problem.
Political "simplifiers" always come up with easy solutions, solutions seldom applied. It is easy to criticize those on the front line by holding up to ridicule some of their slogans like the "just society". When the liberal party, following its leader, voiced its aims and its ideal by speaking of a "just society" we were aware, as was our leader, that such a "just society" could not be achieved by one single man or by a small group of men. It requires the help of all Canadians, of all governments. The state ship must be pulled in the same direction.
However, one must not be so naive as to believe that the ideally just society will be achieved today or tomorrow. As we are working towards a "just society", we should not destroy what we have already but strive more and more after that end.
In my view, we should endeavour to determine the true facts with regard to poverty. There are poor people among the young, the sick, the disabled and the older people. There are poor people in the underprivileged regions, especially in the rural areas. Some people are only temporarily poor because of illness or accidents. There are also the poor who are in a chronic state of dependence, those in the cities who have their own characteristics.
If the poor appear to be increasing in our society, it is probably because of technological progress which, in my view, is developing at a truly fantastic rate.
I remember the example give nearlier by the hon. member for Temiscamingue, and I agree with him, because I also meet such people in my riding. I cannot understand that at present a husband over 65 only draws a $135 monthly allowance, while his wife, because she is not yet 65, nor 60, gets nothing. A few months ago, she might have received $50 or $60, but because of the new
9908

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
provincial legislation, she no longer gets anything. In fact, the two of them only receive $135, which, in my view, is quite inadequate to allow them to live decently.
There are also unemployment insurance benefits for certain provincial employees as, for instance, those of the Department of Highways. Sometime ago, at least, they were not eligible for unemployment insurance.
Even among the poor, there are complaints at times about irregularities. We can presume that this happens, but we can not prove it. Some way should be found to put an end to those irregularities. Responsible people tell us that some are drawing welfare cheques and could apparently do without them, while their neighbors who can hardly make both ends meet, are not entitled to the same benefits.
I read the report of the Senate committee on poverty to which I referred a while ago. We can hardly understand the deep causes of poverty and its destructive effects on the whole community.
Several members have suggested solutions earlier. The Liberal government has implemented several in the past, especially since 1968. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) intends to continue to do so, but he needs time as well as physical and financial opportunities.
If we go by the testimony of some of our electors, we can see they want to work. Means should be found to get people back into production, to make them work as they want to. Although long term programs may seem wiser, we should perhaps endeavour to set up progressive programs which would be applied by extremely competent and experienced people.
As some have suggested, namely the members of the special Senate committee on poverty, we must aim towards a guaranteed annual income which, it would seem, could not be set up easily overnight, in spite of what some may say.
And this solution, as suggested by some people, could easily be applied through the negative income tax method combined with an incentive to work, as many Canadians wish. The federal government, constituted by the Liberal Party, tends to realize these objectives as fast as possible.
Together, with the help of the federal government and of all governments of Canada and also, if possible, with the help of all those who are affected by poverty, we should try to develop a system to have those needy Canadians participate in the political decision, making process, in order to eradicate poverty some day.
I am with those who have confidence in this government, who can congratulate the government for the action it has taken and the realizations it authored, especially since 1968. We are hopeful that the government will continue to take action and to consider the problem as it is in order to study the best solutions and apply them.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, this evening, at 20 minutes to 10, I have the distinct honour of speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition on the serious problem of poverty. I have listened to speakers from all four parties. There has been a lot of sound and fury which signifies very little, to say the least.

Tonight I feel a little of the frustration of the people involved-the unemployed, poverty-stricken and helpless Canadians across this country. This afternoon the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) was present in this chamber. Tonight the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) is in the chamber for a while. He did not show up during the afternoon or, at the very least, the beginning of the debate. Neither the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) nor the acting minister have been in the chamber.


John Carr Munro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


John Howard Lundrigan: I know the minister is in Japan. I am talking about the acting minister.


John Carr Munro: Will the hon. member clarify his remarks about my presence in the House this afternoon? Was he inferring that I was just here at the beginning of the debate?


John Howard Lundrigan: I did not see the minister here for the whole debate. I have been here since the debate started. I have not seen the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary. I have not seen the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) here today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: What for?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I do not think the House will gain anything by having a roll-call of hon. members. The hon. member should speak to the motion.


John Howard Lundrigan: I am speaking to the motion. Today, in the House of Commons, we are talking about the most important problem facing this nation-the unemployment of half a million Canadians and the fact that there are over four million Canadians living below the poverty line. We are talking to an empty House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Two cabinet ministers have been in the House today. The members of the opposition are trying to state their points of view. We have been referring to the Economic Council's report, the Senate committee report on poverty and the economic development report.


An hon. Member:: There are only seven of your members here.


John Howard Lundrigan: I do not see any advantage in members of the House of Commons standing in their place and speaking about poverty when the front bench, decisionmakers of this country are not present. That is folly and it should be recorded. I would like to see the proceedings of this House being televised today so that the people of Canada could see the response of this elected government to poverty-stricken Canadians.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare had the gumption to come here tonight to speak politically and very beautifully about the guaranteed annual income and the pilot project which is costing $15 million, while at the same time being married to it politically. He said to the members of this House and the Canadian people, "We think it might be the political thing to do because we
November 25, 1971

might have to withdraw other programs not politically palatable to the Canadian people. We are willing to spend $15 million because we are married to that kind of concept." That was beautiful figureskating; the minister should be complimented on his presentation.
I expected the minister, having heard the criticisms contained in the Senate committee poverty report, to at least comment on the fact that it did not concentrate on ways in which we can improve our economy and put people to work. I expected the minister to make some reference to the ways in which the economy of this nation can be improved in order to take people off the welfare rolls. That is what I expected. That is what the Canadian people expected. Instead, he came in with his coached approach to the problem. He asked what the opposition believed should be done. He asked what the members of the Official Opposition, the Creditiste party and the New Democratic Party believe should be done. This is the approach of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Those in the front benches of the Liberal party have been well coached.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: I intend to say only a few words. I firmly believe it is a waste of time to state my point of view but I will do so anyway. When I rose to my feet this evening I was tempted to speak for only two or three minutes ane then resume my seat. I was going to make the simple point that this debate was a waste of time because of the absence of the decision-making group of this country. I want to make two or three points which I hope will be communicated to those in the Department of Manpower who are responsible for dealing with the problem of poverty in Canada.
There is in operation in Canada a manpower training program. I believe every Canadian realizes that there is a positive correlation between the level of education, the level of training, the level of technical or professional competency in a country and the degree of its economic development. The government appropriately repeated programs which had been instituted by previous governments by passing the Adult Occupational Training Act in 1967 and introducing a manpower training program. Since that time, 1,134,000 Canadians have received instruction under this program. The cost in 1970-71 was $460 million. A few weeks ago, on October 14, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration announced that a further $35 million would be set aside for training adult Canadians who are unemployed, that $20 million would be allocated with respect to on the job training, and $15 million to upgrading skills so as to best qualify Canadians to find employment on the Canadian labour market.
I do not agree with all the observations made by the Senate committee on poverty or by the Economic Council, to the effect that these programs are of no value. I believe that this kind of training is an essential characteristic of a human resource development program. It does take people off the unemployment rolls, although it might be said to constitute a form of hidden unemployment. It does put money into the economy. Moreover, when a trained
Social and Economic Security
labour force exists there is a greater opportunity for development to take place.
In Nova Scotia, for example, we do have the capability of training people, so there is a better chance that industry will locate in the province. These are benefits which are derived from the manpower training program. I do not believe that a training program can create jobs; and, of course, neither does any Canadian. I do not believe the Prime Minister's statement that unemployment is a structural problem, that a great many opportunities are wide open but that people are either too lazy to work or do not fit into the openings which exist. I do not believe that, because from the research we have done the facts are to the contrary. In Canada today there are many tens of thousands of professionally trained and highly-skilled people who are unable to find work because there is broad and massive unemployment.
I believe we should reassess the manpower retraining programs because very often they are not able to take unskilled Canadian workers and expose them to training sufficiently to bring them up to the standards of skill required to enable them to fit into the labour market. People who are being trained either at upgrading centres or adult education classes are often not as competent, even after several years, as a young person who has just graduated from high school and who is also unemployed. We are spending money to educate people who find themselves, at the end, in the same boat as a young person who is unemployed.
Despite the large sums spent on these programs-$460 million in 1970-71-we have only been able to influence, on the average, 5 per cent of the unemployed in the country. Last year approximately 100,000 people were affected by upgrading schools, basic training schools and other aspects of the program. There has been a terrible lack of co-ordination between these programs and the needs of the economic community. We have trained people in all kinds of basic skills, but they find they have no opportunity to use them because it turned out there was a flux of persons of that kind before the program even began.
I now wish to make two or three recommendations. I know it is a waste of time. I know it is a lost cause. I know they will never be heard of again. It will be written up in Hansard and a waste of the taxpayers' dollars even to print it.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: First, I think we have to identify the components of the labour force in Canada. In one province there are 5,000 adult Canadians who have never been to school. Of what value is any kind of upgrading training to that kind of Canadian? Does this not suggest that we ought to look at other methods of bringing such people into the labour force? Again, there has to be a way of relating present programs to social institutions, to welfare programs and to unemployment insurance benefits.
Today-and this is hard to believe-if a young person is qualified to receive unemployment insurance benefits and finds himself out of work and decides he will enter a technical school or a university to improve his qualifications, he is denied unemployment insurance benefits because of the fact that he is not available for work if

November 25, 1971
Social and Economic Security
called upon, under the narrow definition in the regulations. But if he has been on welfare and has not worked for five years, he can qualify for as much as $100 a week if he goes to an upgrading school. A young fellow called on me at my office today, a strapping Canadian willing to do a day's work. We went to Carleton University to improve his qualifications after drawing unemployment insurance benefits for a couple of weeks. While he was there he got a bill demanding a refund of what he had drawn. If I were that young Canadian I doubt whether my reaction would be as mild as his was.
There has to be a better system of ascertaining real labour needs in Canada. Is it necessary to turn people out in scores as electricians or plumbers to find that the labour market is already glutted with that type of person? I believe the three-year labour requirement should be revised. At present, before a person can enter an upgrading school he must show that he has been on the labour market for three years. That requirement should be eliminated. A move was made in this direction by the Minister of Manpower when he announced a $15 million on the job program. He said, with respect to training of this type, there was no need for the requirement that the trainee should have spent three years in the labour force. The present provision discriminates against a young person who is willing to enter an upgrading school. Then there is the requirement that anyone taking part in this type of training cannot continue for longer than 52 weeks. How absurd that is, when one considers that there are probably thousands of disadvantaged Canadians who might well be required to attend for two years before being able to moving into a technical training institution to better themselves. They probably include many who have 30 or 40 years of productive activity before them. This requirement should be eliminated.
I believe there should be some mechanism by which new apprentices can more easily find their way into industry. How often have hon. members received letters from young people saying they have just finished their trade training, with an "A" certificate in mechanics, boiler maintenance or some other craft, only to be told at the Manpower office that they must have experience?
In most European countries there are schemes whereby governments encourage industry, through the use of incentives of various kinds, to subsidize initial employment opportunities for young apprentices for a year or so. This is something the Canadian government should consider. It is absolutely frustrating for our young people to walk out of training institutions at the age of 18 up to 25, full of vim and vigour, having listened to their teachers from kindergarden talking of the virtues of education, only to find that after all their formal education they cannot find their way into the labour force of Canada.
I am sure you are eager, Mr. Speaker, to announce that my time is up, so I shall end on the point made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) who had something to say about owning property. There is one fundamental aspect in this regard of which the government seems to be unaware. The best way to assist the people of Canada today who are poverty-stricken-I am not talking about the lame, the incapacitated, the blind or
[Mr. Lundrigan.J
the elderly who need a better social system, but about able-bodied Canadians, 447,000 of whom are out of work-is to get the economy rolling again.
This government has been in power for 31 years and has been espousing a just society and the elimination of regional disparity. There must be some way to get the unemployed back to work. There is no substitute for the way of life in which a man gets up in the morning, climbs into his vehicle, whether it be a dump truck, a half-ton pick-up or a 1947 model, who has a little home and back yard, who does a full day's work, and at the end of the week brings home his pay cheque. That is the essence of living.
It is not good for Canada, or for any other country for that matter, to have to pay its people with a government pay cheque. The essence of living is for the government to provide opportunities for people to work and to make some contribution to their family, to the community, to the country, to mankind and society. This is what my hon. friends to my left do not understand. One hon. member to my left, who is a big spender, qualified two years ago for the old age pension, yet I have never heard him or any of his colleagues talk about how to get the economy rolling in order that our people can obtain a better living.
This is why I become excited about the half million Canadians who are unemployed. They should be taking part day after day in some constructive employment activity so that they can go home in the evening feeling proud of themselves. I hear nothing from the government about this. They seem unaware that Canadians across this country, from little old Newfoundland to west of Vancouver, need jobs. This half million is crying out for jobs. They are not interested in somebody giving them $5 extra during the winter months for welfare or to buy some extra oil. They are interested in their homes, their jobs. The opportunity to work is the right of all Canadians across the whole dominion.
The sooner we elect people to positions of political authority who are willing to work toward such a goal, the sooner the Canadian people will put aside their frustrations, anxieties and fears and play their rightful part in an active economy. This is the attitude that members on this side of the House display and the kind of policy that we promote. I am confident that the Canadian people will buy this policy in the not too distant future.


Mr. Yves Forest (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) gives us today an opportunity to discuss a major problem in any society, namely the best way to fight the poverty which unfortunately is the lot of too many people, in an era when technological advances have led to the solution of so many problems and facilitated the progress of humanity in so many ways.
I regret that the few remaining minutes will not allow me to complete my remarks in this respect and I hope to have another opportunity to express my views on this important problem of poverty in Canada.
Of course, it is not easy to determine a poverty line. Poverty has been described as lack of money, which is a relative definition, as inadequate access to some of the goods, services and living conditions to which others have
November 25, 1971

access and which are considered to be indispensable for an acceptable standard of living. That applies also to other blanket definitions based on the existence of disparities.
Of course, poverty also depends on circumstances of time and place-and somebody could be poor in Canada and yet be considered as almost rich in an underdeveloped country-although I am quite aware that this comparison is not of much comfort to those who are considered poor in Canada.
It would be preferable to turn to the definition of the basic rights of the individual as it appears in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It states that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.
Everyone has the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Alas, after a quarter of a century, we are unfortunately still far from that goal, in the world, and it is strange that such a motion should be moved in a country whose standard of living is one of the highest, a country which has a system of social security quite properly considered the best and the most comprehensive as compared with those in effect in the other free countries of the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being 10 o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), the time allotted for the consideration of the motion is expired.


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

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on November 4 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether Lieutenant-Colonel W. Kenneth Robinson, a Member of Parliament, was expressing government policy when he stated on a short summer visit to South Africa that-and then I was called to order. I continued my question as follows:
Is it government policy to suggest that South African non-whites should realize they are not yet ready for full political independence, as was indicated by Lieutenant-Colonel W. Kenneth Robinson?
Again I was called to order. The question I asked on November 4 stemmed from an article in the Durban Mercury of South Africa, dated August 8, 1971, and headlined "Canadian MPs impressed by practicality". It read:
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
This is the general opinion of four Canadian MPs who arrived in Durban yesterday for a short visit as part of their itinerary arranged by the South Africa Foundation.
The four men, including three members of the ruling Liberal Party under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, are: Lt.-Col. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore), Mr. Harold Stafford (Elgin), Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval) and Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shef-ford). Mr. Rondeau is a member of the Social Credit Party.
The article continues:
The South African non-whites were anxious to avoid "the mistakes made by Zambia and some other black African states" and were prepared to advance slowly towards the development of their own country within a country.
The four MPs said they would report back on their visit and agreed that South Africa's image in Canada had been tarnished by "bigots".
All the information we get over there is hopelessly biased. We don't get the full picture at all and some of the facts that we do get are badly distorted," Col. Robinson said.
Col. Robinson said that there was a feeling in Canada that freedom was more important than anything else-regardless of standards of education and conditions of living.
In my opinion, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from hunger and freedom from fear are the fundamental rights of all people in this world. I repeat, everybody living in a democratic nation of our world should subscribe to that philosophy. It is fact that these MPs went to South Africa to see for themselves what apartheid and racism was all about. I imagine they stayed in an integrated hotel when they were there. It is also a fact that three members were recognized as members of the ruling Liberal party under Prime Minister Trudeau and one of them used the real scare tactic of the domineering military mind, with the handle "Lieutenant-Colonel W. Kenneth Robinson". It is strange, indeed, that the same member is shown in the "Parliamentary Guide" of 1971 simply as, "Robinson, William Kenneth (Lakeshore), first elected to House of Commons 1968, party politics: Liberal," and then his address. His attitude is certainly striking so far as our country is concerned.
The real issue before us is indicated in a statement made by Lester Pearson speaking about the Commonwealth, in South Africa. He stated:
If the Commonwealth does not condemn racialism in any form and wherever it shows itself; if it does not reject and fight discrimination in race and color, in any form; if any of its members base their politics on such discrimination; then the Commonwealth is not going to survive in its present-or indeed in any acceptable-form.
That was a speech by Lester Pearson to the Royal Commonwealth Society in November of 1968, which is not very long ago. Now that these Canadian Members of Parliament have associated themselves with the Trudeau Liberals, I wonder if what they had to say in South Africa is really government policy. This is what I am wondering, because we have to decide when Members of Parliament go on trips such as this whether they are speaking as government people when associated with the Prime Minister of this country. This is the real issue and the question I should like to ask tonight.
One must ask questions already asked of these Members of Parliament visiting South Africa, and one must also ask the latest group of two Conservatives and one Liberal who visited South Africa at the invitation and

November 25, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
expense of the South Africa Foundation, which is a foundation established in South Africa-supported by big business-to protect commercial interests and to improve the public image. It is my information that one, Jimmy Sinclair of Vancouver, has visited South Africa at the invitation of this foundation. But one must say in all sincerity that so far as these people are concerned, they have not made any pronouncements whatsoever in so far as that country is concerned.
Surely Canadians can at least recognize the fact that we must do everything possible in opposing apartheid and racism. We cannot be proud of our Indian and Eskimo situation, but at the same time if we want to remain within the world of nations we must stand up and be counted. When we look at a recent copy of the Globe and Mail we see that South Africa is referred to as a police state. We find that an Anglican dean has been confined to prison. Of course, it becomes an issue as to whether or not we are prepared to stand up for the right of individuals to express their opinion against apartheid and racism.
I would sincerely ask that the government indicate to the House tonight whether in fact, when visiting Members of Parliament go to other countries, they are really speaking for the government of this country when they associate themselves with the Prime Minister.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I must say it is rather interesting to hear the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) quote a newspaper in Durban, South Africa, with such authority. I wonder whether on other occasions he would bring forward the statements of a newspaper in that country as substantiation for the facts which he is putting before the House. He has mentioned the names of three members of this Parliament. I would be curious to know whether he has approached them and asked whether that report was correct or incorrect.


John Leroy Skoberg: I am asking you.


Paul St. Pierre: It is quite possible for the member to go to the Members of Parliament and ask, "Are the facts correct as presented, or are they not?" I cannot ask him this question in the course of my answer tonight, but since he has not gone to them I must assume-


John Leroy Skoberg: How do you know?


Paul St. Pierre: -he has accepted the statement of a newspaper in Durban, South Africa, as being official and accurate. I hope he will remember this on other occasions.


John Leroy Skoberg: How do you know I have not gone to them?


Paul St. Pierre: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has the floor and I suggest that the hon. member should give the representative of the government his three minutes.


Paul St. Pierre: I would be delighted if the hon. member would answer this question, but I am sure he would not

care to do so. Have you asked the Members of Parliament concerned whether or not these statements are correct?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he has only three minutes, and he has already used up two minutes of his time. He has about 50 seconds left.


Paul St. Pierre: The position of the Canadian government is very clear. The position represented in the South African newspaper is entirely contrary to this government's policy. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has on many occasions reaffirmed this government's and the Canadian people's abhorrence of South Africa's apartheid policy. The South African government is well aware of our views with regard to racial discrimination in any form. I should like to quote the following remark made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on November 3:
The sooner apartheid ends in South Africa the better the world will be.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address the House on a very important matter concerning the constituency of Brant which I have the honour to represent. The area along the banks of the Grand River has always been synonymous with Indian history and tradition since the eighteenth century when Joseph Brant and the Iroquois loyalists came from New York state to settle the region. Over the years the Iroquois have established for themselves one of the most progressive reserves in Canada, although there is still a great deal to be done in the area of economic development.
One very important area that still needs greater development is in the sphere of Indian culture. If the native people of this country are to maintain their great cultural legacy to pass on to future generations, I would like to suggest that the federal government should in every way possible provide sufficient funds for their needs.
In the report of June 30, 1971, the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, of which I am now a member, recommended that the federal government promote the development of Indian culture. I quote briefly from that report as follows:
That all curriculums within the federal program be revised to include:
(a)	substantially more Indian history, including Indian contributions to the economy, science, medicine, agriculture, explorations, etc.
(b)	special courses in Indian culture, music, art handicrafts, etc., and that pressure be brought upon the respective provincial systems to inaugurate similar reforms wherever Indian children are being taught.
The report continues:
The committee is convinced that the stimulation of pride in one's culture and background is an essential ingredient of the reform which is required in our schools.
The report went on to outline the determination to promote native language instruction, pre-school instruction, vocational training in native crafts, as well as the setting
November 25, 1971

up of additional teacher training and teacher assistant training programs.
In the city of Brantford there is located the Mohawk Institute, formerly an Indian residential school. In its time it served its purpose, but today the trend is away from such institutions and the institute was closed well over a year ago. For the past year the Six Nations band council has been negotiating with the federal government for possession of the premises for the purpose of establishing a cultural and educational centre. It is also anticipated that part of the premises will be used as headquarters for the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians.
Earlier this month the Six Nations band council won their battle for possession of the building. The Six Nations band council has obtained $25,000 toward the cost of operating the institute. Some $5,000 of this was contributed by the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians; $10,000 came from the Indian affairs local office and another $10,000 came from the Indian Department headquarters. A spokesman on the reserve has said that this sum of money would likely carry the institute through until the new fiscal year which begins April 1, 1972.
In view of the fact that it is costing $60,000 a year just to maintain it as a vacant building, and that it costs approximately $250,000 a year to operate the institute as a residential school, it is quite obvious that a great deal more money will be needed for the many objectives which the Indians in my riding are seeking to achieve.
I now come to a very important point in my support of the establishment of an Indian cultural and educational complex within the old Mohawk Institute. Last Sunday evening on a national television program, Harold Cardinal, president of the Indian Association of Alberta, produced a document which he alleged was a copy of a confidential cabinet statement, part of which I will now quote:
(c)	The departments of the Secretary of State and of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be authorized to establish jointly a five-year renewable financing program for the support of native cultural and educational centres. This program should provide up to two million dollars in the fiscal year 1970-71, one million of which must be provided to the Secretary of State in supplementary estimates. In each of the subsequent four years, up to ten million dollars would be included for the program in financial estimates.
For the purpose of my address this evening I am not concerned about the alleged leakage of this document. If section (c) which I have just quoted is correct and authentic, then I congratulate the cabinet, and in particular the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), for providing this money for the purpose of the promotion, development and maintenance of centres for Indian cultural and educational activities.
What I would particularly like to emphasize are the obvious advantages of establishing such a centre in the old Mohawk Institute in Brantford. To begin with, the Indian people already have the building. The building is in good shape. It has historical ties in the community. The Six Nations band council now has possession of the building. Some funds have already been granted.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to act as soon as possible to accede to the request made by the Indians of the Six Nations reserve to establish the Mohawk Institute
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
as an Indian cultural and educational centre. I do not wish to sound patronizing or emotional, but we do owe a great deal to the native peoples of our country. When the first white settlers arrived, the Indian gave to them his best skills, without which they could not have survived. Our forefathers, to a substantial degree, gave the native North American their worst characteristics and qualities. I submit to you that the day is long overdue for us to rectify this situation.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a document entitled "Statement of the government of Canada on Indian policy, 1969"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize, but I must interrupt the hon. member. Perhaps the quotation might be used in a subsequent representation by the hon. member. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson).


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that if I cannot have equal time I can at least have equivalent overtime so that I can read the statement prepared in response to the statement prepared by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) who made a very touching appeal and, I think, a very genuine one.
The Mohawk Institute was Canada's oldest Indian residential school, organized in 1831. For many years it was operated under the able direction of the Anglican Church of Canada. In more recent times, operation of the Mohawk Institute was the direct responsibility of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with the continuation of a co-operative relationship with the Anglican church.
The Mohawk Institute ceased to be used as a residence or day school in June, 1970. Other arrangements had been made for the education of children from the Six Nations reserve. At that time the Six Nations band council was asked to consider alternate uses of the buildings and property of the Mohawk Institute in order to be of maximum benefit to the residents of the reserve. The band council referred this question to its lands committee.
An officer of the department of land, and a band member of the Six Nations reserve, was loaned to the lands committee to carry out some preliminary studies. I am told that Mr. Hill's studies led to an interim report which was presented to the band council in late July. This preliminary report indicated a plan of possible involvement, along with the band, of educational and cultural agencies of the province of Ontario, and similar federal government agencies. The minister has been informed that Mr. Hill's report was taken under advisement by the Six Nations band council and its lands committee.
In October of this year the minister was approached by the Six Nations band council requesting that the council should immediately take over buildings and property of the Mohawk Institute and that the department should assist further in developing a detailed and final plan for the use of the facility. At the minister's direction, the property was made available to the band, along with funds for maintenance until the end of this fiscal year. Also, a teacher from the minister's staff on the Six

November 25, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Nations reserve was loaned to the band to administer the property and to finalize planning for the use of the site.
The minister expects to receive a copy of the final plan for the use of the Mohawk Institute property, after the Six Nations band council has considered and approved the plans. Hopefully, this will occur before the end of this fiscal year. In the interim, the band may decide to use the buildings occasionally for certain programs and events.
While saying that the Mohawk Institute was Canada's oldest Indian residential school, I do not wish to imply that the buildings and property are less than valuable.
The main building-built in 1904-containing residence facilities and some classrooms is a sound, brick building which has been extremely well maintained. As well, there is a much more modern classroom complex which was built quite recently. There are several other buildings such as garages, barns, etc. The total land involved is approximately ten acres which are immediately adjacent to the boundary of the city of Brantford, which I am sure the hon. member knows. As such it has significant value as a property for sale, leasing or commercial development. I hope this answers the hon. member's question.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:21 p.m.

Friday, November 26, 1971