1971-06-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. It concerns the necessity of having the minister of the Crown who is responsible to the House for the Opportunities for Youth program in his place in the House tomorrow to answer charges that will then be made concerning his mismanagement of that program and to consider remedial proposals from the House to salvage it for the benefit of Canadian youth. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees):
That this House orders that, pursuant to Standing Order 5, the hon. member for Hochelaga do attend the service ol this House on Wednesday next and that the member for Hochelaga be forthwith so advised.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
H*	5$C


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I also ask the House for unanimous consent to present a motion under Standing Order 43. I dare to believe it is one with which the Acting Prime Minister at any rate would like to agree. I confess it relates to a contentious issue, but I present what I believe is a noncontentious proposal. It seems to me that the facts surrounding the United States note to the Canadian embassy in Washington in August of 1964 should be before us so that we can give it study and consideration. Therefore I
move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the note from the United States delivered to the Canadian Embassy in Washington on August 8,1964, for transmission to J. Blair Seaborn, a Canadian member of the International Control Commission, as printed in the New York Times of Sunday, June 13, 1971, be made an appendix to this day's Hansard.
All I ask is that the information be put before us.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is made under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43 which I believe can be passed without debate. The matter is urgent and deals with the tremendous underground nuclear explosion which the United States plans to detonate at Amchitka Island in the Aleutians later this year. The best site is located near one of the main faults along the west coast of North America and there is great fear that both massive nuclear pollution and severe earthquakes could result from this nuclear underground testing. The view expressed in my motion has been stated by spokesmen for all parties in the House, and I believe it would be useful for this view to be formally recorded. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That this House express its opposition to the proposed underground nuclear testing at Amchitka Island in the Aleutians and that this unanimous decision of the House of Commons be transmitted to the United States government through official channels.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West. It requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put.
June 15, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he intends to make a statement in the House with regard to any message or messages that officials of the government of Canada may have transmitted, with the approval of the government of Canada, between Washington and Hanoi in 1964 which are reported to have contained a threat or suggestion of bombing prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Does the minister intend to make a statement to the House with regard to this matter?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am having the records checked now, and it is my intention to make a statement as soon as I have completed the process of checking the records.


Mr. Fairweather:: You mean as soon as you have read the New York Times.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the intention of the minister to have this whole matter referred to the appropriate committee of the House for examination of the action of the government at that time?


Mr. Sharp:: That is not our intention. I think that when the record is made available it will speak for itself, and I do not think there will be any need for a further investigation of this kind.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister give us an assurance that such a statement will be made within the next day or two? If not, when is the minister prepared to commit himself to make such a statement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I want it to be as factual and careful a statement as I can contrive. I think that is much more important-


Mr. Hees:: "Contrive" is the right word.


Mitchell William Sharp: -than whether I make it tomorrow or the next day. Nothing hinges at the moment upon this record of the past, no present decisions that are affected, but I do agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is desirable to clarify the situation and it is my intention to make a factual statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Before the House recesses?


[Stage Direction]
1964 BY CANADIAN OFFICIAL-ALLEGED INCONSISTENCY OF ACTION-TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Stanley Howard Knowles: As a
supplementary, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs this question. When he makes his statement to the House will he deal with the question
of the alleged inconsistency between Canada's status as a member of the International Control Commission, and supposedly impartial, and its role as an agent of the United States in this situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, from what I know of the transactions at that time there was no inconsistency whatever. It was only because we had a member of the International Control Commission who travelled regularly to Hanoi that we were able to use this means of transmitting certain messages. The record will show, I think, that all of this was done with the approval of the Canadian government because we believed it might help to bring the war to an end.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister makes his statement will he table the relevant documents, including the one to which consent was refused this morning and any others that will clarify the situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot undertake to table documents over which we do not have full control ourselves. I think the hon. gentleman will understand that if there are messages that have been transmitted to us by the United States we should seek their concurrence in their publication. Other than that, I shall try to make as complete a statement as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister seek that concurrence from the United States so that the document published in the New York Times can be tabled in the House of Commons?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to search the record a little more carefully before I give that undertaking, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that it is our desire to clarify the situation just as much as it is his desire.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: During the minister's examination of the record will he make sure that the other members of the International Control Commission were aware that the Canadian member was acting in the capacity of a bearer of messages to Hanoi?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be more mystery about this than is necessary. My predecessor in office as Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We know him.


Mitchell William Sharp: -also made a statement in the House in which he said Mr. Seaborn had carried these messages. So we have never at any time denied the fact that he did so, and the House has been fully informed.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs was a member of the Pearson government at that time I should like to ask him whether, in light of the facts now being disclosed and in light of the fact that the United States government at that time, financially and otherwise, supported his party and his government in getting into office, that was the pay-off for this transaction?

June 15, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East on a supplementary and then go to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether or not the Canadian government at that time was fully aware of the content of the messages that were being transmitted to Hanoi?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if even at this stage of his investigation he is able to indicate whether Canadian officers carried to Hanoi threats of horrendous bombing from the United States government and whether this occurred before the famous Gulf of Tonkin incident?



FISHERIES


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like some information from the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, or should I say the Minister of the Environment-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -arising from recent activities of the United States Coastguard. Has his department been advised by the United States Coastguard that they are prepared to waive the 24 hours' notice they have been insisting upon for entry of Canadian fishing vessels into United States ports and, if so, under what terms? I should also like to know whether a decision has been made to recompense the Anthony J. for the damage or loss it sustained as a result of the activities of the United States Coastguard on the Alaska-British Columbia border?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Ihe Environment):: The
answer to the first question is yes, Mr. Speaker; the answer to the second question is no. First, in respect to the United States Coastguard, Canadian vessels will of course be allowed entry into U.S. ports in the event of an emergency, extreme weather conditions and so on. Second, we have had no application from the owners of the Anthony J. for any compensation. As the hon. member knows, a fisheries research vessel collected the nets and fish which were left behind in the disputed waters. I do not know therefor what compensation they would request from us.



FINANCE


Mr. Real Caouelle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since he stated yesterday that the 11 per cent tax on building materials was hard but necessary, was he alluding to the budget to be presented next Friday?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I was wide awake yesterday and I do not remember making such a statement.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am having the records checked. I was not Secretary of State for External Affairs at the time. I have not reviewed the files thoroughly and I do not think I should say anything more until I have done so.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has given any thought to following the example of his opposite number in another well known country by appointing his immediate predecessor as his country's first ambassador to Outer Mongolia?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: In the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Would the minister agree with the government's contention that the control of inflation, particularly the consumer price index, was based upon the premise established by a price war and a decline in activities in the food market and therefore the government's contention was on a pretty thin wicket?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member's question is argumentative.



FINANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance but in his absence I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the Minister of Finance assured the country that the April unemployment rate of 6.7 per cent was simply a temporary aberration from a gradual decline that had reached 6 per cent in March and as he stated that the May figures, which will be released on Thursday,

June 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
will show a return to the gradual decline that was interrupted in April, is the government preparing its budget on the assumption that unemployment will decline from the 6 per cent figure of March or simply from the 6.7 per cent aberration of April?


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot even accept the premise, Mr. Speaker, but in answer to the particular question, needless to say I have no comments to make on the budget message until it is made public.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question. When the government analyses the unemployment figures on Thursday for the budget, is the government going to compensate for the half a percentage point decline that some economists expect will be artificially created by the 48,000 census workers in the last two weeks of May and, if so, will a correction be made so that the public can intelligently assess this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will defend the integrity of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics against any such charges.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: My question is supplementary to a couple of questions asked earlier by the hon. member for Hamilton West. It is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister advise whether the unemployment statistics were compiled before or after the census takers were employed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have the opinion of Statistics Canada on this subject. They say it is likely that relatively few were on the employment list prior to their taking census jobs. They add that most of these people were hired after the reference week for the May labour force survey, and significant numbers of them will have completed their assignment prior to the June reference week. The Bureau of Statistics concludes that as a result the census will have little effect on the change between May and June figures of unemployment or on the absolute numbers in either month.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the parliamentary secretary answering on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. What is the waiting period for United States workers and students to obtain work permits for employment in the city of Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question normally ought to be placed on the order paper, but if there is urgency it could be considered at the time of adjournment. The hon. member realizes that this kind of question is normally placed on the order paper.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, there is urgency in view of the impending strike at the Toronto Star plant this week and the possibility of the importation of strikebreakers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member should have asked the question in another way, but if someone will reply to the hon. member quickly I have no objection to a reply being made.


An hon. Member:: There is no one here to answer.



SHIPPING


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Several months ago the minister invited insurance companies that underwrite ocean shipping on the St. Lawrence to view the situation there. At that time he indicated that he would do the same for Hudson Bay shipping. Are plans under way now to invite the underwriters to view the situation prior to the beginning of shipping movements this year or at any time during the shipping season?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, invitations have gone to virtually the same group of underwriters who earlier this year inspected conditions on the St. Lawrence. To date we have not received replies from them indicating whether or not they will be available within the time frame to which the hon. member referred. We are as anxious to get them there as we can be. In a sense we cannot force them to come, but we have invited them.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (V ancouver - Kings way):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since the April to May increase in the cost of living in relation to food prices is the greatest in six years, is the government prepared to consider measures to help with the nutrition of low income families across the country?


Mr. Speaker;: Order, please. The hon. member's question is of such a general nature that it should not be asked at this time but should be placed on the order paper or debated at the time of adjournment. That is my respectful suggestion to the hon. member.

June 15, 1971


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my question in another way. Since the increase in fresh fruit and fresh vegetable prices is very serious and as these items are necessary for a good diet, will the government consider taking definite action with regard to these particular items?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the hon. lady that the food index is lower than it was a year ago.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on June 9, as reported at page 6528 of Hansard, I asked the Acting Prime Minister if it had come to his attention that a number of graduating nurses were willing to go to India to assist in the refugee and cholera emergency. Has the minister an answer to that question, and have there been any requests, as stated, for penicillin and other antibiotics to treat the expected epidemic of pneumonia among survivors who have been exposed to cholera?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if I could take that question as notice and answer fully tomorrow.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a short question to the Acting Secretary of State. Will he cause to be examined and remedied the complete lack of hostels for youth in the city of Montreal?


An hon. Member:: Nobody is here to answer.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In preparation for the debate tomorrow on the Opportunities for Youth program, in respect of which I have just filed notice, will the minister discuss with his colleague, the Secretary of State, the tabling early tomorrow of the documents, letters and telegrams in connection with the project known as "Northern Wilderness", colloquially referred to as "Operation Marijuana"?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the suggestion of the hon. member.
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the statement he made last Friday about the agreement to be entered into between Canada and the United States, can he tell the House what recommendations in the International Joint Commission report of 1970, which was filed in January of this year, were not approved as a result of the discussions?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, all the recommendations made by the International Joint Commission were approved in principle. The details, of course, still have to be worked out in negotiations with the United States. They will appear in the formal agreement which is to be signed this fall.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the cost of installing sewer and water systems, which are such great factors in controlling pollution in the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes on both the Canadian and United States sides of the border, calculated? If so, was there agreement on a timetable for bringing them up to standards proposed by the IJC?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. These standards were set out in the report tabled within the past 12 months by the International Joint Commission. These standards are embedded in the new agreement. The costs of reaching these standards have been determined in some detail on both sides of the international border. Both countries are committed to meeting these standards in the prospective agreement.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question. In view of the tremendous costs involved and in view of the fact that the constitutional provision is that the cities and provinces have the main responsibility, have discussions been held with the provinces concerned or with the cities with regard to a cost-sharing program to meet the tremendous costs involved?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Before the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I went to Washington it was necessary to have an understanding in principle with the government of Ontario in this connection. Finances were discussed. They are now being finalized and an agreement between Canada and Ontario in respect of finances will be developed over the next few weeks.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


George Harris Hees: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister
6710

June 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
passed along to the management of Canadian National Railways the submissions made to him to the effect that the proposal to cut off passenger service between the nation's capital and Toronto, one of our nation's two largest cities, is not in the public interest and cannot be justified, and, as a result has the CNR decided to withdraw the application or indicated that it intends to do so?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have transmitted to Canadian National Railways representations from a number of members with regard to this proposal. I think the hon. member is aware from his previous experience that the reason for filing the application is the necessity to determine whether in fact the service can be abandoned and, perhaps more important in this case, the level of subsidy support that may be necessary to keep it going. In other words, it has to go to the CTC in this fashion.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. As the minister knows, the attitude of the government in matters concerning the CNR has a great effect on the decisions made by that railway. I again ask the minister to make it very clear that his position and that of the government are on the side of those who travel by CNR between Ottawa and Toronto.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Now that public reference has been made to a proposal by the federal government to provide 50 per cent of the cost of a guaranteed income program to be adopted by any province, is the Acting Prime Minister now prepared to table in the House the proposal that has been made to the provinces in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in a sense it is already implied in the Canada Assistance Plan that the government will pay 50 per cent of certain costs up to an agreed figure, so no new principle is involved in the statements that have been made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the government of Canada made a proposal to the provinces with regard to paying 50 per cent of the cost of a guaranteed annual income program? Has the government made this proposal and will the Acting Prime Minister table the proposal in the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the sequence of events is rather different. A proposal has been made by the province of Quebec for the introduction of a guaranteed income plan. The question is how the federal government fits into this plan. One point that emerges very clearly is that the Canada Assistance Plan, which provides for 50
per cent of the cost of certain programs, could be used as a means to help in the establishment of such a plan.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I again ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government of Canada has made a proposal that it will be prepared to meet 50 per cent of the cost of a guaranteed annual income adopted by a province. Has the government of Canada made such a proposal to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the program even though the Prime Minister was understood to say a number of times recently that the country cannot afford it?


Mitchell William Sharp: There is really nothing I can add to the answer I have given, namely, that the Canada Assistance Plan provides a means whereby a province, together with its own program, could bring in a guaranteed income plan. The cost to the province would be very heavy. The cost to the federal government would, of course, depend upon the level of the guaranteed income plan.


Mr. Crouse:: A related question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government of Manitoba has been assured that its pilot project with regard to a guaranteed annual income will qualify for the 50 per cent contribution from the Canada Assistance Plan?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have to take notice of that question, Mr. Speaker.
at *	*



TRANSPORT


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have a question that is related to the one asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. I understand that a study has been undertaken by officials of the Department of Transport to assess the competitive nature of present shipping practices on the seaway compared with using unit trains and giant cargo ships based on the Atlantic coast of Canada. If this is so, when may we expect this report to be made available to the House or to be tabled?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is not a specific report or a specific study relating only to that particular issue. There are ongoing studies under way and have been for some time, as I informed the House and the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, on various alternative means of transporting bulk commodities. One of them relates to the use of unit trains somewhat along the lines

June 15, 1971

suggested by the hon. member. Whether that particular study as an isolated part of an over-all examination can be made public I am afraid I cannot answer until the report is completed, but it is generally based on the over-all concept of trying to provide the best means of transportation.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieite):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
The president of the Quebec Pulp and Paper Association said recently that the federal government hesitated to meet the requests of the Association. Can the minister tell us whether he has met the officials of that industry and if we can expect him to announce that special steps will be taken to overcome the difficulties that industry is up against?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I did not meet them personally but, naturally, I am at their disposal should they wish to meet me. I know of no special steps being considered in my department to help the industry, but everyone hopes that the economic recovery in Canada and the United States will help them considerably in the next few months.
# * *



NATIONAL DEFENCE


J. Michael Forrestall: My
question is for the Minister of National Defence. In order to enlighten the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and our allies, can the minister give some indication as to when we may expect his white paper?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I do not think it will be available to the House before we rise, if we do rise at the end of June.


J. Michael Forrestall: Am I to understand from the minister that he will release it during the summer months or during the period the House is in recess if it is ready?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In view of the long expectations, Mr. Speaker, the answer would be yes.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: My question is for the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of 24171-5J
Inquiries of the Ministry
the great uncertainty in the automobile parts industry- about future orders-can the minister indicate when he will be in a position to announce the continuation of the Canada-United States auto agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will be in a position to make an announcement on this subject very soon, Mr. Speaker.



AIR CANADA


John Angus MacLean: My question is for the
Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to say what decision has been reached by Air Canada with regard to the purchase of Tri-Star aircraft?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No
decision has been reached by the board of directors of Air Canada with regard to the Lockheed proposal. I am advised they are keeping in daily touch with developments which, as the hon. member knows, are now going on before Congress in the United States. It may be some days or perhaps weeks before the situation is resolved.
^



PENITENTIARIES


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question refers to the women's prison at Kingston! Can the Solicitor General advise whether the prisoners in that institution have been released from solitary confinement who were so detained following the disturbance there last week?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly inquire and forward the answer to the hon. member.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon Souris):: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the hon. gentleman received an invitation to participate in the conference sponsored by the Indian Brotherhood of the Northwest Territories beginning in Yellowknife on June 30? Is he planning to attend and, if so, will the question of treaties 8 and 11 relating to Indian land claims in the territories be under discussion?

June 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have received this invitation, but I do not know at this stage whether I will be able to attend.
As to treaty no. 8 and treaty no. 11, Commissioner Barber has authority to consider them with the Indians and I hope that they will meet so that a solution can be found to this problem.

I should like to reply to a question asked on Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister does not have the floor yet. We should ascertain first whether there are any supplementaries to the question just asked. If not, the Chair will recognize the minister to reply to a previous question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Do I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is planning to attend the conference?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer this question at this time because I have not checked it. I don't know if I shall be able to attend this conference, but if not, I shall delegate a representative.



REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF GRANT TO UNION OF NOVA SCOTIA INDIANS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On Friday the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys asked about funds provided by the Nova Scotia regional office for a study of economic development on Indian reserves in that province. Last year the Union of Nova Scotia Indians hired two people to undertake this study with financial aid from the regional office. In April of this year the region agreed to continue to provide funds to the union for another six months so that the study could be completed. However, the regional office discovered that the union had not confined itself to the terms of reference. Because of this, the region felt it could not continue to finance the study. We are quite prepared to honour the original agreement provided the union adheres to the terms of reference agreed upon.



HOUSING


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. With regard to the Richmond Square debacle in Toronto, may I ask whether the minister has yet had an opportunity to look into the situation? Is this 13-storey apartment building to be condemned and demolished in whole or in part? Just what is to happen?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: At
this stage I have no comments to add to those I made in reply to the hon. member during the adjournment debate the other evening.



FISHERIES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries in the absence of the Minister of Justice. Has a representation been made by the Newfoundland legislature with respect to having its recent legislation concerning collective bargaining for fishermen exempted from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act as was done in the case of similar legislation in British Columbia?


John (Jack) Davis: I have received no representations from the province of Newfoundland in this connection.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. May I ask whether he or the government have given consideration to Sydney as a base for transatlantic flights and their offer of cut-rate fuel prices and reduced landing fees to international airlines on long-haul flights between North America and Europe?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There is a comprehensive study and experiment under way at the present time designed to put us in a better competitive position vis-a-vis some airports on the eastern seaboard of the United States. One or two airports are now being used for this purpose under the so-called TOPS program and others are being examined with the same idea in mind.


Robert Muir: Can the minister say whether his officials are making considerable progress with the TOPS program?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is a little too early to say with certainty. There has obviously been some increase in the volume of usage. However, the reduced fare is such that we do not know yet whether we are coming out ahead or not. It will be another year before we do.


Robert Muir: Can the minister assure the House that Sydney will be considered when attention is being given to the airports that will be used?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, provided the hon. member gets the agreement of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.
June 15, 1971



POLLUTION


Randolph Harding: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that for the second successive year fungus growth has been noted on the large rainbow trout spawning at Gerrard north of Kootenay Lake, would the minister consider asking his department to carry out an intensive investigation in order to ensure that this strain of rainbow trout remains intact?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that the hon. member's question amounts to a representation to the minister and he has to assume that his submission will be considered.



AIRPORTS


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the House whether there has been any further development in connection with the proposed new Toronto international airport or whether there have been any further negotiations with the province of Ontario on this subject? When can we expect a decision to be reached?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: While the hon. member was away last week I dealt with this matter at some length. If there is anything I can add to what already appears in Hansard I shall be glad to do so. In short, the plan is to meet with representatives of the province of Ontario very soon, perhaps within a few days.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister assure the city of Hamilton that once a decision has been reached with respect to the site the government will then deal with the application concerning a regional airport in that city? Is this the sequence of events which may be expected?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Hamilton is included in our plans, but as the hon. member will know better than I do there is a fair measure of disagreement as to just what ought to be done in Hamilton, and it includes groups within Hamilton itself.



THE CENSUS


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Inasmuch as the census takers have almost completed their work and are now finding their pay far from adequate, may I ask whether the minister's depart-
Inquiries of the Ministry
ment has taken any steps to upgrade the rate of pay for these people?


Mr. Speaker:: My impression is that this question was asked a few days ago and answered by the minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you might allow me to answer the previous question as it has some importance at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might like to take into account the suggestion made by the Chair that the matter might be answered in another way. If there is urgency and agreement in the House that the question should be answered, of course I have no objection.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I just wanted to say that if there are unusual difficulties in the collection process the Dominion Bureau of Statistics will give special attention to them. This morning for example I had an instance of a representative who had done the work of another person because that person had to leave. In these cases the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is willing to look at the circumstances and make adjustments.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce relating to the action of the government of Ontario in respect of book publishing. Is the government of Canada considering similar legislation with regard to majority Canadian ownership of interprovincial magazine and book distributors, and can the minister make an early announcement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but this certainly has been taken into consideration in the report the Minister of National Revenue will be making on that subject.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the deep concern of Canadians over the continuing suffering and death among the refugees from East Pakistan, is the government giving consideration to increasing Canada's financial contribution and to taking other steps in an attempt to relieve the suffering just as much as we can?

June 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on both points.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister be making a statement on this matter within a day or two?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are just in the course ol spending $2 million, and I have announced today the final allocation of the $2 million that had already been approved. We are now looking at the needs of the refugees to see in what way we can be of most assistance. As soon as that is completed I expect I will be making a statement.



POSSIBLE ADMISSION OF GREAT BRITAIN INTO EUROPEAN


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent decision of the Ministers of Agriculture of the European Common Market countries to raise prices for many agricultural products on behalf of the producers, is the government of Canada making a renewed effort to assure that Canadian products entering Britain will not be subject to this higher levy or tariff after she joins the Common Market?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker I do not think it can be classified as a renewed effort because there has been a maximum effort for several weeks now.


Robert Elgin McKinley: As a result of the maximum effort the government has been putting forward has it received any assurance from Britain in this regard?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think all of the terms and conditions of United Kingdom entry in so far as agricultural products are concerned are known. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are making representations to protect our interests all the time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency of the situation outlined by the foreign minister of India yesterday, can the Acting Prime Minister advise whether this country is using its good offices to communicate with the government of Pakistan to the end that that government will bring about a situation in East Pakistan in which these millions of refugees may be able to go home?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the purpose of the Canadian government to
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
try to end the conditions which have led to the movement of refugees from East Pakistan into India. We are doing everything within our power to persuade the Pakistan government to establish the kind of confidence necessary for their return. As the hon. gentleman knows, this is an extremely complicated and difficult situation. I am hopeful that within the next few days the government of Pakistan will take the first steps to establish what we all want, namely, democratic civilian rule in East Pakistan.



FISHERIES


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he has had any communication with the province of Newfoundland regarding its recently enacted legislation to give bargaining rights to fishermen, and whether it has been determined that this legislation is intra vires vis-avis federal legislation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have had no communication as yet from the province of Newfoundland in this connection.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, has the department determinated whether the legislation is intra vires as it relates to federal legislation?


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, but I am asking for advice from other departments on this matter.



INDUSTRY


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of his reluctance to state categorically on May 26 that aircraft jobs would not be transferred from the de Havil-land plant in Toronto to the Canadair plant in Montreal and in view of an article in the Toronto Telegram indicating that his reluctance implied that there would be, will the minister assure the workers in the de Havil-land plant in Toronto that their jobs will not be lost as a result of any rationalization policy of the government?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the reference to reluctance. In so far as government policy and planning are concerned, I can state categorically it is not part of our plan to bring about that kind of employee transfer. In so far as the jobs of the workers at de Havilland are concerned, we have been making a major effort, as the hon. member knows, to get some kind of industrial initiative under way in the aerospace industry that will maintain those jobs. That is the nature of our program at the present time.
June 15, 1971



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse) moved:: That this House criticizes the government for having neglected to institute the just society in Canada, as was promised, and which should have been a reality for a long time; by refusing to increase the basic income tax exemption for individuals, by refusing to repeal the 11 per cent tax on building materials and by failing to institute a guaranteed annual income scheme.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to propose to my colleagues and to the leaders of the different parties that the representative of each party be allotted 20 minutes while the other speakers will have only 15 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere that the first speakers on behalf of each party be allotted 20 minutes and subsequent speakers 15 minutes. This would have to be by unanimous agreement of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed, and no overtime.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a great honour to propose the very important motion of censure before the House today. May I thank my colleagues for having entrusted me with such a delicate task which is also heavy with responsibilities.
During the debate, I intend to discuss certain matters, and several others will be dealt with by my colleagues. Then, together, we shall proceed so that by the end of the debate the government will be better informed thanks to our positive criticism and our suggestions for the pursuit of the objective to be reached, which is the establishment of a just society for all Canadians.
The motion of censure which I do not have to read again since you have done it with such brilliance, Sir, is vitally important.
The Speech from the Throne of the first session of the 28th parliament contained the following words:
My Ministers believe that much of the delay and difficulty in the handling of Parliamentary business during recent years could have been avoided or reduced by the improvement of Parliamentary rules and procedures. I
I entirely agree. We should devote less time to procedures of all kinds and act more quickly and efficiently by
Alleged. Non-Institution of Just Society avoiding the creation of useless committees. Sometimes, the government does not heed their recommendations, especially if they do not agree with its views.
In the 1968 Speech from the Throne, we could also read the following:
My Government is deeply and irrevocably committed to the objectives of a just society and a prosperous economy in a peaceful world.
Mr. Speaker, what is meant exactly by a just society? There must be agreement, not only on the meaning of the words, but also on the establishment and maintenance of this society. I would like, during the few minutes at my disposal, to indicate the different stages that a human being may go through during his lifetime if he is living in a society such as we know it.
In my view, in a just society, man and his rights must be the primary concern of government, in order to ensure that his needs, whatever they may be, are satisfied. The just society must, first of all, allow every Canadian to enjoy a maximum of freedom, happiness and well-being.
A just society is an ideal to which aspire civilized men. The government must, therefore, co-operate with individuals, with families and with the organizations of all sorts that men have created, in order to ensure better conditions for all, and not only for a privileged class.
Men got together to live in society for numerous reasons that I do not have the time to enumerate, but everybody knows that the main reason is the following: nobody is complete in himself. One person may be naturally gifted to perform a certain work, while another is suited for another type of work. The fact of living in society should enable each and everyone to satisfy his needs, from the cradle to the grave.
This objective has not yet been achieved for the Canadian people since two out of five Canadians are still living in dire poverty, in undeserved destitution, while Canada is chock-full of resources of all kinds. Large surpluses designed to satisfy the needs of Canadians fail to reach them, through a lack of financial means, of distribution, which prevents the advent of a just society for all.
In the Speech from the Throne of September 12, 1968, this could be read:
My Government believes that the objectives of a just society must always include the pursuit of a prosperous economy as well as the fair distribution of its proceeds. Poverty can be dealt with successfully and permanently only by continued and determined action in a variety of ways by all governments.
noon)
Therefore the government acknowledged its responsibility in this field. That is why we blame it for not having taken the necessary steps to correct an economic situation which is becoming more serious every day and which cannot be corrected automatically, even though the government may hope that time will settle everything, but I feel it will not.
People may say that it is not easy to eradicate poverty. In fact, it is impossible as Christ once said that there would always be poor among us. I agree that Christ

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society spoke in such terms, but by the same token he did not order our governments to administer the country in such a way that the poor would go on increasing in number so that the Gospel would not be given the lie.
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to set forth the individual's rights only and to refuse to see his obligations also. We are generally all prone to talk mostly of our rights. That is human tendency. However, I must say that the individual may claim his rights if he has first recognized that he has obligations and responsibilities towards society and that he must fulfil them if he wishes society to do likewise towards him.
Except for some cases, citizens are fulfilling their duties towards society by contributions of all kinds, namely by working when it is possible to get employment in the industrial, business or professional fields, through services done to others.
I know it may not be to the advantage of a politician to speak of the individual's duties toward society and that it pays off much better, on the political level, to speak of his rights.
On the other hand I know that the duty of any responsible person occupying any function within society, at whatever level, is to recall on occasion that the individual, the family, corporations and labour unions all have rights, but that they also have obligations and duties they must carry out if law, order and justice are to prevail in the society within which they live.
It is also the state's obligation to see that the natural rights of man are guaranteed and respected throughout his life and to prevent the unfortunately all too frequent exploitation of man by his brother man; that is why there is so much malaise in our society, so many people wondering what tomorrow's society will be like. Is our Canadian society still a humane society where we love and help each other, or is it gradually turning into a wolfish society where we will devour each other?
The infant, from the moment he is conceived, has innate rights, among them that of life. This right is less and less respected and I find it strange that the government, through legislation, contributes to this feeling of contempt as concerns the right to live. How, then, can the state not be expected as a consequence to become permissive and allow all kinds of abuse against the person, when it is the state that leads the way.
The family, Mr. Speaker, is the living cell of our society, it has its own natural rights, and it is the duty of the state to see to it that it duly prospers so that each of its members can grow and develop in normal surroundings while getting the best that society can offer. These goods must be in sufficient quantity so that everyone is assured of an honest livelihood and this is not a fact yet.
In order to provide the Canadian family with the social benefits that can be derived from our economy, it must be granted a guaranteed annual income, something which most workers and farmers cannot achieve through the usual source of income, that is the salary of the worker or the net income derived by the farmer from his operations.

That is why I believe the government should immediately amend the legislation authorizing payment of family allowances to make the rates consistent with the cost of living and take into account the devaluation of the Canadian dollar, as the government recently did when he proposed an increase in postal rates.
I contend therefore that families are entitled to the allowances because human resources, the greatest wealth of the country, usually originate and develop within the family. Indeed, what would be the use of all our material wealth if there were no people to use it. For that reason,
I conclude that human resources are our greatest asset.
Considering that the Providence has given us all kinds of resources and that the people coming from families have been able through their work to transform them into a wide variety of useful products, it clearly follows that it is materially possible that family allowances be increased.
Consequently, what is materially possible and humanly desirable must be so financially. Money is only a sign of wealth and not wealth itself. There is therefore no reason why the signs should be rare when there is an abundance of things.
Strange things go on in our Canadian society. We talk of a just society. Yet, there are stricken families now in Canada where the father has either disappeared, died, been taken ill or laid off, and the mother must depend on social welfare. Most of those families, as I said before, already received some pension or other from the state, half of which, incidentally, is paid by the Canadian government, although the administration is provincial. That pension was not high enough to enable those families to live decently, yet, recently, that pension was reduced for all sorts of pretexts.
The family is often broken apart. In one case, the mother will have the allowance that she used to receive reduced because her unemployed son is living with her. If he goes to live elsewhere, the mother's allowance will not be decreased. How logical!
In some other cases, if the mother is good-hearted enough to look after her children herself, the criterion used to establish the amount of her pension will be different from that which is used for the care of the same child when he is referred by welfare to another family or to some institution. Curious sort of reasoning!
When the child is living within his family, the community gives less to help the mother support him. When the child is referred outside, the community gives more. So, this legislation promotes the destruction of the family, of the family spirit. The mother who does her duty to maintain her family in existence is punished by the community in that she receives less in assistance than she would if her family were broken up. That is why we have not yet achieved the just society, as far as the respect due to the family is concerned. It is the very base of our society and moreover, it is not a man-made institution.
As he becomes a member of society, the child acquires certain rights, including that of access to the education
June 15, 1971

level of his choice, according to the talents his Creator has given him. But God knows that in some areas of this country, this problem still exists and a great number of students are looking for summer employment in order to earn a few dollars to help their parents finance their education.
I agree that the government has made a little effort this year with the Opportunities for Youth program. I thank the government on behalf of the young people who will benefit from it but I very much regret that there will be too many who will be ready to return to their studies in September without having earned a cent. That is why I say, once again, that we have not yet achieved the just society.
Yet, there would be much work to do in our forests, to ensure the quick growth of the trees. And this work could, in a great many cases, be carried out by students during the summer months, which would make them very proud, beside the fact they would have earned money, to feel they have been useful to their country:
When the child has completed his studies and has become an adult with diplomas, he seeks to enter the labour force but he encounters all kinds of difficulties in securing a job or in getting into business. Yet, in a just society, the right to work should be adknowledged not only in words, but in fact.
We have today a disturbing unemployment rate likely to move us farther away from the just society. Can Canada afford to have 700,000 workers remain unproductive because they have no work? I know that it is a difficult problem to solve, partly so because of automation, science and modem production techniques, in any field whatever. That is labelled as progress.
A great many workers therefore are the victims of progress. And so it will be necessary to veer away from the ordinary in order that the progress of which we boast with reason become a factor of real prosperity for the Canadian worker in particular and for society in general.
Since progress enables Canadians to produce more from one year to the next-according to statistics-with a more and more limited participation from workers, it is up to Parliament to compel the government to use other formulas, to provide each Canadian, in a just society, with access to his country's resources.
This is why I suggest to the government to look into the possibility of reducing working hours, so as to enable a greater number of persons to contribute, through their work, to production, and to provide most Canadians with the opportunity of going to work daily, so that each worker might at last think with pride that his trade, his profession, his diplomas are useful, and that he is contributing to the development and processing of his country's resources.
Scientists claim that only three hours of work per day would be required for the production of everything required by mankind.
This is the wish so often expressed by many people with whom I talk. They do not want unemployment insurance, but employment insurance. Most of the unem-
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
ployed do not seek welfare assistance but a job to earn their livelihood.
Since there will always be 24 hours in a day, there will always be some idle time and the government should take the necessary steps to see that this leisure time be organized in a practical way toward a richer society, a man-sized society where we shall live a better life.
After you have finished working, then comes the time for retirement. I think that after having worked for an average period of 40 years, people over 60 years of age could possibly expect from our modern and increasingly automated society a decent income instead of a life of poverty. Since older people find it more and more difficult to retain their jobs, let alone find a new one, it would be all the wiser to pay the old age security pension to every person over 60 and if the recipient is married, to pay the pension to his wife even if she is somewhat younger.
In a just society, people are entitled to security after having worked all their life especially since most of them have been unable to save anything because every cent has been squeezed out of them through taxation to pay back interests to those who control and exploit the credit of our nation.
Mr. Speaker, I wish-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member and remind him that his time has expired. He may go on only with the consent of the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: How much longer would the hon. member be speaking? He could proceed but he should make it short.


Mr. Latulippe:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I think the hon. member should be allowed a 30-minute speech like everybody else-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recall that at the very beginning, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) himself suggested that the first speaker for each party should be allowed to speak for twenty minutes and that the others would only be allowed fifteen minutes. Now, as I have already said, it depends on the wishes of the House. If there is unanimous consent, the hon. member may proceed with his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is unanimous consent. The House gives the hon. member leave to continue his remarks.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I would also like to thank my hon. colleagues for their generosity. I will devote this precious time to remarks of real public interest and I am convinced that my constituents as well as the Canadian population generally will see the merits of my case.
6718

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
I would also have liked to speak about the serious problem facing my region and which affects hundreds of workers in the city of Montmagny. Indeed everyone knows that the closing down of the Chemcell Ltd. plant on October 1, 1971 will greatly harm this region. If this plan is carried out it will be really an economic and social catastrophe for the area.
We live in an underprivileged region and again I urge the government to consider all those families who live in Montmagny, who have been living in that area for a number of years; they have relatives, friends and customs which should not be put aside. A number of the workers in that plant are no longer young, and it will be difficult to retrain them, to make miners out of them, when miners are already losing their jobs because some mines are closing down.
In short, I ask, in the name of the principle of a just society, that no effort be spared in Montmagny so that the families who have settled there, who have a home there, may be able to keep that home and to continue working in an environment that they love.
Mr. Speaker, the grounds on which is based the opposition motion which I have had the honour to move are numerous. I would very much have liked, in the course of this debate, to speak on the right to property which is sacred and innate to the individual. I would have liked also to speak on the dignity of work. I would have liked to say that it is a blessing and not a curse. I would have liked to develop all these topics which are of general interest so as to inform the population that people's representatives, if they recognize its rights, have also the courage to speak of their duties as well as of those of the citizens.
We are often accused of criticizing without ever making any suggestions. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have often made some in the House. During my speech, I made workable proposals which, if they were carried out, would really help solve many problems and make attainable the road to just society.
In conclusion, I would like to make a final suggestion. I would not want the ministers to judge me too severely but I would like to say this: To attain such an objective, we will have, in any case, to take the bull by the horns, and face the situation so that the masters of finance become the servants of society and not the government's masters. If the latter feels embarrassed in such a work, let it give its place to others and the job will be done.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)-we bear the same name-for referring once again to the just society flaunted at the beginning of this session, although there has not been too much said about it this afternoon. In fact, what we did have was a philosophical discourse on rights and responsibilities.
Some mild suggestions were brought forward, which I must say seemed somewhat strange to me. Never before
have we had such things in the Creditiste philosophy. What we heard this afternoon was at best a vague argument whereby each will receive according to his needs and produce according to his capacities. Is that the basis of the Creditiste philosophy? Indeed, I can find nothing else in the remarks of the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: You will have to read my speech over.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member did say each was to receive according to his needs. But on the other hand, how will each participate in the production?
Let us study this motion. We must keep in mind that on the occasion of the first debate we had this year, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) proposed a motion to the effect that the House deeply regretted that because of the indecision and failures of the cabinet, the just society was now a distant ideal.
Today the government is blamed for having neglected to bring about the just society it had promised. Then we are told how we should proceed. Unfortunately, not much was said about the increase in the basic personal income tax exemption. Perhaps the colleagues of the hon. member will mention that. After all, the motion has been moved by the hon. member for Bellechasse. And we did not hear anything about the abolition of the tax of 11 per cent on building materials, although it seems to me that it is rather difficult to tie this with the just society.
I would have been anxious to know the hon. member's opinion on the question of guaranteed annual income. His colleagues will no doubt be able to inform us or enlighten us on that subject.


David Réal Caouette: We will encourage you!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would say "enlighten", really.
On the other hand, let us examine the hon. member's statement since the Standing Orders do not allow me to go back to the motion of censure presented in October.

However, Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting to see just how this debate develops and whether or not the hon. member for Bellechasse has made his budget speech at this time, considering the fact that we heard a plea with regard to his constituents. But I would challenge the hon. member and his colleagues to explain the validity within their movement of the philosophy he expressed in his speech, that in a just society it would be a case of to each according to his needs, with each producing according to his capabilities and desires. I do not know anyone in this chamber who would dare put forward that philosophy because it is a completely unworkable one in our form of economic organization, within our framework of government, and in fact in the development of our society. I do not think there is a society in the world that really

June 15, 1971

functions on that basis. I suppose that in the farthest reaches of the most idealistic communism there may be some who would say that should be the philosophy, but there is no country in the world at present which operates on that basis, simply because it is impossible.
We all know that phrase "a just society" was an electioneering slogan utilized solely for that purpose and hastily dropped afterwards. There is no more reference to it now on an official basis. Of course the government failed to institute a just society, because a just society means a different thing to each individual. It was an empty slogan used to captivate people at the time. I know that on the government side there will be at least 50 different versions of what is meant by it, just as there will be on this side.
In a legalistic sense is it the individual against the state or is it the right of the mass of society? What is a just society? Is it that a man has a right to work? A lot of people deny that philosophy and certainly the trade union movement denies what is said to be the doctrine of the right to work. I know that a lot of people say that in a just society a man has a right to work and to use his capabilities; he has a right to advance, to gain and to gather unto himself the reward of his labours subject to his sharing with society part of the excess in order to take care of the less fortunate. But to what degree? What is the degree to which a man is his brother's keeper? How far does that go in a just society? We all have different concepts of that principle.
The proposition was advanced by the hon. member for Bellechasse that in order to provide gainful employment for everyone the workload should be shared. In other words, the necessary hours of work should be reduced so that everybody would participate in the work available. But who would determine what should be the norm in order to share the work? Is this to be the result of a ukase of some government official? Are we to have a timetable directing that a man shall work four hours a day this week, three hours a day next week and so forth? I should like to have a detailed explanation from the hon. members who are making this proposition.
The hon. member advanced a further proposition to the effect that the old age security pension should now be payable at age 60. At one time there was an auction as to the amount and I suppose there could again be an auction among the political parties as to the quantum in order to gain the support of elderly people. The age for qualification was reduced from 70 to 65 last year. This proposal suggests that it be reduced to 60 and if the spouse of the entitled person is younger he or she could also qualify. This is an interesting bit of political favour seeking but I do not know how it would be financed. Perhaps it could be done by imposing another three or four points on personal and corporate income tax and another two or three points on federal sales tax. The amount of money required to take care of the additional people between the ages of 60 and 65 would be
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
astronomical. Perhaps we will find out from the hon. members how they propose to pay for it. If they are cranking out the old Social Credit or Creditiste system of using the Bank of Canada, we can dismiss it out of hand because it becomes an empty gesture.
I heard the hon. member speak about the rights of property. In a just society I think there are rights of property, although some would deny it. I do not know where they get the idea that if one has a need one just takes. Yes, this is a straight program of liberation, of general national scrounging. Of course it will never be tolerated in a society where there is an elemental degree of law and order for the protection of the ordinary citizen. It would be rejected by all but a tiny minority of people in this country, so it can also be dismissed.
The rights of property go much further than just the protection of the sanctity or protection from depredation by others. In addition, there must be the right that property shall not be confiscated through taxation or eroded by runaway inflation. There are so many ways that property can be protected. Although the hon. member spoke about the rights of property he did not say too much about the obligations that go with the use of property, that one must not use it to harm another. Within that framework we can talk about pollution and using one's property with a complete disregard for one's neighbours.
I should like to go to the other aspects of this resolution in the limited time at my disposal. I should like to hear the members of the Ralliement Creditiste state what they believe should be the level of base exemption for income tax purposes. Perhaps on Friday night we will learn whether the government has chosen to use the general exemption or the principle of a tax credit. This has been argued back and forth before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Unfortunately members of the Ralliement Creditiste did not participate to any great extent in those discussions. It will be interesting this afternoon to hear their eleventh hour or almost one minute to midnight views on tax changes. I hope one of their members will explain what they want. Do they want a general exemption of $1,500 per individual taxpayer or do they want the tax credit? My party thinks the latter is a more equitable solution, particularly for those people in the lower income groups. There is no doubt that the general exemption granted in the past operates to the advantage of the higher income groups because of the progressive nature of the high rates at the margins.
I find the ideas of aid to the building industry and the establishment of a just society hard to reconcile. These parts of the motion are simply being added. I suppose one could take all sorts of things that could be included in a just society. We could go right to the very beginning, to 1963, when the sales tax was added to the whole range of building materials. It must be remembered that the sales tax had applied to about 50 per cent of building materials even prior to 1963. If one knows anything about the Excise Tax Act one will recall that old and famous
24171-6J

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society Schedule III in which indicated materials were not subject to the manufacturing tax. Yet this tax was extended to the whole range of materials by the Minister of Finance in 1963.
I would say that if one particular tax has worked to the disadvantage of the country as a whole, that tax is the additional sales tax on building materials. The government was particularly interested in increasing year after year the volume of construction, particularly in the field of low cost housing and so forth and so on; yet the mere addition of this tax represented an unfair burden, especially on lower income groups which were relying on lower cost housing.
May I say that the tax has also affected others. For instance, a syndicate of veterans groups in Edmonton, working with the Alberta Housing Corporation and CMHC, put up a very fine set of units for senior citizens. These were not limited to veterans. Because of the impact of taxes, the first to be met being the sales tax on building materials, costs were greatly increased. Strangely enough, an organization or establishment of that kind must carry its full burden of municipal and educational taxes. The net result is that the basic rent has been set at $75 per month for a single unit or, in other words, for an individual. Just imagine what could have been done for senior citizens if no sales tax on building materials had been charged and if no municipal taxes had been charged. It is true that the municipality gave the lot for $1 per year. Imagine what would have happened if municipal taxes had been reduced by one-half. After all, Mr. Speaker, the individual elderly person who must pay $75 per month for rent alone will have a really tough time. Without question, a person whose income is limited to the basic old age security payment plus the guaranteed income supplement will not be able to make ends meet in that type of unit. In this area the government should move to establish a more just society. We ought to consider our senior citizens who have no funds or savings of any kind and who have no family that still recognizes some responsibility for caring for aged parents.
If I may finish my remarks, it will be more than interesting to see what sort of system of guaranteed annual income is envisaged by the proposers of this motion. The premier of British Columbia has come up with a particular version of that idea. I recall that in 1968 the idea of a guaranteed annual income was talked about, shall we say, as a proposal of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). At that time the government said that this idea would cost billions of dollars and scared the electorate. Now it seems that the guaranteed annual income has become almost respectable; in some cases it has become reverently respectable. I want to hear what the proposers of the motion have to say about this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and his colleagues for placing this motion on the order paper in order that we may discuss it today. The motion is moved under a Standing Order which does
not permit the matter to come to a vote. Perhaps that is good, because I should hate to see the just society voted down. It has already been negated by the government in power. Some of us still hope that we may move in that direction, but it is not yet in sight.
In the Speech from the Throne which was read at the opening of the present session, the just society was referred to as a distant ideal. That was different from the language we heard during the election campaign of 1968. However, even though the government put in the mouth of the Governor General the expression that the just society is now a distant ideal, there were also these interesting words in the Speech from the Throne: "A society which is not inspired by love and compassion is not worthy of the name." I am afraid that that is what we have under the present government, a society which is not inspired by love and compassion. It is a society run by technocrats who have preconceived ideas of what is important and who seem unconcerned about the suffering experienced and endured by a great many of our people.
The motion as drawn is rather wide. One could spend his time talking about the basic income tax exemption level, about the 11 per cent tax on building materials, about the guaranteed annual income, or one could look at the earlier words of the motion and talk about the government's failure to institute the just society. That is what I should like to do, and I should like to be very precise. I want to talk about a couple of groups of people-there are others, yet for the sake of precision I shall stick to two-whom the just society has passed by, so far as the present government is concerned. It is not as if the government has failed to notice these groups. Indeed, it has not only noticed them; it has brought in legislation affecting their situation. Despite that legislation, I say that the just society has passed these people by.
The first of these groups I want to refer to has already been mentioned by previous speakers. It consists of our senior citizens. It is true that for some people in their retirement years things are better. Certainly a great many more older people enjoy a half decent retirement today than was the case 30 or 40 years ago. Yet for many of our older and retired people life is still very tough. The reason for that is their inadequate income, and even that inadequate income loses its value because of rising costs and high taxation.
If I were to extend my reference to the 42 cent increase in the basic old age pension that was brought in by the government last December, this could almost be a case of reopening a debate that was closed. However, I shall just mention that fact and suggest that that increase was an insult to our older people and it has not been forgotten. Even with the $80 basic pension and the $135 that some people receive as a combination of old age security and guaranteed income supplement, the position has been getting worse and worse since the changes that were made last December which, for the most part, came into effect on April 1. Rising costs, of course, are a major factor in the worsening of the position of our retired
IMr. Lambert (Edmonton West).]
June 15, 1971

people. It is also a fact that taxation is hitting these people very hard.
pjn.)
It has always been my view, Sir, that old age pensions should be universal and that we should not worry about the wealthy receiving them because the income tax can take care of that. If it does not take care of it sufficiently, it should be adjusted so that it will. I have no intention of reneging on that position and saying that old age pensions per se should not be taxed. I do say, however, that people who have nothing else to live on but their old age security, guaranteed income supplement and perhaps some other small pension that they receive, should get tax relief either through raising the income taxation level to the point where they are not hit or through the provision of a tax credit. It does not make sense to talk about a guaranteed income supplement for the purpose of bringing the incomes of people up to a certain point through government action and for the government then to turn around and reduce that income below that level by means of taxation.
I repeat that I support the principle of old age pensions being universal and being subject to taxation so that those in the upper brackets will pay it back. However, I submit that through a process of income tax relief levels or income tax credits, we should ensure that our retired people who do not have anything else to live on but their old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement, or an amount at that level, will not have to pay income tax.
I hope we are not just talking into the air when we make this plea today, Tuesday, June 15. As a matter of fact, three days from now, Friday, June 18, will be the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will avoid that event in his life by bringing in a budget that has in it some compassion and human concern. One of the things that the minister can do on June 18 is to bring in a budget that relieves our senior citizens in those categories about which I have been talking of the necessity of paying income tax. Even this will not make their lives a bed of roses, but it will remove a little of the sting that is felt by many of these people who feel that the just society has passed them by. I
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I can complete my remarks before we rise at one o'clock. The other group I have in mind is our veterans, particularly the veterans who are recipients of the war veterans allowance. Legislation was passed this year that improved the disability pensions paid under the Pension Act and also improved the allowances paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act. When the announcement of those two changes was made last December 2, it was to the effect that there would be a 15 per cent increase in payments made under the War Veterans Allowance Act. The people affected by this-and 1 am referring particularly to the recipients of the war veterans allowance-are to be forgiven for presuming that their position would be improved by 15 per cent. By the time the legislation was passed and the government
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society introduced a few regulations under the act, it turned out that this was not the case.
The ceiling on the permissible level of income of war veterans allowance recipients was not raised by 15 per cent but by the same number of dollars that the allowance was increased. That was bad enough as a sort of a catch in the whole deal, but the most unkind and unjust cut of all was the regulation passed under the War Veterans Allowance Act which forced war veterans allowance recipients to apply for the guaranteed income supplement regardless of whether they wanted to do that. The government argued that since these veterans or their widows come under the ceilings set up under the War Veterans Allowance Act, namely $161 per month for a single veteran and $271 for a married veteran, it did not matter whether a veteran receives his money as old age security and guaranteed income supplement or as a war veterans allowance.
Apart from the fact that there is a psychological situation and these veterans feel that it is unfair to be pushed from their own legislation onto general welfare, there is this item about which I was talking a moment ago, namely income tax. To force these veterans to take the guaranteed income supplement instead of the war veterans allowance, even though they may end up with the same gross income, must be looked at in the light of the fact that old age security and guaranteed income supplement are taxable whereas the war veterans allowance is not. These people who were already hurt by the fact that they did not get a 15 per cent increase in their total income on a gross basis have also had that figure reduced by virtue of the application of income tax. We cannot, blame veterans and their widows, particularly war veterans allowance recipients, for feeling that the just society, if it ever existed, has passed them by.
I could go on with other details which we have gone over a number of times such as the unfairness to the widow of a veteran if the veteran dies more than a year after this change was made. If the veteran dies in the course of a year from April 1, 1971, the widow receives the married rate for one year, but if he dies after that she does not. There are quite a few other things of this sort. Despite the fact that I am allowed 20 minutes, I am pressing on so I can conclude my remarks before one o'clock and so that other members will have the opportunity to speak on the just society before six o'clock this afternoon.
These are the two matters with which I wanted to deal. I criticize the government. I deplore the fact that with all this talk about a just society and a society which would be inspired by love and compassion, the government has not acted in the interests of these two groups of Canadians. It has been most cruel towards our senior citizens and our veterans. As far as this government is concerned, it has let the just society pass these people by. In their name, I deplore it as strongly as I can.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate on the motion proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) to the effect that the government has-
... neglected to institute the just society ...
-he promised us in 1968-
... which should have been a reality for a long time; by refusing to increase the basic income tax exemption for individuals, by refusing to repeal the 11 per cent tax on building materials and by failing to institute a guaranteed annual income scheme.
Mr. Speaker, the motion naturally invites opposition parties and the government to express their views on the situation prevailing in Canada. Right now, a vital conference is going on in Victoria where there are discussions on ways of amending the Canadian constitution in order to patriate it to meet the wishes of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I read this morning in Le Devoir, which is surely not a Creditiste newspaper, the following:


[Stage Direction]
Even before discussing the repatriation of the Constitution, even before thinking of amending the Constitution, provinces are asking Ottawa for more money, even those, Mr. Speaker, which we penalize at the present time.
It has been said in the House this morning, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated so in a telecast yesterday evening, that there are in Canada three rich and seven poor provinces. The three rich provinces are: Ontario, with a debt of $8 billion; British Columbia, under a Social Credit administration for 20 years, with no debt at all, and Alberta, also under a Social Credit administration for 35 years, with no debt at all.
Of the three rich provinces of Canada, two have no debt at all and enjoy such prosperity that Ottawa has decided to penalize them in order to help the poor provinces, and that at a time when those two rich provinces need all their fiscal and monetary resources to maintain their economic expansion.
Mr. Speaker, at this very moment the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada are discussing a balanced distribution of wealth. We should take from those who have in order to give to those who have nothing or next to nothing. We should prevent some from prospering in order to help someone else. This is an utterly socialist-not to say totally communist-theory.
I can see the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang).
Mr. Aurelien Noel (Ouiremonl):: The Minister of Manpower and Immigration!


David Réal Caouette: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the Deputy or Acting Prime Minister, who is now in his seat.
Mr. Speaker, when something is taken away from someone with purchasing power or an additional income, he does not lose anything or does not hoard his income in a comer of his bedroom. Everybody knows that the Canadian citizen who earns $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 a year spends it. If he spends $25,000 because he earns $25,000, and if $5,000 is taken from him to be given to someone who earns only $4,000, the purchasing power of the one earning only $4,000 is increased a little, but, on the other hand, the purchasing power of the one who used to spend $25,000 is reduced in proportion. That is not a solution to the problem.
The same thing can be said of the guaranteed annual income, Mr. Speaker. That is nothing new, it was not invented by the Prime Minister or by this government. This is not something which has just been recognized or advocated since the Creditistes have been asking for it for at least 35 years. The Creditistes have been laughed at when they have requested a minimum income. I remember when I was 21-and I am now 53, that is to say 22 years ago-


An hon. Member:: That is to say 32 years-


David Réal Caouette: -32 years ago when we asked for a guaranteed annual income in the form of a minimum income, the Creditistes were laughed at.
Recently we read about "a fair sharing of resources", "an adequate guaranteed income", "social justice for all Canadians". And yet this is not from the Creditistes. I quote:
A program intended to assure an adequate guaranteed annual income, a program which the Canadian Welfare Council considers as a social right for all Canadians and which should be implemented as soon as possible, that is what the Council said in its statement.
Mr. Speaker, before the lunch hour, I heard the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) wonder how the members of the Ralliement Creditiste would distribute the guaranteed annual income or the vital minimum. He added that he could no longer understand anything because the hon. member for Bellechasse had not had enough time to say everything that needed to be said on these proposals. The hon. member for Edmonton West, for one, was surprised. He is in favour of the guaranteed annual income. He even said that his leader and his party had taken position for the guaranteed annual income.
Mr. Speaker, before lunch, the hon. member for Edmonton West was quite mistaken. He is a dreamer, lost in the clouds, and the situation is not new. His mind is-


André-Gilles Fortin: -narrow-


David Réal Caouette: -not only narrow but stuck in the mud, shall I say, so that he can no longer move.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West is always asking himself: But where have the hon. members of the Ralliement Creditiste applied their theory? Indeed, where is The Social Credit Theory being applied? But at the same time, we can tell him that we have

June 15, 1971

known about the Conservative party's theory and about that of the Liberal party as well since the origin of Canada. Now let us see what is the situation at the present time.
We have had a Progressive Conservative government as Tory as could be on the other side, enjoying the largest majority ever given a political party in Canada. We had one million unemployed in 1961, that is ten years ago.
Are people like the hon. member for Edmonton West going to lecture us today? This man was a member of the Diefenbaker government in the years 1957, 1958, 1961, 1962. What was he suggesting then to remedy unemployment? Nothing! This has reached a point where I say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Edmonton West is about the biggest apple that Parliament has ever known or that has ever sat in the House.
Mr. Speaker, there has to be a limit to being abused by people of the type of the hon. member for Edmonton West. I regret that he is not in his seat, because I would be still harder on him. Since he is not in the House, I will let it go at that even if he is always asking himself what the Creditistes are advocating. Before condemning what we are asking for, let the hon. member start trying to understand! But I wonder whether he has enough intelligence to try and understand. I wonder whether he has what it takes to understand. He has a very high opinion of himself, but both inside and outside Parliament I do not feel that oddball from Edmonton West amounts to much.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that those people attack the Creditistes, while their supporters say: "The provinces are asking for more money." When the provinces are facing financial problems, the Creditistes are accused of speaking only of money. The two old-line parties keep talking of taxes, inflation and unemployment, but they cannot even solve those problems.
Some Canadian firms have to contend with imports and foreign competition. We are trying to create competition with those countries. However, I read a few days ago a story in a newspaper. It is not only a story but a definition of the Liberal Canadian, probably like the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) with his red tie, the average Canadian, the Conservative Canadian, the New Democratic Canadian or any other Canadian. It is an excerpt from the magazine The Informer published by locals 1250 and 1323 and quoted in Le Machiniste. I quote:
A Canadian is someone who drinks Brazilian coffee in an English china cup, who eats French pastry, comfortably seated in a Danish armchair, after returning home in his German, Swedish or Japanese car from seeing an Italian movie-
And he takes a comfortable position in his chair just like the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). Let me read further on:
-He reaches out for his Czechoslovak pen and starts writing to his member of Parliament-
-to his Canadian member of Parliament-
-to complain about American control over Canadian industry-
Alleged, Non-Institution of Just Society
That is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). And further:
He is then wearing a shirt made in Hong Kong-
-just like the member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau)-
-and trousers made in Taiwan-
-for maximum stretch. This is really no laughing matter. But the article says:
This is quite a joke.
Mr. Speaker, this is more or less the situation in which we find ourselves. And when we suggest regaining control of our economy, which can only be done by using our financial institutions rather than resorting to American financial institutions, people make fun of us. Yet, this is the only way open to us to proceed with the development of our resources, the employment of our young people and of our unemployed in order to build roads, hospitals and public utilities. Instead of requesting financial assistance from the United States or Europe, let us finance our development by our own means. Let us establish the figures right here and not in the United States. People find it difficult to understand that. The hon. member for Edmonton West does not understand anything in this respect. As far as he is concerned the issue has never existed and should never exist. Regarding him, one could say: You have existed. You have been too long in existence and should never exist any more.
However, members of the Progressive Conservative party and Liberal members have shown sympathy towards the Creditistes' fate. We are rural people, ordinary workers-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired pursuant to the special order made earlier this day.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member, of course, may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there such
consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for
Temiscamingue.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank especially my colleagues of the other parties who are applauding me because they know that they will understand something in a few moments, particularly the President of the Treasury Board, who is the only representative of the cabinet now in the House.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals tell me, give the Conservatives a hard time! The Conservatives reply, give the Liberals a hard time! They are alike; that is why they say , give the others a hard time!

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about us?


David Réal Caouette: What about the New Democratic party? It will not count for much after the next election! So, let us say as little as possible about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are as
stupid as the member for Edmonton West.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, many members among the Liberals, the Conservatives and even the New Democrats say, you, the Creditistes, the country people, the hard-hats, the illiterate, the uneducated, have you any economists? Where are they? You know that everyone is swearing by the economists, including the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals.
Let us consider the situation we are now facing because of these economists whom we commonly call our intellectuals, those fellows whose heads are floating in the clouds, fellows like Francois-Albert Angers in Montreal. Let us go and ask him what changes should be made. He knows nothing about it. Mr. Parizeau of the Parti Quebecois was here in Hull last week and was heard saying: Get rid of Ottawa's tutelage! Get rid of whatever is English! Get rid of everything! And no sooner had he heard that the E.B. Eddy Company-which to my knowledge did not originate in France-was to move out of Hull, that Parizeau, the economist, came over here to meet with his "pequistes" his separatists, and told them to oppose this moving out, saying: You have no right to let this company move out of the Hull city limits. Can you detect any consistency in these people? These are separatists in the Levesque style. Free yourself! After that, they expect business to stay put. What a sensible solution!
In any event, Mr. Speaker, they always tell us: Where are your economists. I want to point out that the founder of Social Credit, the founder my colleagues and myself are following at present, was neither an uneducated, illiterate man, nor an insignificant man, but an engineer and an economist. And the founder of Social Credit has stressed in one of his books how little the bankers themselves know apparently about the way their own monetary system works.
That is so true that if you ask bank managers throughout Canada whether it is money that generates credit, 98 per cent will reply that they don't even know. They say they have instructions from their head office, and that's it.
Major C. H. Douglas was an economist and a professional engineer, not a nobody like the hon. member for Edmonton West. He had a head on his shoulders, he could think for himself, instead of being a puppet "entangled" in the system which controls the hon. member for Edmonton West. But even if I were to tell the hon. member to read the writings of Major Douglas, he does not have the intellectual capacity required to understand them, so it is useless to suggest that.
After his appearance in Ottawa before the banking, trade and commerce committee, in 1934, Major Douglas became a resident of Canada. For the information of younger hon. members here, Major Douglas is not a fairy-tale character. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) is looking bright-eyed at me. If this can eventually get through to him, he will leave his corner and join us.


Roch La Salle: I enjoy listening to you.


David Réal Caouette: After appearing before the Committee on Banking and Commerce in Ottawa, in 1934, Major Douglas could say that the bankers he had confronted were not aware of the most elementary things involved in their system; some of them would not even admit that banks could create credit with a stroke of the pen. Major Douglas demonstrated, in black and white, what control these people exercised. Whether it was ignorance or bad faith, nobody knows. But, I am convinced that it is not ignorance, but bad faith, because these people are guided by a higher power which is not part of the government but is established by the government which confers on them the right to control the economic fibre of the nation. Now that is control.
In both cases, however, the fate of Canadians is in the wrong hands, whether they are acting in bad faith or ignorant. As hon. members know ignorant people can be found anywhere, even among educated people, since education, it is said is a little like alcohol: some people can drink while others can't. So, some people can hold their liquor and some can't.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) finds it good because he is convinced of what I just said. Besides, he is a medical doctor. He knows the cure. However, the most important antidote is lacking. As soon as he gets it, he will sit with us.
The father of Social Credit who was an engineer bluntly told the bankers that it was bad faith or ignorance. On the other hand, Creditistes owe much to engineers who have studied, who have learned something. Faced with problems dealing with the manufacture of necessary and useful items-and all hon. members do agree on that- they have learned to create something, to use their intelligence to the utmost. Our leader is Major Douglas, who was an engineer.
Engineers, who have to build necessary and useful works, find that materials and labour are plentiful to such an extent that they exceed the requirement. We have 800,000 unemployed in Canada. There is surely no shortage of manpower. Engineers, Mr. Speaker, who have taken a degree at the University of Montreal, the University of Quebec or the University of Ottawa, cannot find a suitable job. Some engineers are now working on the assembly line in the GMC plant in Sainte-Therese, near Montreal, because there is no place for them in our Canadian society. We know that.
Mr. Speaker, those people see there is an abundance of material and labour. That is probably why an engineer reasons things out better than the lawyer from Edmonton West, who could not have taken up engineering at the

June 15, 1971

University of Alberta when he was there because he is not bright enough to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I may be considered quite cutting with regard to the hon. member for Edmonton West, but he deserves it, for I feel he is a big dumb-bell. Before he understands something, he is ready to condemn it. Too bad he is not here, I would say so to his face. He is one of the biggest dumb-bells in Canada, even though he once was Speaker of this House. I knew him as such, even at that time.
Mr. Speaker, the engineers see there is an abundance of material and labour. They are right, like most common mortals, with the exception of bankers and politicians who are their lackeys, in asking why a bridge or a dam cannot be erected? Simply because we lack money. Why can we not develop James Bay? Why can we not build better Trans-Canada roads than the existing ones? Are materials, engineers, manpower or physical resources lacking? No, financial means are.
The President of the Privy Council is looking at me. He knows it is true. What makes me angry, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that in peace time, we are prevented from developing our country by financial implications. If a world war broke out tomorrow morning, the government would find the billions of dollars needed to make guns, shells, weapons, to build barracks, houses, to provide food, clothes and shelter for soldiers. There would not be one moment's hesitation to wage war! But there is no money to maintain peace. That shows the stupidity of the system advocated by the present government and advocated a few years ago by the previous Progressive Conservative government.
It all boils down to dollars and cents. Why is it that billions can be found to kill people, but not a cent for them to live on? How is it that our 1,500,000 students cannot find a summer job? We now have this Opportunities for Youth program which is nothing but some other kind of patronage in the hands of petty scheming politicians of the worst kind. And I just heard the President of the Treasury Board saying "Ha!"
On Monday, when the budget is under study, I shall name a few names for the information of the Minister. I will prove that some former members of the communist infiltrated CYC are currently receiving more grants from the Secretary of State department than those people who are really interested to work for the development of Canada. I have the names and the amounts. Some of the Liberal members will probably cheer when I give this information, Mr. Speaker, because they might be facing the same problems in their constituency. There is such a problem in my riding and I will tell the House about it on Monday just to be sure that everybody knows about it.
Mr. Speaker, there are 1,500,000 young people who wish to be integrated into Canadian society but are cast aside and then we are surprised to see that they rebel, that they organize here and there, explode bombs. Why do they do it? Because they are turned down by society.
Alleged. Non-Institution of Just Society
We were young once too. We protested against the state of affairs. Protesting is a normal attitude.
Personally I started protesting when I was 20 years old. Now I am 53 and I still question the government, but in an orderly fashion. Let us make suggestions. After all, young people are our children. We close the doors on them, we tell them: You are too young, wait! So the young man of 18 or 20, who cannot be integrated into society, will destroy this society which thrusts him aside. This is nothing surprising. Of course there are abuses.
Some young people have been arrested in Montreal and elsewhere in Canada, because they have abused their freedom. It is not only among the young that rebels are found. There are some among the 60, 65 and 70-year-old people. The latter also commit reprehensible actions. We must not blame only youth!
At any rate, we condemn the government for not having established a just society in Canada, for having failed to abolish the 11 percent sales tax on building materials. An alternative must be brought forward, as the hon. member for Bellechasse put it this morning. Social Credit has been advocating it for a long time, even though Creditistes have been made to pass for not too well educated people, or mere representatives of the rural class.
We have come close, a few days ago, to winning the by-election in the urban riding of Trois-Rivieres. I am convinced that we shall win there at the next general election, as well as in the riding of Saint-Maurice. I do not know who is the representative of that constituency, but at any rate I think that we will win there.
Mr. Speaker, before Major Douglas, an American engineer, a noted scientist who has written hundreds of books since 1904, Thorstein Veblen brought up the views of engineers on the price system. In fact, it is to him that Major Douglas owes his concept on cultural legacy justifying the payment of a national dividend to all citizens so as to guarantee a minimum income. Irrespective of his colour, of his creed, of his tongue, each citizen would be entitled to that cultural legacy which would be his national dividend.
Let us pay a tribute to Major C. H. Douglas an engineer by trade, a speaker invited by all engineering organizations throughout the world. He has delivered lectures on the price system and Social Credit at the world convention of engineers in Tokyo and to the Engineers' Association of the Netherlands before their king. Only, the media at the time did what they do today; they said: let us ignore the creditists, let us ignore the creditist philosophy!
I see, in the press gallery, a representative of the Canadian Press or the United British Press. Tomorrow, the papers will report on the Victoria conference, which does not solve anything, rather than on the Canadian problems being discussed here. On the CBC news tonight, nothing will be said about this day of serious debate, because the CBC camera "boys' or reporters are probably watching the rats on the Hull side of the Ottawa river. Of there are any on this side, they are in Parliament.

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
Mr. Speaker, I am not singling out the hon. member lor Mercier (Mr. Boulanger). Not at all.
Mr. Speaker, the new media will not report what we are saying today. No. Those who wish to know what went on in the House, in short, what we proposed, will have to read Hansard tomorrow. And that is called freedom of the press. To lie shamelessly, forget conveniently, and report the monkey antics and nonsense that take place throughout the country, that is just like newspapermen. They are more interested in what goes on in Pakistan than in those who are starving in Canada.
We had a big meeting last weekend at Granby. Did the CBC cover it? No! But as soon as Mr. Levesque, who is not even a member either in Ottawa or in Quebec City, makes an insignificant statement in Montreal, the CBC quotes him immediately. He is in the news.
When I suggested-as I still do-that the CBC needed a cleanup because it is infiltrated by separatists, socialists and even communists, I knew what I was talking about. It would be of great service to the public should the doors of the Corporation be closed for a year in order that this necessary cleanup be carried out. The CBC is an organization designed to set people against one another instead of reporting actual facts. And then I am accused of bearing a grudge against the CBC. A bunch of bums, as people say, paid out of tax money which we vote right here. As a matter of fact, $200 million have been voted by Ottawa to maintain a crummy organization such as this. It is an organizatvon of nobodies, an organization of heartless men ready to spit and bite the hand that feeds them.
Mr. Speaker, those people will not be talking about us tonight nor tomorrow. They will not speak of what transpires in Victoria. Not a word!
The right hon. Prime Minister said this morning: Ottawa rejects priority but welcomes competition. Ottawa does not acknowledge the priority of Quebec in the field of taxation for social security because this belongs to Ottawa. But I am in favour of this proposal for Canada as a whole. Open to competition, this in good French means: Quebec, if you want more family allowances, levy your own taxes and pay the allowances yourself. I do not object to this. But it means an increase in taxes and Quebec would like Ottawa to bear the burden. However Ottawa answers backs: It is up to Quebec to assume responsibility. The fight between the two is not a struggle for cost-sharing but a battle raging around imposition of taxation. The controversy centers around the question of knowing who should have the power to grab whose money and how it should be done. This is the controversy. It does not pertain to the monetary system. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) thinks this is funny, but he knows that I am right. Priority no, competition yes. This means that we continue to tax but that the provinces must do the same. This means two taxes instead of one, this means that the citizens of Quebec will be happier. They will say: At least the Prime Minister has given us the benefit of being taxed more. What an improvement!
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take more time, but the way things are I could go on all afternoon. My colleagues also have something to say.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the stability of the modern world depends on the stability of its currencies.
However, it is obvious that the value of money is unsteady, but always and directly tied up to the value of production. If we produce more for one dollar, it is obvious that our dollar is worth a lot more, while if we produce less, our dollar is worth less.
One must understand that the stability of our modern world is based on the stability of the currency, as far as the currency reflects the facts. It is very doubtful that all the miseries inflicted on the British people by bad kings, bad Parliaments, bad ministers and bad judges would equal those imputable to a bad currency.
The same thing could be said about Canada. When the currency goes well, Mr. Speaker, everything is in good shape, but when the currency goes wrong, everything goes the wrong way.
When I asked the President of the Treasury Board- who is in the House-for some extra help for my office on the sixth floor, I was told: We have no money, you are not entitled to any additional aid. However, there are unemployed, people looking for work but the government has no money for that.
But to pay expenses for trips outside and inside Canada, for trips everywhere, for setting up government and ministerial offices, for laying wall-to-wall carpets- not small carpets at $5.80 a yard but carpets so thick you almost need snow-shoes to walk on in ministerial offices- for all that there is money. However where it comes to those who need money, they discuss the matter like they did last Tuesday and conclude that none can be spared.
I urge the President of the Treasury Board to give us the help we need in order to perform our duties as members of Parliament, and we are entitled to get that help in Parliament.
The minister is looking surprised. Perhaps he was not present but at any rate he is advised to take steps to give us satisfaction.
Mr. Speaker, a sound currency, one which retains its stability for repayment of debts, its purchasing power, and the purchasing power of salaries, of savings, of pensions, is the key to economic freedom, progress and development.
The objective of a monetary policy is therefore to preserve the stability of the dollar and to bring about maximum production.
In fact, next to maintaining law and order that should be the government's prime responsibility. You can never preserve law and order in a country unless finances are made to serve human beings.
It is a known fact that the value of money is determined by the value of goods and services and not that money, as the hon. member for Edmonton West stated before dinner, is a monetary illusion. That tends to prove
[Mr. Caouette.l
June 15, 1971

that he is carrying a hat rack on his shoulders rather than his head.
Goods and services determine the value of money. Thus, we should strive to maintain a constant balance between the amount of money being created and the output of goods.
We must implement immediately a monetary policy based on the maintenance of a fixed level of domestic prices. To this end, the central Bank must exercise its exclusive privilege to issue money so as to maintain a constant level of prices. Issuing money under this principle would not amount to an original debt and would not bear any interest.
Private banks should be allowed to borrow and to invest instead of creating book money for their investments which tends to expand or to restrict the money supply and to alter the value of our currency.
It is unbelievable that governments, one after another, should have allowed private banks to create and issue millions of dollars of new money, without any obligation on their part to maintain the stability of the purchasing power.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, we advocate the financing of public capital and new interest-free credits underwrit-ter by the Bank of Canada or an agency connected with it, which would reduce pressures now exerted on the money market and reduce the rates of interest. Public works financing through interest-free loans would allow for a rapid development of this country's social equipment, according to the needs and while material and human resources exist.
Such interest-free financing would result in the lowering of prices and taxes which are now a burden for all classes of citizens, especially low-income or fixed-income groups such as pensioners. The financing of public capital through the creation of new credits issued by the Bank of Canada would also result in freeing huge amounts of private capital that are now tied up in federal, provincial or municipal bonds. Such capital would become available to private enterprise, which will not have to turn to foreign capital any more. In due time the Canadian people will thus be able to regain control over their economy, to please the members of the New Democratic Party who are so much in favour of the recovery of economic control by Canadians. This would lead to lower consumer prices, a drop in the cost of living and the end of inflation.
The ultimate effect would be the improved condition of the people as a whole, which should be a target for all governments throughout the world, including that of Canada. If the Canadian government is unable to strive for that goal, I shall repeat what my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse, said at the beginning of his remarks: Let him step aside we are ready to do the job for him.

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-Sl. Barbel:
Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to commend the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for introducing
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
this very important motion and would like to commend also the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for making the plea on behalf of the veterans and the aged of the country.
The section of the motion to which I wish to direct special attention concerns the Liberal government's failure to come to grips with the problem of ensuring a minimum standard of living for all Canadians, including the working poor. For many people, this involves the introduction of some form of guaranteed annual income. In fact, many of the provinces are actively considering a guaranteed annual income scheme, as anyone who is reading the reports from Victoria will know. This subject has been on the front pages of the newspapers for the past few days.
First of all, let me define what I mean when I speak of a guaranteed annual income. The term refers to that family of proposals that have in common the aim of supplementing incomes in an attempt to raise and keep all incomes above a poverty line. Basically, the guaranteed income would place a floor of minimum income security under every Canadian so that all citizens would be assured of the basic necessities of life, whether or not jobs can be found for them.
There have been two occasions in the last six months when the Liberal government has broached the topic of a guaranteed annual income. In both cases, their discussions of the topic have been noted more for inconsistent reasoning and misleading arguments than for the intelligent appraisal that Canadians have had every reason to expect after the fanfare with which the Liberal government embarked on its so-called just society policy and its war on poverty. The two specific instances to which I refer are, first, the white paper on income security and, second, the proposed amendment to the Canada Assistance Plan to allow individual provinces to institute their own guaranteed income plans, as suggested last week at the welfare ministers conference. In each case, the Liberal government has shown a complete lack of responsible leadership and intelligent appraisal of how best to tackle the issues.
First of all, let us consider the white paper on income security. This was prepared under the direction of Deputy Minister Joseph Willard and took two years to research. Much was hoped from this study. Canadians expected the paper to include the announcement of a broad new social policy for the country. However, the white paper turned out to be a document that is utterly contradictory in the jumbled "social philosophy" of sorts that emerges from different pages. The attempt was made to present a philosophy which would appease at one and the same time both those who favour economic growth and no major redistribution of income and those who would like to see a guaranteed annual income and a more equitable standard of living for all.
The white paper avoids any discussion of the redistribution of the national wealth and talks only of the redistribution of existing income security payments. No attempt is made to rationalize the present patchwork quilt of income support programs; yet, current social

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society welfare measures are merely an accumulation of ad hoc responses to particular situations, and therefore provide widely disparate levels of financial support to persons in similar financial circumstances across the country.
The white paper poses the guaranteed annual income alternative in ridiculously naive terms. In chapter 6 there is this declaration:
The many defects that are apparent In the existing programs lead to a basic question. Why not do away with all these programs and introduce in their place one over-all guaranteed income program to provide all persons in poverty with a basic minimum income?
It then proceeds to show how difficult it would be to eliminate most existing programs, such as unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation and the Canada Pension Plan. Most advocates of a guaranteed minimum income propose such a plan as a replacement for schemes of social assistance only, and would leave social insurance programs intact. Social insurance programs are intended to prevent people from falling into poverty: a guaranteed minimum income would help out those already in a condition of poverty.
The argument for a guaranteed annual income is that it is a superior alternative to income support programs, those which help people in poverty, and not an alternative to income protection programs, those which keep people from falling into poverty. The great difficulty with income support programs now is that they do not pay enough and are therefore self-defeating. They alleviate hardship but they do not make the poor less poor, leaving poverty to breed more poverty. The claim made for the guaranteed annual income is that if the income floor is set high enough to ensure an adequate minimum, the vicious circle of poverty can be broken, giving supportive social services and rehabilitative programs a chance to succeed. Current income support programs simply perpetuate poverty; the guaranteed annual income looks to its eradication.
The white paper does not recognize this point, nor does it even make the argument. It talks about the need for greater emphasis on anti-poverty measures; but it ends up by proposing higher family allowances for low-income families and more money for the needy aged, which will still leave most recipients who are below the poverty line where they are-below the poverty line.
Another disappointing aspect of the white paper's approach to the guaranteed annual income is its discussion of work incentives. Incentive to work is cited as "the major criticism" of the guaranteed annual income approach, and further study and investigation is called for to find out what effects such a program would have on the incentive to work and save. This is an inexcusable oversight. Why did the white paper not evaluate how work incentives operate in guaranteed minimum income schemes in other countries and include an evaluation of the New Jersey experiment? Canada does not need to break new ground here because the information is already available. Furthermore, social workers state that there is not enough clinical evidence to support fears of a

loss of work incentive in a guaranteed annual income system. The vast majority of low income earners want to work and get ahead; thousands already work even now when they could do better on welfare. The few who refuse to work will either be tolerable deadweights or else they can be ruled ineligible for guaranteed annual income assistance, just as is done now in some welfare programs.
Secondly, most guaranteed annual income type proposals have incorporated into their schemes work incentives far superior to the present situation. Currently, "disincentives" are built into existing welfare programs, as individuals lose from their welfare cheque or subsidy any money earned or saved; therefore, they are encouraged not to work to supplement their meagre welfare payments and to break the poverty and welfare cycle. A guaranteed annual income proposal, then, provides more adequate work incentives than do the government schemes, although the white paper erroneously implies the opposite to be true.
Another hurdle to acceptance of the guaranteed annual income, states the white paper, is the problem of administering the program. This is a strange argument. One wonders whether the administrative task would be significantly different from that involved in administering the guaranteed income supplement and the proposed family income security program, the payments under each of which will be income-related. The white paper expects that family income security program would be related to the income tax system, as the guaranteed annual supplement is at present.
A guaranteed income scheme could also be related to the tax system. Therefore, it is unlikely that a guaranteed annual income could impose an additional burdensome administration problem. In fact, rather than increase the administrative burden, a guaranteed annual income might actually rationalize the existing government bureaucracies by tying more closely the operations of the income tax system and the welfare system.
Ignored also in the white paper's discussion of costs are estimates of the social and economic costs of poverty. On this subject, the National Council of Welfare has stated clearly the case that the alleviation of poverty through such measures as a guaranteed annual income may be cheaper than the costs we presently accept for coping with the problems originating from the condition of poverty.
It would be easy for me to continue for some time documenting the inadequacies of the government's discussion of a guaranteed annual income in the white paper. To say the least, it was very disappointing. Canadians expected a factual discussion on the guaranteed annual income, and instead received only an apologist's rationalizations for failure to take a positive, intelligent stand on the issue.
The second occasion for the Liberal government to broach the subject of a guaranteed annual income came at the welfare ministers' conference last week. There, the federal Liberals put forward a plan to amend the Canada Assistance Plan so that the federal government would
June 15, 1971

provide 50 per cent of the costs borne by the provinces in programs employing an income test, a measure which would allow provinces to embark on a guaranteed annual income plan with the federal government paying half the costs. What happened, all of a sudden, to the federal government's objection in November, 1970, to such schemes? Have they changed their minds about the overall cost of a guaranteed annual income being prohibitive?
In its White Paper on Income Security, the Liberal government rejected a guaranteed annual income on the basis that it was too expensive and that Canadians could not afford it at present. The government now has contradicted itself by offering to share with the provinces in instituting such a scheme.


Mr. Paproski:: An election must be in the offing.


Mr. Marshall:: This contradiction is evidence that the proposal to amend the Canada Assistance Plan is merely a political manoeuvre as part of their bargaining with the demands of the provinces.


Steve Eugene Paproski: An election must be in the offing.


Jack Marshall: There is another problem-how national standards could be maintained in the future if each of the provinces were to embark on a different guaranteed income scheme or, more importantly, refused to take up the federal offer to inaugurate its own guaranteed annual income. Furthermore, the implementation of such an amendment to the Canada Assistance Plan would only exacerbate the present situation in which there are wide variations in the provincial standards of social welfare schemes already instituted under the Canada Assistance Plan.
There is a wide range in provincial assistance available under the Canada Assistance Plan right across the country. The federal proposal will do nothing to close this gap. More l kely, the gap will increase as the more well-to-do provinces forge ahead with guaranteed income schemes while the poorer ones fall even further behind. Provincial differences in terms of dollar grants are matched by differences in the form of assistance available. This raises the question of "portability". The federal government has stated in its working paper "Income Security and Social Services" that because Canadians are now so mobile and move so frequently from one province to another, "It is important to the people involved that their income security benefits be portable", and, "It is important for this reason too that income security measures be reasonably uniform across the country." Individual provincial guaranteed income schemes negate this statement of federal philosophy. Portability is a definite problem arising from the government's new proposal.
Once again, I have not exhausted the inadequacies of the government's most recent proposals in the social security field. I cannot spend longer on the subject in the time allotted. I think I have demonstrated that the federal government's involvement in the income support field has been nothing more than a series of contradictions plus rationalizations for its failures to take leadership
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society and provide information in this all-important area of the guaranteed income plan for all Canadians.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That's merely a political manoeuvre.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I must join my colleagues of the Ralliement creditiste in censuring this Liberal government for having failed to establish the just society in Canada, as promised during the last general elections, in 1968. There is no need to study at length the present administration to discover the almost total failure of this government, for which publicity and trips abroad are more important than a sound and efficient administration of our country, Canada.
To censure the government is no fun. However, we must do it, in an attempt to awaken it if at all still possible-which I doubt-before the situation deteriorates again.
To realize a just society, a government must get. going, resort to short-term and long-term policies likely to allow each citizen to develop to the fullest and to enjoy freedom and security, while participating thoroughly in the economic life of the country, being no longer a marginal element as most Canadiens are now by reason of the lethargy of the present government.
At the present time we are not facing a lack of productivity in the Canadian economy, but rather an insufficient use of the available resources, and above all, a waste of labour. The government so-called anti-inflationary measures-as pointed out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his statements, as you will recall, were meant to reduce the total demand of the Canadian people whereas the economy could have easily met that demand.
However, what we need at the present time is an increased demand since our economy does not produce to its full capacity. And when it does produce, the production is not distributed for lack of purchasing power. Instead of following the policy advocated by us. The government has restricted the demand, and an unacceptable rate of unemployment has resulted.
According to Mr. Havilland, an economist of the Economic Council, the government policy has resulted in a $3 billion loss, while Le Machiniste, a well-known magazine, puts it at $4 billion. Mr. Firestone of Ottawa University, has estimated at over $2 billion the loss of 200,000 new jobs. Anyway, even if economists disagree on the amount of the loss, they all agree that the government has failed and is responsible for a loss of several million and even billion dollars.
More and more Canadians are depending directly on the government for their livelihood. Imagine, for instance, that in April 1971, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics published an official report which showed that over 152,000 people were unemployed for more than seven months, a record figure. The government must certainly be blamed for its complete failure.
The present economic stagnation is a direct result of the government's attitude for whom power means more studies, more inquiries, more white papers, more statements of senseless policies, more useless trips, instead of

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
some action designed to make each individual participate more fully in the economic life of his country.
Mr. Speaker, one must admit that poverty has increased in Canada. The number of poor people has increased. The number of unemployed people has reached appalling proportions. There are more than 800,000 of them.
Under the present administration, the indebtedness of Canadians has now reached incredible peaks: $13.4 billion. Under the present administration, the indebtedness of provincial and municipal governments has become the most serious problem in Canada, with debts totalling more than $38 billion, not counting interest paid to financiers.
As a result, it must also be recognized that national unity can only crumble, as is demonstrated by seven useless Federal-Provincial Conferences on the Constitution. Will the Constitution give food to the thousands of Canadians who are deprived of a minimum income to live on?
Mr. Speaker, even if we gave every Canadian a new Constitution, it would not solve their problem, it would not give them a guaranteed minimum income, it would not eliminate poverty in this country bursting with wealth.
Young students with their pockets full of diplomas are unemployed. This again is another sample of the results obtained with a Liberal administration. And that is only part of the sad record of our Prime Minister's administration.
Is that the just society promised by the Prime Minister? Is that the just society promised in 1968 to win votes? Is that the promised land? If that is it and if the government leaders cannot do their job, then let them move aside and we shall do it for them. If they recoil from tackling high finance, let them move aside and we shall do it for them. The federal government's first responsability is to provide a fair distribution of the nation's wealth-and let us not forget it-of the nation's production, across the country, and also to ensure equality of opportunity for all Canadians.
This is our challenge. I suggest that the government by means of the appropriate economic and monetary measures could control inflation and unemployment provided they stop being the perfect servant and slave to high finance. But to achieve this, our travelling Prime Minister-our carrier-pigeon-should at least understand that administering Canada means staying in Canada. One cannot administer the country from abroad, between two ski meets or two cocktails, accompanied by 42 newsmen whose expenses are all paid.
In Quebec, for instance, there are more than 600,000 persons on welfare. Is that what you call a just society? To this number can be added about 20 per cent of those who work but whose standard of living is only slightly over the poverty line. Is that the just society? This is what we are experiencing in the constituency of Lotbiniere, in Victoriaville, Warwick, Arthabasca and Princeville.
But why? Because we have a government controlled by finance which refuses to come to grips with the problem. All these people are the first to be affected in our ridings. They are the people who elected me to Parliament to say these things to the government, to make it see the light if it is still possible. All those people are the first to be affected when the cost of living goes up, because they have to spend most of their income, if not all of it, for food, clothes and shelter, which are essential to life.
If they are working, workers, farmers and others are probably not members of a union so they cannot fight effectively for salary increases as other union workers are doing. If they receive social welfare allowances, these are not adjusted to match increases in the cost of living. They are solely adjusted to their budget deficit. So the poverty level rises and the gap widens between the wealthy and the poor.
Mr. Speaker, one of the first things to do-and this is urgent-is to increase the basic personal income tax exemption. The government refuses to do so and we are blaming it for that today.
Then the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials should be abolished; it is inflationary and gives rise to an increase in the cost of housing and this prevents workers and the poorer people from owning their homes. The government refuses to repeal this tax. It says, through the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), that it is a difficult but necessary tax. It also says: Pull in your belt! Pull in one's belt for whose benefit? Not for Canada but for high finance. Today we blame the government for not having abolished that tax.
We must have a guaranteed annual income scheme. That is another solution. For over 30 years, the Credi-tistes have asked that a monetary system be established which would give to every Canadian, whatever his mother-tongue, his race, his culture, whatever the provisions of the Constitution, a minimum guaranteed income, taking onto account the production capabilities of the country, which are enormous. The government refuses to do it and resorts to an orgy of publicity in promising a just society. This is pure abstraction, Mr. Speaker!
We are blaming the government today for refusing to take action in this field.
On the whole, we have to adopt constructive measures, change our philosophy, stop discouraging personal initiatives. Instead of adopting restrictive, discouraging policies, why not take incentives to promote and support initiative on the part of the individual as well as of private enterprise.
Mr. Speaker, those are constructive suggestions to bring people to really participate in the economic life of Canada. This is not the policy of the present government. The present government through our carrier-pigeon Prime Minister visits foreign countries, praises-I should say gives away-our natural resources, imploring people

June 15, 1971

to give us financial permission to develop our own country.
At the same time, Canadians are being refused, not only the possibility of taking part in the economic progress of Canada, but their share of this production made by the machine rather than by them, since they are unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, if this government is unable to achieve a just society, if it cannot discharge its duties, its commitments, if all it can do is travel and organize useless federal-provincial constitutional conferences, let it move over and we shall do the job.
Suppression of poverty is a collective responsibility. Let us not forget that poverty generates poverty, and that the poor, the dependents of government, the unemployed no longer accept to be deprived of the essential and that modern mass media invite them to live the good life even though they are deprived of the basic necessities.
The disorders experienced in our Canadian cities are due to the existence of poverty in the midst of affluence rather than to ideologies or constitutions.
In Quebec, Mr. Speaker, some 600,000 individuals are included among the social welfare recipients whose family income varies between $1,500 and $2,000 per year, that is from $35 to $45 per week. They are the ones who live in the slums of our cities, on lands which they have toiled to clear up, generation after generation. Today, with its dairy policy, its policies on wheat and agriculture generally, the government discourages them and reduces them to utter destitution, while depriving them of a guaranteed minimum income. My colleagues who represent those unfortunate areas in our towns as well as in the country know that the government gorges itself on publicity with its just society, but ignores the fate of those people.
And when the children of those individuals, living in the Saint-Henri district in Montreal or in slums Lot-biniere or elsewhere on land which their forefathers have toiled to clear up-from which they are banished by the government-see the situation, they revolt. And, as my hon. colleague from Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), the leader of the Social Credit, said, we cannot accept their violent methods but we cannot blame them either since that is their only resort in a society which refuses to open its doors to them.
This government could say, as they do in Quebec: We spend five billion dollars on education annually. But why? To teach them to become educated unemployed? That they might realize their hardships even more? If at least that were the case, we could perhaps change something; but today education has become a welfare institution: it encourages the young to study a long time because there is no work for them. Why not spend as much money to create jobs as is invested in education?
Education is a wonderful thing, Mr. Speaker, provided it truly reaches the population and it really serves the interests of the individual to enable him to attain self-fulfillment.
In conclusion, small wage earners...
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker. ..


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Does the House agree to let the hon. member continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues for their kindness.
I would like to add that all small wage earners in Victoriaville, Warwick and elsewhere, in short in Quebec and in Canada, as well as low income farmers and it is the great majority-are in a state of stagnation, always because of the government policy of the Prime Minister. Because of the policy of this government, the 800,000 unemployed are in a bad predicament. So two Quebecers out of five are completely helpless and destitute. Such is the just society policy of the governent.
Mr. Speaker, we must ensure an adequate guaranteed income; that is a social right which all Canadians should enjoy. The Creditistes believe that every Canadian is entitled to a guaranteed income. This social right can only be guaranteed by the Social Credit. And the Social Credit alone can achieve such a right for every individual.
A program designed to give every Canadian a satisfactory guaranteed annual income-considered as a social right-should be implemented without delay through a national dividend and compensated discount system.
If the just society is to be anything but a vain and fragile abstraction, it must be based on some basic and intangible rights, including social, civil and civic rights. This government is creatng crises out of thin air, such as the October crisis for instance, to justify its infringements upon the social, civic and legal rights of the citizens. While dangling these things before people the useless struggle continues within the precincts of the federal-provincial conferences as to who will tax them.
Among social rights, none is more important than the basic right of sufficient income. It is therefore imperative that we make this socio-economic objective an integral part of our set of values. Instead of putting high finance at the top of our scale of values, let us give priority to human value.
First of all, let us abolish the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials that penalizes the little man. This 11 per cent tax is infamous since it is inflationary and increases the price of housing.
If the government is true to itself in pretending to combat inflation, let it abolish without delay all monetary or fiscal policies it adopted to create inflation.
In 1969, the Minister of Transport, following a report by a task force, declared himself ready to agree to the abolition of the 11 per cent tax, but the Minister of Finance refused to do so.

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
What is the use of the Department of Finance? One wonders.
And there are many more task forces. In order to conceal its incompetency and its lethargy, the government set up the Prices and Incomes Commission, called the Young Commission. Why was this commission set up? Not to help Canadians, but to fight inflation, to help big finance.
After more than a year of study, this Mr. Young said, as reported in La Presse of May 19, 1971, and I quote:
Inflation remains the economic enemy No. 1 in Canada and, if we want to overcome it, we will have to fight a long battle. By slowing down the economic growth too much, we have created severe unemployment.
Mr. Young himself blames the government in this respect, after a year of effort, which proves that his work has been useless, ridiculous, and that this commission did not accomplish anything.
I might be told that the Creditistes are the only people who speak like that. According to La Presse of May 20, 1971, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) has stated, and I quote:
... that the present unemployment situation will persist at least until next year.
He does not have much confidence in the present government and therefore he has resigned.
The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) said in a statement to La Presse of even date and I quote:
.. . that "disaster" was too weak a word to describe the economic policy of the Liberal government who has allowed both inflation and unemployment to prevail.
Mr. Speaker, Le Devoir of May 12, 1971 also published the following statement and I quote:
The Prime Minister, Mr. Pierre-Elliott Trudeau admitted yesterday that a new upsurge of inflation has now developped.
One sunny morning, two months ago, on Sussex Drive, the Prime Minister got up and said: inflation has gone, it has stopped galloping. On May 12, he said, when making a brief stop-over in Canada between two trips, that he had just realized that we had galloping inflation again.
In the issue of March 8, 1971, of Le Devoir, a certain James Nelson of the Canadian Press said and I quote:
The long term objectives as stated by the Economic Council of Canada are annual increases of no more than 2 per cent in the price index and an unemployment figure of under 3 per cent.
Unemployment in all likelihood will be a problem this winter.
He obviously does not have much faith either, Mr. Speaker, in the monetary and fiscal measures of the day. In the issue of April 17, 1971, Montreal-Matin says in an editorial and I quote:
Within three months, the cost of living index has risen by 1.2 per cent, whereas it had progressed only by 1.9 per cent from March 1970 to March 1971.
And what is inflation? It is a rise in prices, particularly those of basic necessities, housing, food and clothing. Who but workers and farmers, small wage-earners, find it hard to pay for these things? They are the first
to be hit by a war against inflation because one way or another they are deprived of revenue as a result of restrictive policies. Furthermore, those policies increase unemployment since they prevent the operation of the economic circuit.
Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to say that the Creditistes are mistaken but it can also be said, and for a long time yet, that for the past 100 years we have been governed by Grits or Tories, and have made no headway.
A few moments ago, I heard the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) say that the Creditistes are sick, that they are wrong, that they are inconsistent and that they know nothing. I am surprised to realize, Mr. Speaker, that instead of picking on the government, this Conservative member picks on the Creditistes. I am surprised to realize that at the very moment when we are saying that the government has been wrong in its monetary and fiscal programs, that it is the first and direct cause of misery in the midst of wealth, this member, instead of trying to understand, joining us and defending the rights of the people, is attacking the Creditistes. He is the financial critic of the Conservatives. He is somebody!
We shall hear him after the budget statement Friday saying that the government has been wrong, that it is not competent and that the budget is stupid. We are saying it before he does, we are saying it today, but he will say that we are wrong. On Friday, however, he will say that the Minister of Finance is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, we can but wonder if the members of the Progressive Conservative party are not here to support those of the Liberal party, or if there is any difference between one party and the other. There appears to be no difference at all, since the Tory members, when they sense that the government is being directly attacked, quickly come to its rescue.
I submit that the members of the Ralliement creditiste are here not in order to defend high finance, but rather those that the government considers as humble folks because their pocketbook is very thin.
Mr. Speaker, we are here to defend Canadians, whatever their race, language, creed or faith or the contents of their pocketbook. We are here to defend the principle of equitable distribution of the national production, and this not by depriving some to give to others, or standardizing everybody under the steam roller, after the socialist fashion, but by means of respect for the freedom of each human being and promotion of personal fulfilment.
We are here to enable every Canadian citizen to get his share of the national production and the first responsibility of this government is to recognize that social right of Canadians. In order to ensure that right to every Canadian, there is no other solution than Social Credit.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, some opposition members criticize the government for having neglected to institute the just society in Canada,
[Mr. Fortin.)
June 15, 1971

as was promised. They say that it should have made it a reality a long time ago and failed to do it by refusing to increase the basic income tax exemption for individuals, by refusing to repeal the 11 per cent tax on building materials and by failing to institute a guaranteed annual income scheme and, one could add, by being the source of all evils in Canada since confederation.
It seems also that some members of the opposition have found the philosopher's stone and that if they held power, they could solve all the problems that exist in Canada.
Someone also accused us of saying that certain political parties were in a bad shape. But from what we heard today, I believe that if they are not in a bad shape, at least they show symptoms of a severe and imminent disease.
We were also told that the founder of Social Credit was an engineer and an economist. I could say: Watch out, he has not built the Eiffel tower but rather a house of cards which could last a long time provided no one blows on it since it could crumble in a flash.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) in his white paper on income security has dealt extensively with the current system of income security. He has outlined the objectives of income security and the role played by the federal government with its social security measures. The minister has described quite frankly the present system and its shortcomings. The white paper, which analyzes the present income system, deals with this problem with a view to achieving higher efficiency, to pay allowances at a given level of income so as to meet the indvidual needs of people with little or no income.
It is suggested in the white paper that the guaranteed income system is much more efficient than that of demogrant or social insurance but much less than social assistance. However, from the point of view of recipient acceptability, the concept of guaranteed income is more welcome than social assistance while, however, much less acceptable than demogrant or social insurance.
In the case of social insurance, the recipient receives benefits based on his previous contributions to the plan. His participation gives a special character to this form of guaranteed income. Moreover, a guaranteed income is to be preferred to social assistance since it avoids a comprehensive inquiry into some personal aspects of the contributor's life, such as his financial needs and the use which will be made of the money. In other words, income can be assessed in a more impersonal way in a majority of cases.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the apparent flaws in the existing income security plans have been a matter of great concern and it has been frequently suggested that they should be replaced by an overall guaranteed income plan so that all those who are in need can receive a minimum income. Some have claimed that the cost of
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society such a plan could be financed with the savings made by repealing other plans in the same field.
However, the application of a guaranteed income policy raises many problems. Sure enough, it would be possible to initiate a guaranteed income plan for all citizens and to incorporate it in social security measures which could not be abolished. For instance, from the amount of income guaranteed to an individual or a family could be deducted the amount of allowances received under one of the income security plans which would remain. As may be imagined, the method raises many administrative problems.
It has to be remembered that a guaranteed income plan is nothing more than a program of income assistance. It is not-and I insist on that point-a substitute for social services. A guaranteed income plan would certainly help solve many material problems which bear on poor families, but it is not possible to imagine that poverty may be made to disappear simply by ensuring a better income assistance.
The medicare and other assistance programs would still be needed to provide for the people not protected by these income maintenance programs.
In fact, the concept of guaranteed income is most frequently criticized because it does not relate income security and social services in the help it brings poor people. Here is what I am trying to explain. When a person applies for assistance and a means test is carried out, it seems that by adding cash allowances to assistance through social services, we could obtain better results than with only the cash allowances as provided in the plan in question.
We all know that social services recipients may get care and welfare services at the same time as cash payments. Those services include many benefits in the area of social prevention and rehabilitation, besides meeting the money requirements of individuals or their families.
On the other hand, some claim that it is more advantageous to administer services and monetary benefits separately. Whatever the case may be, Mr. Speaker, under both formulas the need remains to find a way to give the needy the necessary care, social welfare and rehabilitation services.
I should like to deal with another matter, that of the displeasure the increase in unemployment benefits might provoke among workers who do not earn enough. How unfortunate that those who work full-time should earn less than is needed to live decently. If guaranteed income benefits are added to their wages through a plan financed by taxes, then private industry would be less inclined to increase salaries. Consequently, those governments and industries not participating in the guaranteed income scheme would not feel compelled to increase salaries. In such a case, a guaranteed income scheme might finally subsidize the salaries which would be too low and I suppose that the printing press of the Bank of Canada should then start rolling.


[Stage Direction]
June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
Indeed, the guaranteed income formula gives rise to many other problems which restrict its usefulness as a social measure, even if that formula is integrated in existing programs. If that scheme only applied to those outside the labour force, it could be successful to some extent.
The guaranteed income supplement granted to older citizens has worked well up to now and the same principle could be applied to other individuals unable to support themselves.
In addition, the principle would be applicable in the case of family allowances. Families with children could draw benefits for each child, based on the family income.
But much more information is needed on matters such as work incentive and administration, before a universal scheme of guaranteed income can be implemented.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, although the guaranteed income formula is not without great weaknesses as an only policy instrument of income security, it does, however, play an important part when related to other elements of income security. It is the surest way of providing direct assistance to the poor, while sparing their dignity as citizens and their self-respect.
The guaranteed income could be used where work incentive and administration problems are not serious. It could become a permanent element of income support and supplement other security programs, as I have just said. The principle of guaranteed income is most appropriate for persons outside the labour force.
In his motion, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) criticizes the federal government for its failure to establish a guaranteed annual income scheme for all Canadians. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that there is no comprehensive plan of income security applicable to all Canadians. However, considerable progress has been made toward the recognition of the special needs of separate groups in Canadian society and in the integration of existing programs, so as to ensure that no needy Canadian is neglected.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the white paper on income security proposes a complete reform of the main programs which altogether form the Canadian income security scheme which on the whole is one of the best in the world.
If the mover of the motion had taken the time to read the white paper on income security, he would not have so readily included in his motion the matter of the guaranteed annual income scheme, as he would know that the elements of such a plan have already been proposed to the Canadian people.
No concern is more active with us than that of alleviating the burden of the Canadian poor. However, nowadays the idea of destitution is only relative: it no longer means abject poverty. It must be considered as an insufficient income, a lack of opportunities and the loss

of respect for the individual, which are three prejudices which should be unknown to the individual in our society. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, whatever may be the definition, poverty implies more than insufficient income; it means also a lack of possibilities, maybe poor health, no training opportunity for better employment or for interesting leisure
Poverty means a depressing environment, maybe a feeling of failure, of frustration, of alienation. It is to be noted that schemes for guaranteed income or guaranteed annual income do not bear mostly on the aspects of this problem, but on the absence of the income factor. The formula for guaranteed income deals in fact with certain economic aspects relating to income. The guaranteed income method does not alleviate however the inconveniences of these aspects of employment which rank first people in the low income category.
It is also unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that a guaranteed annual income does not permit to remove social barriers forbidding access to certain employment. It will not improve the low productivity of incompetent workers, it will not lighten family obligations which prevent some people from entering the labour market.
No guaranteed income scheme will suppress the prejudice caused to people who, because of their ethnic origin or their mother-tongue, are maintained in a state of poverty. The guaranteed income scheme will not suppress the inability of parents to give their children the psychological help or the education which would allow them to avoid poverty.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the main factors contributing to poverty are physiological or psychological. It is a physical disability, including old age, unfortunately, which prevents many people from working. Or else it is some incapacity due to mental retardation, an injury, or some illness which prevent others from earning their living. And, of course, some people are poor because they lack motivation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, a guaranteed annual income is not a cure-all for the economic, social and cultural problems of today's society.
It is not a phenomenon peculiar to Canada, Mr. Speaker. One has only to read the daily newspapers to see there exists over the whole world a kind of effervescence.
It is admitted that a guaranteed annual income will provide the necessary things of life, but no scheme of this kind can alone measure up to the tremendous problems of poverty which affect almost a fifth of our population.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition members blame the federal government for not instituting a guaranteed annual income plan. I would say to them that words come quickly to the lips and that often only five minutes are needed to present a destructive critical motion, but when one considers the facts as they are and wants to translate words into deeds and actions, it is an entirely different matter.
June 15, 1971
[Stage Direction]
If that is some kind of fabianism, then I say it is the worst kind of fabianism. It is not constructive criticism, Mr. Speaker, because it is not properly thought out and has no other purpose than to attract the attention of the public by getting the headlines in the newspapers.
That is petty politicking and the Canadian people as a whole will be able to see through those superficial marks of concern expressed by opposition members for the underprivileged classes of our society.
Never, Mr. Speaker, has a federal government shown more concern for our less privileged citizens. Our acts testify to that and a mere study of social security in Canada will show through deed, letter and legislation that social security has been the first and foremost goal of the Liberal party and of the federal government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in spite of what the parliamentary secretary has just said, every single measure of social security that has ever come before this Parliament has been fought against vigorously by the government in power, and over most of those years it has been the Liberal party that has been in power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I remember it well. When old age pensions were brought in, I remember well the clamour on the part of the government of the day that it would ruin the country, that it would destroy the sacred obligation of children to look after their parents. I remember the battle that was fought against the introduction of family allowances. I remember the fight for unemployment insurance. I remember the fight for housing, and so on, step after step. All these measures had to be fought for vigorously over the opposition of the government.
First of all, they fought openly against any such social measure. Later, they did not dare to fight openly and they began fighting against such measures by putting them off with task forces, with white papers, with studies, investigations, and so on. That is the stage at which the guaranteed income is now. This government no longer dares oppose guaranteed income on principle as being an evil thing, but it is throwing every form of blockage in the way, using the excuse that it must do more research and investigation, that it must prowl into and delve into it, that it must prepare a white paper, a task force, and all the rest of it.
I want to warn this government that if it persists in this attitude, it is simply blocking its ears and blinding its eyes to what the people of this country are thinking because no matter what party the opposition members belong to they know perfectly well that the people of this country want a guaranteed income at this stage, need a guaranteed income and are determined to get a guaranteed income. I warn this government that it had better
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society pay heed in time. Indeed, I would predict right now that this government in its election program will certainly do a much better job of playing politics, if that is what it calls it, than it has done to date because it will most certainly promise a guaranteed income. This, of course, does not mean necessarily that anyone will get it. But the government will make that promise because they know that people want it and will make sure they have it.
I believe firmly in what has been said by members of the two other opposition parties who have spoken here today. They know the feelings of the people of this country. Whether or not members on the government benches know them is something else again. Because they have done so well, I will not repeat what the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) has said in describing how the guaranteed income should be worked out. Nor will I repeat what the hon. member for Lot-fa iniere (Mr. Fortin) said in his description of the global need for it. What I will do instead is to bring several members of my constituency here in the form of their letters, and thus let you know what these people, who are typical of those in my riding, are thinking at this time. Some of these letters are from the greater Vancouver area.
I want to tell you that the only reason these people are as tolerant and as patient as they are is simply that they cannot believe the government has had the need for a guaranteed income drawn to its attention, has considered the proposal, and has put off implementing it. That is why they are so patient in urging us to try to do things. Here is a letter from a woman in my riding. She writes:
This letter is an appeal to you to see what you can do for widows. My late husband was in the First World War. He left Canada in 1914 and was there until 1918.
Oh, the parliamentary secretary over there may smile about this, but this woman gave all she could while her husband was in France for four years. I continue quoting:
Now as his widow I receive $26 per month from the DVA I also receive $135 old age pension (that includes the supplement). Now the DVA claim we are only allowed a monthly income of $161 a month. How is it possible to live on $161 a month, pay rent, light and phone, and the price of food and clothing as it is today? So I am asking you to see what you can do about it.
How would we like to live on $161 a month. In recent weeks members of the House of Commons were crying that they could not live on what they were getting then, which was many times this $161. How is this poor widow expected to live on it?


Mr. Boulanger:: You're an old time politician.


Winona Grace MacInnis: It is you who is the old time politician, who believes he can get away with soft-soaping people like this. They used to believe in that sort of thing but they don't any more.

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
Here is another letter written on behalf of eight women. I quote:
I wonder if anything can be done about getting the retiring age for women with pension at 55 years-well, 60 years at the latest. Other countries have it. As you know, a woman's work is never finished, that is if she works out as many have to do, and then keep her home tidy, etc., etc. Well, you being a woman would understand better than any man.
It would be nice to have a few years to enjoy before we are crippled with poor health. As for me, my heart is not as good as it should be. I am 58 years old. It will kill me to work until 65 years, as I have to support myself.
I know others that feel the same way but have to drag themselves to work. The boss wonders why we don't stay home. They don't know what it's like to have to shop, cook, and clean up in the evening after work. No wonder we have no life, nor the speed young girls have. It would also make jobs for those young people, and we could do baby sitting or community work part-time. How far in the near future could this be expected? I would appreciate hearing from you on this subject.
I would like to ask the members of the government to answer that question. How far in the future is the guaranteed income program? Why do women like these eight, and many more-widows, single women, elderly women-have to exist on these small pittances, or else go out to work and ruin their health, at a time when they should be enjoying a few years of leisure? And all this is at a time when there are thousands of young people anxiously seeking jobs.
Here is another letter I received:
I am soon to be 48 years of age and most of these years 1 have lived in poverty. As a child I was poor because I was one of a large family. My father was a professional man who thought more of his code of ethics than he did of money. He was a good father, and he had a good kind wife. Together they gave us a happy childhood, although a very poor one as far as material things went.
My husband, whom I married at age 19, was a good and kind person and a real hard worker, who willingly turned his hand to any type of work to earn our living. He had a physical handicap due to polio as a child, which caused a bitter battle with his ego. However, he continued to do the work of two men, in a vain effort to make something of our lives. In our third year of marriage I was stricken with rheumatoid arthritis, which left me bedridden off and on for the next 15 years. My husband not only had to earn our living, but also do the housework and look after our three children who fortunately were five and seven years apart. In this way they were able to help each other. During this period we had to pay for doctors, hospital and medicine. At one time it cost us $6.50 per day for medicine for six weeks, then $6.50 every second day for three months.
I know this woman and I know she is telling the truth.
At this time my husband was earning $10 per day working in the mines. So you can see we had to go into debt to make me comfortable. Hell on earth is what it really was. We were always behind the 8-ball.
Yes, and the government talks about pockets of poverty.
Never a chance for our children or ourselves to have any of the things others in normal circumstances have. So in other words because we were handicapped we were forced to live in the miserable existence of poverty. But this was not the end.
No, it sure wasn't. Just at the time I started to improve enough to take over my share of the responsibility in the home, when things started to look a little brighter, the muscles in
my husband's back had deteriorated due to the polio. Away we went again as now my husband could no longer do the heavy type of work he knew. So what do you do after the unemployment insurance runs out? Of course you go and beg for welfare.
We were on welfare for approximately four years, and if things had been done right we need only have been on it from, six months to one year at the most. But due to red tape, negligence and just not caring by those handling our case, the situation was allowed to continue. It only took six months for his retraining. This not only cost the taxpayer a lot of money but our family a lot of unnecessary misery-and almost ruined one of our boys, who at that time was 12 years old, an age when a boy needs all the confidence in himself and his parents that he can muster-
If it was just us I wouldn't mind, but when I know that there are millions of poverty stricken families like our's in Canada, it is a bitter pill to swallow. I also think of our children-our foster children-and perhaps more than this our grandchildren- as they are also just one step from welfare and poverty.
You doubtless are wondering why I have written my story. This is why. For the past 32 months I have been working as an advocate with a citizen's group in Victoria. I have handled approximately 1,500 cases of people living in poverty. So with this experience, plus my own life, I feel I am quite knowledgeable on the problems or perhaps I should say symptoms of poverty.
These are the people who need a guaranteed income, not bums and lowdown people who flourish in the imagination of persons like the parliamentary secretary over there. These are Canadians just like the rest of us, people to whom we deny the right to have a decent living, and we deny them that right in the name of all kinds of things.
I want to read another letter sent to me, copy of an open letter sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by one of my constituents:
Sir;
I have refrained for a lifetime of close to 70 years (in the span of which I have been sorely tempted) from writing to the press or to those who govern me. But I have reached a point of compulsion beyond denial to exercise my democratic right as one of the governed to appeal to him who governs. I shall deny myself the right to speak either in anger or indignation but ask only the right of the little man to his democratic right to a hearing.
I know, sir, that your burden as Head of Government is heavy, and for your labour accept my ready thanks. But there is to any coin another side-and there are, sir, in this land which I love with honest pride, thousands of Canadians who looked to you, and put you in power, and who still look to you to fulfil your promise of the "just society".
Can you, sir, look upon your work and say you have brought about the "just society"? Can you, sir, in good faith in confrontation with your people, your God, or your conscience, accept as a measure of the fulfilment of your "just society" an increase of 42 cents per month to those Canadians who have laboured so long to make this land, and so little to live for? Can you, sir, a few months later announce an increase (not here in question) of $8,000 per year (much of it tax free and retroactive) to yourself and all other Members of Parliament? If you are able to do this, sir, God forgive you! Many thousands of Canadians, I am sure, will not!
History, because of its nature, cannot deny you, nor can it fail to record you. Think, sir, it may be of little moment to you now, but posterity is timeless. Consult your friends, your family, your priest, your party, and above all your conscience. Let's have the fulfilment of your promise. Let's have the "just society". It is in your hands.

June 15, 1971

Please, Mr. Prime Minister, for all whom you govern in this most favoured land, and for your own soul, one positive step toward your "just society."
This letter is from one of my constituents, Mr. Speaker, who most likely voted for my opponent who belongs to the party opposite. Apparently he still has faith that that party is going to come through with one single demonstration that it believes in the just society. I appeal to the party opposite not to betray the faith of this man and others who still believe in this Parliament, those who are elderly and who have given a lifetime of work and those who should have an opportunity while they are young. This is why I am glad to speak to this motion put forward by the Ralliement Creditiste to my left.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I rise to say a few
words on the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), Mr. Speaker. I listened with a good deal of interest to my friend the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle). Knowing him well, and having enjoyed his friendship over the years, I know that he had to speak sometimes with a hollow voice.
This motion refers to the just society and we ask ourselves, what is the just society? I suppose that we could ask many people what it is and we would get many different answers. What did the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) really refer to as he went across Canada with his so-called charisma-and nobody denies that he has it-and his mystic appearance, promising nothing concrete but a vision of a new world happiness, conjuring up the right to a job with a decent wage for the worker, the right of the old and disabled to enjoy the fruits of their labours and to live at least without the spectre of want haunting them, and suggesting that those people who had to be in the chronic emits of hospitals and those individuals who had to go on welfare would be looked after.
Over and over again, Mr. Speaker, I have asked when the government is going to co-operate with the provinces and introduce a form of hospitalization to cover those people confined to homes. The province of Ontario has made a start on this. I wonder if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) is at the conference being held in the city of Toronto this week to see if some plan can be worked out that would apply cross the country so that this business of shoving people from pillar to post when they are chronically ill or old or disabled will stop.
Let us take a look and see how just this society is. There were all those young people who were so thrilled and mesmerized by the Prime Minister. But the old age pensioner had his pension frozen at $80 a month and if he had any income, it was deducted from the guaranteed supplement because the allowable pension ceiling was $255 per month for a married couple and $135 per month for a single person. The poverty level in Canada is around $3,600 to $4,000 depending on the area.
What did the just society do about the prescription drugs which were ordered by the physician who was already being paid by medicare? The Hall Commission
Alleged, Non-Institution of Just Society report upon which the present government based medicare, contained a recommendation on this subject which was never implemented. Thousands of old people cannot afford drug bills that average from $25 to $40 a month. I remember speaking on this subject at an earlier date when the hon. member for Hull said that he was in full sympathy with my motion and fully supported it but that I was trying to achieve my objective in the wrong way. I have been waiting to see him put the matter right and I am still waiting. Perhaps one of these days he will put a motion on the order paper that will accomplish what he knows should be done. We know that drug bills for the elderly are likely to escalate as chronically degenerative diseases take their toll.
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare is asked about this problem he says that the Canada Assistance Plan will help. He knows, and his parliamentary secretary knows, that this plan is discretionary. They also know that the municipality has to put up its share of the cost and that the municipality has very little taxing power and practically no money because of the heavy welfare rolls being carried at the present time. With well over 600,000 people unemployed, the welfare rolls are being taxed to the utmost in most places. The mun cipali-ties simply have not the power to raise the money to carry their share of the cost of this discretionary legislation.
How just is any government that taxes its working people 4 per cent for their old age pension and which had accumulated, up to last fall, a surplus of $800 million in the pension fund? This same government freezes the old age pension at $80 a month and says that if a person has any other income he will not be entitled to the cost of living supplement. Year after year the $80 will be eroded. I would not like to accuse this government of stealing, but it boils down to just that.
A case was drawn to my attention the other day which causes to question the just society. A Mr. "Y" lost his wife about a year ago. He has a pension from the Department of Transport of $900 a year and receives $960 a year from the old age pension. He owns a small home on which he pays $250 a year in taxes. He pays $300 a year for drugs because of a cardiovascular disease and is crippled with arthritis. Fuel and electricity cost $300 a year. Having somebody come in and clean the house, cut the grass and look after the place outside costs around $500 a year. He has to go to the doctor once a month to have his medicine regulated and this cost him $5 for a taxi each time. His total expenses are $1,410 and his total income is $1,860.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Philip Bernard Rynard: This man's income tax exemption is $1,100, the same as it was in 1948, though there has been something like a 70 per cent increase in the cost of living. But here we are beating the poor people, and we have over four million of them in Canada.
Then, what about those young boys and girls who looked with such fervor at the just society, but who today find themselves without jobs and with a dim hope

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
for future employment? I am disturbed because in the area I represent I do not know of a single job obtained through this Opportunities for Youth program. If there was one I should like to know about it. The expenditure on this program just for the purpose of cutting back the health resources fund and leaving the university complexes without the funds to train doctors who are in such short supply? Today people in Canada are dying because they cannot get proper medical attention. This situation has been put on the record. Is this really a just society? Are we really doing what is right, Mr. Speaker? Was it right to tax the people to the point where the fires of inflation were dampened, because that cost the Canadian people in 1970 alone, $2 billion in goods not produced or sold. In addition, many people are being slowly destroyed because they had no work.
I am not pointing my finger in derision at the government. I know a young fellow who worked in a factory and who was sent to jail as a result of a small theft. He did not steal much. He was led astray by a group of young boys after he had worked for something like a year and a half in the factory. When he came out he could not get a job, and he came to see me. He wanted me to help him. I tried. I talked to the people at the Manpower Office; they tried, and they could not get him a job. He went back to where he had worked before, because he had a satisfactory work record there, and tried to get a job. They would not employ him because of his criminal record. Then, he went to the welfare people. This welfare program is run by the provincial government. They gave him welfare for one month and then cut him off. He came to my office again; I was not there but my secretary told me that he had said, "I just cannot make it; I cannot get a job. I seem to be a pariah. Nobody wants me." I am sorry to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that man committed a crime yesterday and will be going back to jail. Not only must we bear the cost of keeping him in jail; we must also bear the cost of his young wife. Surely, this is not the sort of society we ought to be building in 1971. I
I want to dwell for a minute on this brand new Opportunities for Youth program. Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, that program has not produced one job in the regional area I come from, and that includes an area outside of my riding. In this connection, may I quote something from yesterday's Globe and Mail editorial. It reads in part:
It is becoming rather dreadfully apparent that young people, Opposition Members of Parliament and editors should conserve their ammunition in dealing with the Opportunities for Youth program of Secretary of State Gerard Pelletier. The probability that heavy artillery will be absolutely necessary by the end of the summer suggests that only popguns be used now.
The prospect is that in a time of growing inflation, heavy unemployment and burdensome taxation, a good part of $24.7-million of our tax money is going to be blown on badly assessed, ill organized, wasteful and nutty programs. The farce of the ages, it looks like, except that it is going to be hard to laugh heartily at $24.7-million going down the drain.
I appeal to this House to help these young people. It is the duty of the opposition to bring problems to the attention of the government just as it is the duty of the government to formulate policy. We must do something to help the young people of Canada. We must face this problem of unemployment and this House ought to be prepared to do something about it.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to explain how we propose to reform our economy which is staggering from one depression into another.
Our economy at present rests on quicksands, and therefore there is no stability. Depressions, stagnation, unemployment, dissatisfaction, duties and taxes are the attributes of our economy. That is all we know. All the government does in the House in order to try to balance our economy works against the economy, because the more steps we take, the more depressions we have within the economy, the more our economy is upside down and the more Canadians are anxious and losing faith.
Since Confederation almost all faith in the economy has gone. Actually since Confederation, our economy has been doing well only in times of war. Furthermore, as it has been said by our leader, the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette), our economy has never recovered its equilibrium.
We are consistently out of balance and the more we try with all sorts of economic formulas to restore this balance, the more the economy totters. A short while ago, the member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) said that what we are advocating and trying to build, is nothing but a house of cards which will collapse at the slightest breeze. Well, the hon. member should surely apply his description to the kind of economic system that he himself is advocating.
The type of economy which he advocates might well suit him. Perhaps he does enjoy a guaranteed income. Indeed, I think his income is guaranteed because of his salary as a member of Parliament and of his profession which provides him with a most confortable existence. His own way of life carries its own social credit. So he does not care about other people. He does not care about social awareness but only about individual awareness. His social awareness is explained thus: Me, my friends and the others. For him, everything ends after that.
That is the policy of the hon. member for Hull and that of many members of the older parties, because when you are sitting comfortably at home in an upholstered armchair, when you hold stock and receive all sorts of income, when the money you lend brings in a high return, you are happy and do not care about those who contribute to that. You just do not care about the taxes which have to be borne by others, or the trampling of the masses in order that you may live and allow your individual self to thrive, to endure and weather the storm.

June 15, 1971

The hon. member for Hull must certainly think that the hat fits.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Hull on a question of privilege.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Compton has just stated that I was comfortable in my seat because I had another source of income from my profession, in addition to my salary as a Member of Parliament. I just wonder whether the hon. member has also any other income.


Henry P. Latulippe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I never forget the poor.


Mr. Mahoney:: How comfortable are you?


Henry P. Latulippe: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government has tragically failed in its efforts to arrive at a balanced economy.
In spite of its public assistance program, we are faced with a social crisis added to a credibility crisis. The just society in this instance is being run down systematically. Nobody cares about the just society. It is being put forward, but only as far as this is profitable for the party.
Justice is a matter that could be discussed at length. We know that shameful, dreadful inequities have been condoned by the Liberals and Conservatives as well and this for decades. And yet, despite unfair measures, they believe in the practice of justice. People are fed up with this situation and cannot bear it any longer. That is why I say that the population suffers a loss of confidence never experienced before and threatening to the economy as advocated and understood by top financiers and lofty politicians who claim to have done supreme justice for having thrown a few crumbs.
When we study the social programs put forward by previous governments and by this government, we observe that increasing power and responsibility have created a bureaucracy altogether monstrous, cumbersome, aloof and inefficient. This type of program has caused dissension, suspicion, indifference, because one robs Peter to pay Paul.
The hon. member for Hull was talking a while ago of guaranteed income. A guaranteed income, as proposed by him, is absolutely worthless. It is nothing but restreint, for it will come out of the pocket of people who do not have enough to give to those who have not. So, 99 per cent of the population will be on an equal footing, all bound by slavery. This does not improve the matter. The house of cards the hon. member for Hull was talking about-his own-does not hold anymore and the cards are hardly recognizable.
A third of a century of social experience has left a legacy of stagnant programs which are out-of-date and
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
do not serve their purpose anymore. The time has come for some kind of new federalism in which the powers, the funds and the responsibilities would be transferred directly to the provinces and to the people. This is not what the hon. member for Hull advocates. This is what we advocate.
What we propose is based on solid ground, we are assured of that by the most competent engineers that we could find in order to build a strong structure, a structure capable of withstanding all pressures which will provide suitable accommodation for all citizens.
This is not a simple taxation system, like the 11 per cent tax which prevents Canadian citizens from building a home and living in a decent dwelling. That house of cards is what the hon. member for Hull advocates: heaps of useless taxes, useless restrictions, restrictions that prevent the citizens from living in decent dwellings, and that, in a country which can provide everything needed for building houses, in a country where science and technology can be developed.
The only thing lacking is money and we are too stupid, too coward to straighten out that lopsided financial system, that unfair system, that barbarian system which ties down all citizens, keeps the country in poverty and prevents people from finding homes and from faring well, in short, from getting the benefit of science and progress.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the castle we are building; it is extremely strong and the foundations we advocate are so strong, so well-rooted in the rock that it will never be shaken once it will be established.
Decentralization, Mr. Speaker, is necessary and urgent. Hon. members support centralization, the opposite of common sense; the basic element is the issuing of new credits in accordance with new developments. Those new credits must be free from all binding interests, based on the present or future facts.
Is the hon. member able to say that those are vague things, that it is a mere house of cards when he is not even able to say what is an economic reform? He does not even know what it means, I think.
Everything that is materially possible in words and slogans should be financially possible. If everything that is materially possible in our lovely country, Canada, is not so financially, the house of cards is not what it should be; it collapsed long ago and the cards are all mixed up.
Our actions, our efforts should be focused on full achievement for each Canadian citizen, on an equitable sharing of our country's resources. This is the urgent task awaiting those who govern and those who are governed in this country.
Mr. Speaker, what sounder and better foundations can be erected in a democratic society to allow each citizen to have three decent meals a day, in a country that abounds in wealth and does not know what to do with it, where production totals $94 billion, consumption $50 billion and capitalization $40 billion.
A capitalization of $40 billion is much too much! The economists, the eminent politicians and the controllers of

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
the economy should open their eyes and have part of that capitalization distributed to allow those citizens who are without even a bite to eat to get food and a decent dwelling, and this through the appropriate means, that is the compensated discount and lower prices.
What are the hon. member for Hull or the leaders of our economic system doing at the present time to solve that problem? What steps are they taking to bring the cost of living down, to enable our citizens to live decently, to allow our dollar to recover its true value, the value it should have? The continued devaluation of our dollar as is taking place presently, due to the increased cost of living, will no longer be possible. By increasing the cost of living, our dollar is losing more and more of its value, and it is far from an adequate means to solve our economical problems.
The first goal which the federal government should achieve is to implement a federal decentralization in favour of the local communities by putting them in a position to assume their social responsibilities. Jurisdiction over labour, taxes, and part of the federal taxes should be transferred to the provinces and the federal government should reverse the roles in the field of taxes by allowing the provincial governments to collect taxes.
The federal government should only take its share and quit interfering in the field of labour, social welfare and taxation. Everything should be under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government should remain in its own sphere...


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but under the special order adopted earlier today by this House, his time has expired. The hon. Member for Joliette has the floor.


Roch La Salle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a few remarks on the motion introduced today and which states:
That this House criticizes the government for having neglected to institute the just society in Canada, as was promised, and which should have been a reality for a long time; by refusing to increase the basic income tax exemption for individuals, by refusing to repeal the 11 per cent tax...
As an independent member, it would be quite easy for me to take advantage of the debate on this motion to criticize the government. However, the motion is not exactly up to the facts.
I wish to remain objective in my remarks. I think it would be more correct to state that the government has attempted to raise the basic exemption on personal income in bringing forward the White Paper and if this White Paper has not become a fact today, I think that the opposition parties played some part in delaying its acceptance. We must recognized that the White Paper provided for a higher basic exemption. If these proposals had been agreed to, we would have this exemption today. We must admit that. It would not be fair to criticize the government for doing nothing in this field.
As to the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, it is not the first time that I suggest such a step. I also think that it would have been desirable to legislate seriously on that removal. Being very favourable to the restarting of the housing economy, I feel it would have been a measure likely to promote extensive development in the field of housing. Taking into account the fact that housing represents a very large percentage of labour in Canada, it would have been a measure likely to allow citizens to buy a home and to become first class citizens, citizens more responsible towards public administration.
I take the liberty of asking government authorities to hold a meeting of representatives from areas interested in housing. Considering the importance of housing in Canada, the government should not hesitate to call such a meeting. In the present circumstances, the government should provide unlimited credits for construction. Of course, it will also have to get the co-operation of all concerned, such as unions and manufacturers of building materials. It would be profitable to discuss a policy to freeze wages and the price of materials in the field of construction, and to seriously consider the abolition of striking rights. I have in mind the few strikes that were detrimental to construction.
The government should show perfect willingness by providing unlimited funds for construction, but also by appealing to the good will of those concerned, for instance unions and manufacturers of building materials. This having been achieved, I trust both parties would be encouraged to come to an agreement from which the whole society would benefit. We would have taken a practical step, and proved that, as parliamentarians, we really want to solve the problem of construction.
The unions must also prove their good will, having been assured of having the required credit for all workers to find permanent employment, and especially to enable all those who wish to own their own homes to do so at a reasonable cost, at lower interest rates than those we now have.
It would seem that we always ask for additional credit, but I feel it is a must. The government has this primary responsibility of creating credit, but always subject to certain conditions the building industry should respect. And thus, we will work objectively toward achieving the just society so dear to our hearts.
A year and a half ago, I tried to state the matter in a realistic way, making, in my opinion, a constructive criticism. I would like the old age security pension to be paid to people 60 years of age.
We regret and deplore the existence of 700,000 to 800,000 unemployed. The opposition parties have joined forces to criticize and blame the government. Too often, the criticims of the opposition have been negative.
I think that it is our duty to point out those things to the House. I repeat that I feel quite at ease to discuss that motion today, since I can speak quite freely without harming anyone or perhaps by embarrassing everyone. Anyhow, I take the liberty of reminding the government

June 15, 1971

that it is responsible for the creation of a better social climate for all Canadians.
Owing to the great number of unemployed in Canada, several ministers have certainly tried to develop industry by means of various grants. They have succeeded in creating new industries, but it has been very difficult to prevent the phasing out of existing ones.
I would like to reiterate the proposal which I made a year and a half ago about the old age security pension at 60. I know that there are between 350,000 and 400,000 workers between 60 and 65 years of age. As there are between 700,000 and 800,000 unemployed, paying the old age pension at 60 years of age could improve the unemployment situation by 50 per cent. Legislation to this effect would have several consequences at the social level. I believe it is normal to consider granting holidays to deserving people, to people of 60 who are now working in industries and have lost part of their strength. It would be perfectly normal, logical and humane to seriously consider allowing people of 60 years of age and over to take a vacation. Taking into account the benefits they receive at the present time, it is very embarrassing for these people to think of retiring at 60.
Could we consider doubling these old age pensions? No doubt someone will answer me that money is at stake, but we should perhaps assess the present cost of welfare and unemployment. If we count what is being spent for the 700,000 or 800,000 unemployed, it would be easy for us to make a transfer of funds which would enable persons aged 60 or more to take holidays, as I was saying a short while ago, and to increase appreciably their pension, which would enable them to retire and, by the same token, from 350,000 to 400,000 jobs would be created.
In my opinion, this measure should be seriously considered by the government. This is not the first time that I have had the opportunity to mention this. It would be of such a nature as to considerably improve the situation. I think that this is a positive and constructive suggestion.
Taking into account the budget we will have shortly, I wish to urge the government to abolish the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, and I hope that some mention of this will be made in the budget to be brought down Friday.
I hope that the necessary supplies will be voted, that the necessary changes will be made, so that persons aged 60 may take a well-earned retirement and thus make room for those between 20 and 30 who are waiting for a chance to earn their living decently. I
I also ask the government to give careful consideration to the question of jobs for students. I know that it has introduced the Opportunities for Youth Program. The method used for its application is questionable. The government is to be commended for wanting to find as many jobs as possible, but we know that not all projects submitted were accepted. We are quite aware that most of these projects were rejected, and I wonder to what extent we disappointed some of our young people. I would have
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society liked the government to draw up a series of projects, to urge the young people to carry out some projects prepared under the supervision of experts. This would have greatly helped the entire Canadian community.
I therefore hope that next year, the government will draw up worthwhile projects for the community. Youth should be asked to join in and be offered every possible employment. It is up to the government to create employment for students, but still, we should stop wondering if enough funds will be available. We should see to it that they are, so that young people will find summer jobs.
I would also have hoped that the wish expressed last year during the Liberal convention by the young Liberals who requested a civil service designed to create jobs for a great many students. Since it was a wish expressed by the young people of Canada, the government may have made a mistake by not carrying out the resolution passed during that convention.
Mr. Speaker, I should not like to confine myself primarily to criticisms of the government. It seems more meaningful to me to bring forward suggestions and I dare hope the government is paying serious attention to our representations.
Opposition members, at one point, criticized the Prime Minister and his travels, and I disagree with them. There was some demagogy involved there. Unfortunately there is always too much of that. In order to achieve the just society we must, as opposition members, acquire the habit of supporting good legislation and condemning bad legislation.
Of course all legislation brought forward by the government is not necessarily bad. Certainly some is desirable and advisable. But, unfortunately, I must admit-and it is for that reason I am sitting in the House as an independent-that opposition parties too often tends to use filibustering tactics, and, after a certain amount of time has been wasted in the House, they accuse the government of not launching some program.
This kind of things explains why people have lost confidence in the members of the opposition and the government and we are responsible for that situation.
They blame the Prime minister for making trips throughout the world: I, for one, would rather see the Prime minister go to Russia, to the United States or elsewhere in order to sign agreements than some second-rate official.
Those who have blamed the Prime Minister should look at their own party: the leader of their own party also made trips to various countries of the world and in Canada. I believe it to be normal also that the leader should be travelling around and not any individual member. I must also admit objectively taht the Prime minister's trips have often lead to some agreements which have proven beneficial.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that my time has elapsed. Therefore, I hope the government will lend a welcoming ear to the suggestions I have made and I expect that the
6742

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
opposition parties will agree on the duration of the debates for the benefit of the population.
IEnglish]


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief remarks about the motion before us today. It raises a number of important questions of policy including basic income tax exemptions for individuals and the sales tax on building materials. These are matters of importance to Canadians generally. The government recognizes their importance as well as the importance of the question of a guaranteed annual income, also mentioned in the motion, and touched upon by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he spoke earlier during the debate.
It can be said that the motion itself applies primarily to matters of fiscal policy. It is being presented to the House only three days before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) presents his budget statement. For that reason, anyone on the treasury benches is extremely limited in any response he might make to the points brought forward during the debate on this opposition motion.
Ministers are limited in this way because of the ironclad tradition, if I may call it that, of secrecy and confidentiality surrounding preparations of the budget prior to its presentation to the House by the Minister of Finance. Everyone on the treasury benches is obliged, because of this tradition, to refrain from saying anything that might be taken as a derogation of this principle of confidentiality.
The first spokesman for the Creditiste party in presenting this motion recognized this limitation when he said, and I think I paraphrase his opening remarks fairly, "We are putting forward this motion to better inform the government through our criticisms and our suggestions". In spite of these limitations I think I can assure the House that careful note has and will be taken of the points raised during this debate.
With reference to the remarks of the hon. lady speaking for the NDP earlier in this debate, let me say that, contrary to what she suggested, the measures for social programs to which she referred, were adopted and became law, through the efforts of, and were largely, if not entirely, presented to the House by Liberal governments whose majority position was such that they did not have to take these steps unless they and the members supporting them sincerely believed in and supported the programs in question.
Let me conclude therefore by saying that in the measures it has presented to this Parliament the government has made progress in achieving the goal-obviously a difficult one to achieve-of a just society. I am confident it will be successfully continuing its efforts for the purpose of achieving a just society with a strong and expanding economy.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in support of the motion proposed by one of my colleagues, which reads as follows:
That this House criticizes the government for having neglected to institute the just society in Canada, as was promised, and which should have been a reality for a long time; by refusing to increase the basic income tax exemption for individuals, by refusing to repeal the 11 per cent tax on building materials and by failing to institute a guaranteed annual income scheme.
As was just mentioned, it is clearly understood that what are called "opposition days" have the sole purpose of giving us an opportunity to express our views to the government. This is done by non-confidence motions, but it would be more correct to speak about justified critics and adequate proposals. I think that the old expression used is somewhat outmoded and does not express what we really mean.
As to the just society, one must ask what was meant by the word "just". One must consider the context. This slogan was first used during an election period, when people usually do not weigh their words. I always thought it meant a just society for the protection of one's friends, for the protection of the financial world.
If people understood "social justice", they have certainly been deceived on many counts. The intent of the motion before us is mainly to blame the government for having misled people as to the meaning of the term "just society". In fact, it was its own society, a small society open to very few, a society of high financial interests.
After reading today's newspapers, we realize right away that the just society promised during the last election campaign is probably in its most fatal stage because we may see in the months to come a fight to death between two good friends, at least behind the scenes. We might even see the moment of truth on this long war on taxation. I have always said that the struggle is directed exclusively toward the power of taxation; this is apparent from today's edition of Montreal-Matin wherein you can read the following:
Trudeau says no to Quebec
I think this is the strongest slap in the face Mr. Bou-rassa has ever received. It is written farther on:
Trudeau rejects Castonguay's plan
and I quote:
While stating that he does not adopt a negative attitude towards Quebec's requests in the field of social security, Prime Minister Pierre-Elliott Trudeau has rejected the Castonguay plan which would integrate all social policy programs under provincial jurisdiction. Mr. Trudeau stated that if such plan was adopted, it would entail the fragmentation of income security systems and that under the circumstances, the central government would not be interested in financing policies outside its sphere of legislative responsibility or administration.
That is exactly the crux of the matter. On one hand, you have an administrative matter, on the other, a taxation matter. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau)
June 15, 1971

says that more taxes are required, that he needs more money in addition to control over the taxation field, while the premier of Quebec suggests that expenses have increased and that he needs more money. We just wonder, as pointed out by our leader this afternoon, which of the two will dig the most in the taxpayer's pockets.
While the premier of Quebec calls federal government a centralising organization and charges that it will not share the cake, I wonder what he is thinking in his innermost heart when he knows what has become of this famous taxation affair. I believe this is a story that we will soon have to tell to the population, for a drama is being enacted under this pretext and this must be brought to light.
Why is the federal government taxing today? Everyone remembers that these taxation powers were granted after World War II, when the provinces unanimously agreed to turn over to the federal government their three fields of taxation: personal income tax, estate tax and corporate income tax. These three areas were in a way, the provincial property taxes. It was a great sacrifice for the provinces to give up these taxes. But when the federal government of the time requested this of the provinces, solemn assurance was given at the same time that as soon as the war was over, it would turn back these three fields to the provinces...
The war has been over for quite a while and the federal government's word is worth less every day. The government had assured the provinces that they would get back their right to taxation as soon as the war was over. We are still waiting for the war or the taxation to come to an end.
The most astounding thing about it is that the federal government does not stand as the sole culprit. Since I came to the House, I have learned that the federal government must go to the provinces every five years to beg for an extension of its right to keep on taxing people. We have been witnesses to this ceremony in 1963 and again in 1968 when we asked the government what would happen should one of the provinces refuse to grant it permission to keep on collecting the proceeds of the three areas of taxation. In fact, it was said that the unanimity of all the provinces was needed, and that if any one province did not agree, the federal government would be refused the right to tax. That is precisely what we find most peculiar today to hear a province saying to the federal government: Give us back our taxation right. This is what we have done ourselves.
Now it is precisely the ministers of each of the provinces who give that permission to the federal government every five years. This drama is tragic for the people, because they are not aware of the fact that it is the provinces which give that permission to the federal government every five years. Then what about our provincial premiers who say on television: If only the federal government would give us back our taxation rights. Yet hardly 15 days earlier, they had just surrendered those taxation rights, again for five years. This scorning the people must stop. They should be told the truth, and the provincial premiers should tell their voters: We are the
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
ones who gave the federal government taxation powers. This way, one could probably less easily accuse the federal government of being centralization-minded, because when you concede a right to someone, you cannot accuse him of usurping it. This is precisely the point to which I want to draw the attention of the population today, this joke to which there will have to be an end very soon. On page 3, Montreal-Matin says and I quote:


[Stage Direction]
He should start by putting the vote at the right place and things would be clearer.
My second point has to do with the raising of the basic exemption. The cost of living goes up at an unbelievable rate and we have asked the present government to raise the basic exemption for income tax purposes only to be told no systematically. The cost of living has just reached almost 132 per cent and the basic exemption for a married couple still remains today at $2,000 or $1,000 for each person, as it was over 10 years ago. Is it possible to find a more illogical situation? The minister told us a while ago that the new budget would offer some pleasant features. I feel quite apprehensive in that respect. We are expecting at the most a $1,500 or $1,600 exemption, which means hardly an increase. If we take into account the date of the last increase in the basic exemption, we can hardly speak of a real increase.
We are requesting a basic exemption of $5,000 for married couples and of $3,000 for single people, in order to avoid taxation of the essentials of life. In fact, even with an exemption of $1,500 or $1,600, we are still taxing the bare essentials of life, because it costs a couple over $4,000 today to live decently. And if, after having boasted about ranking third among the wealthiest countries in the world, we happen to be the most heavily taxed nation in the world, I believe that the situation should be remedied.
Mr. Speaker, we once again ask that this famous 11 per cent tax on building materials be abolished. It is not the first time-
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so to advise him that his time, limited by special order made today, has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman)_
Manpower and Immigration-Instruction to employees in Kitchener-Waterloo area to answer telephone in French and English; the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack)-External Affairs-Removal of flag of Nationalist China from pavilion at British Columbia trade fair.
6744

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That this House criticizes the government for having neglected to institute the just society in Canada, as was promised, and which should have been a reality for a long time; by refusing to increase the basic income tax exemption for individuals, by refusing to repeal the 11 per cent tax on building materials and by failing to institute a guaranteed annual income scheme.
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I travel a good deal in my vast northwestern Ontario constituency, comprising some 115,000 square miles, and the constituents whom I meet and have the honour to represent are in general hardworking and uncomplaining people. When it comes to paying taxes, they take a "grin-and-bear-it" attitude, as do most Canadians.
When the government announced its austerity program in 1969, my constituents accepted this policy with the realization that the needs of our region, which are many and varied, would have to fit into a schedule of priorities. They told me that I would probably have to work a little harder in preparing, for example, representations to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for industrial incentive grants, or to the Department of Transport for improving and upgrading existing airstrips.
My constituents have watched their hard-earned tax dollars take flight to Ottawa, but they are stoical about it. They recognize that it costs huge sums of money to keep a nation together, to maintain law and order, to have peace and security and, above all, to provide essential services and opportunities for our citizens.
More recently, this government has adopted an expansionary fiscal policy designed to spur the economy out of its present lethargy. A projected $250 million surplus has turned into a budgetary deficit of $320 million. Some weird and wonderful spending programs have been introduced which leave one wondering, in fact, whether money does grow on trees in some subterranean garden deep within the edifice of the Bank of Canada.
Despite this new, free-spending splurge, the forecasted acceleration of our economy seems to have little steam behind it. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that whenever governments embark upon an expansionary fiscal policy they should let the taxpayers in on some of the fun and not confine the pleasure to those who operate within the bureaucratic squanderland. The time has come,-in fact it seems to me it is long overdue,-for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to announce some healthy cuts in corporate and personal income taxes. Simply because government spending has become so heavy is no reason not to act. A reduction in both corporate and personal

income taxes would help generate a rise in consumer demand, allow for industrial expansion, create many badly needed new jobs and promote more competitive pricing in our international selling.
Many of our exporters need a measure of relief in view of what has happened since the unpegging of the Canadian dollar. I believe the unpegging was wise and necessary; but when important industries such as the pulp and paper industry are hurt, when workers are laid off, and when pollution abatement programs must be postponed, other methods are needed to reduce the undesirable effects which have been produced. A tax cut would certainly help to do that.
It is quite true that lower taxes would reduce government revenue and some spending would have to be curtailed. But how many places are there within the vast governmental machine, where savings could be made? Just for a moment I would like to consider the view of a typical taxpayer in my contituency in relation to one small governmental expenditure which was recently announced. A communique from the Secretary of State's office informs us that under the Opportunities for Youth program, $1,220 will be given to a project called "Spaghetti Banquet"-$1,220 to assist the production of an animated film, a lighthearted, three-minute look at spaghetti.
I want to be fair and reasonable, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps this short film will become an international classic Perhaps it will give untold delight to generations of children. Perhaps it is narrow-minded and mean of me to refer specifically to this one project where the grant is quite small. Perhaps instead I should have mentioned the $23,500 project to de-mystify the dance, or some other project. But the figure $1,220 jumped out at me because this represents approximately the income tax paid by a hard-rock miner or a pulp and paper worker in the district of Thunder Bay.
Such a worker may want to add a bedroom to his house. He may want to help his son or daughter through university. He would like to take a short trip with his wife this summer. Instead, he must postpone the needed addition to his home because interest rates are still high and therefore he decides not to borrow. Further, the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials helps to discourage him when he calls on the supplier to check prices. He advises his son that next year he will have to apply for a student loan and he tells his wife that there will be no motor trip to the east coast this year. He is a good citizen, this constituent; honest, hard working, devoted to his family. Can we blame him if he writes in anger to his Member of Parliament about the $1,220 that is to be spent this year to produce an animated film on spaghetti?
This argument may be naive in this age of big government, but it seems to me that every dollar received from the taxpayer must be accepted in trust. We have in existence some very large expenditure programs which raise the quality of life for all Canadians, and of course they must be maintained and in some cases redesigned to do a better job. There is no doubt in my mind that the
June 15, 1971

time will come when we must find a way to afford a guaranteed annual income scheme which will wipe out the multiplicity of ineffectual and costly welfare programs and give new dignity to those whose circumstances have rendered them unable to provide adequately for themselves.
In order to provide such vital services there must be drastic reductions in many other areas of government expenditure. I say, let there be a tax cut now, and when the time comes to introduce something like a guaranteed annual income program let us say clearly and unequivocally to the taxpayers of Canada what this program will cost and by what percentage taxes must be increased, and having done so let the voters decide if they will support a party proposing a policy of such expense and magnitude.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I first wish to commend my hon. colleague, the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), the mover of this motion which is quite an important one and which expresses in a few words the legitimate demands of my constituents.
The concept of a just and fair society in Canada does not go back to yesterday or 1968. For years people have fought both in Parliament and outside for just and fair society for everyone. It is quite unfortunate that some people or politicians have used this idea as an election slogan and we are led to believe, from their actions, that this was not their purpose but that they were acting in their own personal interests.
Throwing the country into unemployment through credit restrictions, through increases in the rates of interest or measures such as the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials is not what will give us the just society. On the contrary, we are getting further away from it every day.
In order to reach our goal, a just society, new solutions must be found to new problems. Those solutions we have set forth several times, but the government failed to listen and it is our intention to keep on clamouring for the establishment of an economic system that would provide freedom and security for everybody.
Today, 4,000 miles from here in Victoria, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the provincial premiers are meeting at another conference. Discussions at that conference will be somewhat similar to the main idea of the motion now before us because the basic problem in Canada is the economy.
All other matters are after all nothing more than related discussions to solve the economic issue.
As long as the debate relates only to means and leaves the desired objective aside, progress will be minimal and the people will continue to bear the expense of those never-ending conferences that serve no other purpose but the political ends of a few and the division of Canada.
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
The mover, the hon. member for Bellechasse, asks for more equitable tax exemptions for individuals. Let us consider the present situation and the prevailing conditions over the last 50 years.
In 1926, individual basic exemptions were $1,500 while the average national per capita production was $550. In 1950, basic exemptions had decreased to $750 and average national production reached $600. In 1955, individual exemptions were $1,000 and the average national production reached $1,700. In 1970, basic exemptions remained at $1,000 and gross average national production was at $3,900.
How can the fact be explained that in the last 45 years we have managed to increase our national production, per capita, from $550 to $3,900, while the basic exemptions have remained the same? When we compare those of 1926 with those that apply in 1971, the latter are decidedly lower.
The basic exemptions in force in 1926 equalled three times the national production per capita, and after all the changes that have occurred over that long period, we have, in 1970, basic exemptions of $1,000.
Present exemptions are four times less than the average production, while 45 years ago they equalled three times the average production, per person. While the people made efforts to increase their well-being through services and goods, the government decreased the value of the basic exemptions and deprived the people of the fruit of their labour by lowering the basic personal exemptions for income tax purposes.
The people are overburdened with taxes used to pay ever increasing interests on the national debt. In 1971, we will have to pay in interest alone on the national debt an amount of $1,995 million.
Instead of bringing forward some effective measures, the government keeps proposing programs which will not solve the problem. This is why, owing to the present inertia of the government, I do not hesitate to say that a Social Credit government would readily grant an income tax exemption of $3,000 to single persons and a $5,000 exemption to married persons.
For some years, especially in the past three, the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials has been demanded by a great many people. Of all the taxes we have known, the sales tax on building materials is one of the most baneful and hateful.
This tax is collected from everyone, but more especially from families with an annual income under $6,000. A home in Canada has practically become a luxury item that only the well-to-do can hope to enjoy.
The housing situation is bad, at least for numerous Canadians looking for a place to live, including newly married couples, tenants, and especially the poor.
Certainly, there is a minority of privileged people who own their own house and do not have to face the risks of the housing market. These people are fortunate. The ordinary Canadian is not so lucky.

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
The 11 per cent sales tax on building materials has
kept a great number of people from becoming homeowners, because it has increased by several hundreds of dollars the cost of a house. Moreover the 11 per cent tax on building materials has indirectly contributed to the inflationary pressures and has aggravated the unemployment situation in Canada. Unsatisfied with the levy of an 11 per cent tax on building materials, the government has imposed special restrictive measures such as the delaying of allocations on capital cost for commercial construction in the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
By imposing restrictions and allowing the variation in interest rates, the federal government has created in the construction field a very serious situation which has practically wiped out in one stroke the beneficial effect of all the social programs adopted in the last thirty years. Our monetary nabobs have consciously and deliberately restricted the monetary mass to the point where the interest rates are prohibitive for most people who want to acquire property. This has the direct effect of decreasing the number of housing starts and is not at all reassuring for the eventual buyer.
I will therefore ask once again that the 11 per cent tax on building materials be repealed. According to economist Grant L. Reuber, head of the Economics Department at Western University in London, the government should reduce personal income tax as well as the federal sales tax, in order to stimulate productivity and check inflation.
In a verbal and written submission presented jointly with economist Ronald G. Bodin, Mr. Reuber rebutted the arguments of the Prime Minister, of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and of the President of the Prices and Incomes Commission, Mr. John Young, against tax reductions.
The government should therefore follow a moderately expansionist fiscal policy and favour expenses which are likely to stimulate the demand for goods and services, in order to create more employment.
This could be done through reductions in personal
income tax and federal sales taxes on manufactured products.
The Canadian Welfare Council believes that a program should be carried out as soon as possible to provide an adequate guaranteed annual income, a program which it considers the social right of every Canadian in its statement "Social Policies for Canada" published on January 29, 1969. Here is an excerpt:
If the just society will represent something other than a vain and frail abstraction-
-points out Mr. Reuben C. Baetz, director general of the Council-
-it must rest on certain basic and intangible rights, including social as well as civil and political rights. Among the social rights, none is as important as the right to an adequate income. We must define right now this socio-economic objective in our system of values. We could later on decide how to administer it. If need be, it could be set up by stages.
Every Canadian is entitled to a sufficient income in order to enjoy an adequate of physical and social welfare.
The means test necessary to administer selective social assistance programs stigmatizes the recipients and is too costly and cumbersome when it is applied to a great many people.
In an economy where machines and computers have replaced man's labour, we will have to accept sooner or later the guaranteed annual income. To oppose it any longer could jeopardize our whole system.
At the very mention of guaranteed annual income, there are some economists and bureaucrats who hastily analyse existing programs and prepare new ones.
Selective assistance programs instituted in recent years, such as family allowances, old age pensions, public assistance and unemployment insurance, are now outmoded and inadequate. The more one tries to improve them, the worse the situation gets.
These programs that originated under pressures exerted by various classes of society were useful when first implemented but they are outmoded today.
We of the Social Credit party have for many years been recommending and advocating implementation of the guaranteed annual income. We do not, however, agree that it should be established at the expense of everyone's freedom, as indicated by the Prime Minister on page 34 of the March 1954 issue of Cite libre, from which I shall quote:
The most natural solution would be levelling incomes of different social classes so that the poor might have more to spend and the rich less to save.
That method would not solve the problem. In fact, I believe the Premier of Saskatchewan recently stated that economic recession in his province was due to surplus production. For the past ten years, we Creditistes have been sounding this alarm within this House.
The Social Credit Party of Canada proposes some means to distribute that surplus production which represents for our country an asset amounting to the real credit of Canada.
Therefore I propose that a dividend be paid to every Canadian and that we adopt the compensated discount or, to call in a different way, the negative sales tax.
In industry, the dividend is that part of profits which is distributed to the shareholders according to the prosperity of the enterprise and to the number of the shares.
The social dividend is the part of the rich Canadian production which should be distributed to all Canadians and which the Premier of Saskatchewan calls surplus production.
However the government proposes other methods which will increase red tape and all sorts of studies without taking in account the needs of the families.
We maintain that every Canadian citizen is entitled to his share of the common productive factors. The advocates of the so-called liberal economy as well as the

June 15, 1971

advocates of socialism and communism ignore completely these common productive factors.
In a creditist system there would be therefore two sources of personal income-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, not much time is left in this debate, and since at least one other hon. member wishes to speak I will make my remarks brief. I feel that the motion before us is a good one. It gives members of this House an opportunity to outline their views on what ought to be done with respect to increasing basic income tax exemptions for individuals, and their feelings with respect to removing the 11 per cent tax on building materials, and so on. I think that shortly before budget day is a good time for us to put our views on record.
May I point out to hon. members a poem, the first two lines which are pertinent to this debate. I quote from "The Deserted Village" by Oliver Goldsmith:
111 fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay-
Those lines make a good beginning for a speech in a debate of this type. If you go around Ottawa or the surrounding rural areas you will see the conditions under which many of our old age pensioners live and realize just how tough it is for them to exist on the pension. It will then become crystal clear that we have not done a good job in providing the decent pensions which our senior citizens should be getting, especially in a country as rich as and with the resources of Canada from which we could provide a far better standard of living for Canadians who live close to or below the poverty line.
The main objective of this government when it was elected in 1968 was to bring about a just society. We have been developing legislation for the past three years, ostensibly to bring about the so-called just society for the Canadian people. Let me be frank, Mr. Speaker: I feel that the goals which were set three years ago are not apparent either in the legislative program or the economic policies which to date have been presented by this administration. A prime example which illustrates the truth of my remarks is the legislation passed a few months ago raising the basic old age security pension by a miserly 42 cents a month, while at the same time removing the 2 per cent cost of living bonus which used to apply to basic pensions when the cost of living index rose by more than 2 per cent in a year. We dealt a cruel blow to pensioners who expected something more from the representatives they had sent to Ottawa. There is one way for us partially to rectify the mistake we made a
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
few months ago when passing that legislation: we could raise substantially the personal income tax exemption for all Canadians.
We have advocated on numerous occasions a sharp increase in personal income tax exemptions and I hope these are announced when the budget is brought down later this week. We have suggested an exemption for single persons of at least $2,000, and for married persons of at least $4,000. At present there is an additional $500 exemption for those over 70. Why can we not lower the age to 65, at which one is entitled to this additional $500 exemption?


An hon. Member:: Why not lower it to 21?


Randolph Harding: Certainly the age should be lowered to 65. My facetious Liberal friend from Calgary asks, why do we not lower the age to 21? I suggest to him that in view of the increases in the cost of living over the last 10 or 15 years as a result of inflation, our income tax exemption levels are not high enough. One has only to do a little research to realize that this is so.
In addition to increasing income tax exemption levels the government ought to increase the old age security pension. I submit that the basic pension should be not less than $150 a month, as advocated by members on all sides of the House. I also suggest that income tax should not be levied on a pensioner's income when he receives the pension and the guaranteed supplement. When people are paid a pension and an income supplement, it means that they need the money. If they need it, Mr. Speaker, we should not tax part of it. That has been the practice. I am convinced that the sort of budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will bring down will continue this practice.
When people reach the age of retirement they have the right to a certain amount of income and they should be entitled to an old age security pension based on a certain level, which I suggest should not be less than $150 a month. In addition, we should guarantee by law that the value of the basic pension will not be eroded by inflation. To that end we passed the regulation several years ago which would add 2 per cent to the basic old age pension whenever the cost of living index rose by more than 2 per cent in one year. My party would go much further than that. We say that the total rise in the cost of living index should be added to the pension.
The basic pension to which our older people are entitled should never be eroded. However, just four or five months ago we passed legislation removing even the 2 per cent cost of living escalation clause which had offered some small protection to our older people. That provision did not allow for full recovery in the face of cost of living increases but it allowed partial recovery. It was better than nothing, and in passing the legislation that removed this provision the House took a retrograde step.

June 15, 1971
Alleged Non-Institution of Just Society
Our old age security pensioners are not the only ones who are in difficulties. Veterans are also in difficulties. I expect that all hon. members have received letters from veterans who are in trouble. I recently received two letters from a very good friend of mine. He is a war veteran who lives in Castlegar, and he pointed out some of the troubles veterans are encountering.
We increase allowances to different classes of pensioners but we do not amend the regulations. As a result, they may receive a small increase in one area and a little later on the authorities may find that they have been overpaid. They are then asked to repay the government. If we are to give our veterans and other Canadians an increase, we should tell them that we will raise the exemptions at the same time, so they will receive some benefit from the increase. That is what we are trying to bring about. Instead, we frequently find that pensioners are brought into a new tax bracket and all kinds of complications arise. I contend this is because we have not amended other pieces of legislation.
I shall comment on only one other matter. It is in connection with the 11 per cent tax on building materials. It should be removed. We have been talking about building houses for Canadians. Removal of the 11 per cent tax would give a tremendous impetus to the building trades. The provincial tax should also be removed. This would be an excellent measure for the government to include in the budget which will be brought down later this week. I commend this step to all hon. members.
I would like to say much more but I shall leave a few
moments for another speaker to put forward his views on this motion.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon.
members opposite for today's debate which is the closing episode in a long series of supply day debates on matters pertaining to the Canadian economy. I understand that the notice filed for tomorrow will not directly relate the final supply day debate to the Department of Finance and matters of an economic nature. For that I must confess I am grateful.
Throughout last winter and this spring I had the pleasure of listening very carefully to suggestions made by hon. members opposite on matters of economic concern. I assure them that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the government have taken into account the many suggestions that have come from all sides of the House. We have taken into account those suggestions that have been responsible; that have recognized the realities of Canada, the fact that governments must raise money as well as spend it, the federal nature of our country, the fact that the ability of the federal government to control and manage the economy in Canada is not unrestricted and that provincial governments have great areas in which they are sovereign and the fact that Canada is part of an international community and that decisions

made in Canada must be made within the framework of the realities of the economy of the world in which we live.
In speaking a few moments ago the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) indicated the problems that spokesmen for the government are facing in dealing with this motion which refers to items of direct application to the Income Tax Act. We are less than 72 hours from the time the Minister of Finance will be presenting his budget. Budget secrecy is constraining upon us at this time; we simply cannot respond as we would like. However, I am sure the nation and hon. members opposite will appreciate that the answers to many of the questions asked today and earlier will be forthcoming when the budget is brought down. At that time spokesmen for the government will be in a position to discuss the various issues that have been raised without the constraint of budget secrecy.
In closing I wish to extend my thanks and the thanks
of the government to members on all sides of the House for the contributions they have made during what I regard to have been a most interesting series of economic debates this past winter and spring.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are hon. members agreed that the Chair shall call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to special order made Wednesday, June 2, 1971, and Standing Order 58. (11) the proceedings on the motion have expired.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-240, amending the Post Office Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It is suggested that motions Nos. 1 and 2 be considered and
June 15, 1971

disposed of separately. These motions are in the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). It is also proposed that motions Nos. 3 and 4, having the same purport, be combined for the purpose of debate and that the vote on motion No. 3 will also dispose of motion No. 4.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris moves motion No. 1 as follows:
That Bill C-240, an act to amend the Post Office Act, be amended by deleting the word "Department" from clause 1, in line 28 at page 2, and substituting therefor the following: "Department, saving and excepting the power set out in paragraph (a) to close post offices."


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, when the amendments to the Post Office Act were under discussion during the committee stage we considered this particular amendment and on questioning the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) we were informed that its intent was to decentralize the operations of the Post Office Department in the interest of greater efficiency and the more expeditious handling of the mail. We agree generally with this principle. I am sure we are all aware that one of the main causes of the decline in postal efficiency during the past two or three years has been the tendency to increase bureaucratic red tape. Those of us who take a special interest in post office matters also know, through consultation with officials at the local level, that many of the problems within the department could be sorted out more quickly and readily if there were a decentralization of authority as envisaged in the amendment.
There is one particular aspect, however, which we feel *should be excluded from the effect of the amendment. Our concern arises following the unhappy experience which has been the lot of Members of Parliament representing rural constituencies in which the department set out on a deliberate campaign to close as many rural post offices as possible. I say the department, but perhaps I should say the former Postmaster General because he was the one who defended this campaign vehemently in the House of Commons. The pretext was that great sums of money would be saved by the Post Office and by the people of Canada as a result of this great economy measure.
According to one figure which was placed before members of the House, the saving was expected to amount to something like $200,000 or $300,000; and this was at the expense of the closure of several hundred rural post offices. Because of this unhappy experience we have decided to propose an amendment to clause 1 of the bill before us in the words you have read, Mr. Speaker. Subclause 3 on page 2 says:
The Postmaster General may delegate any of all of the powers, duties and functions set out in paragraphs-
Post Office Act
The clause then refers to a number of paragraphs. If we look at the act we will find in the related section that paragraph (a) provides:
establish, manage, operate, maintain and close post offices, postal stations, postal agencies, sub-post offices and postal routes-
We feel, on the basis of the unhappy experience to which I have referred, that this is one power which should not be delegated by the Postmaster General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The new Postmaster General has become a rather different kind of Postmaster General since the passing of the omnibus bill. As was suggested in the committee the other day, the Postmaster General has been incarnated. I give him credit in this respect. One of his first actions on assuming responsibility-before that he was merely Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Post Office-was to announce during a cabinet safari to Saskatchewan that he was going to bring to an abrupt end the wholesale closing of rural post offices in western Canada, because this was having a disastrous effect on the well-being of small communities in that area.
On the basis of that assurance we should perhaps be quite happy to let the clause stand as it is now outlined. But Postmasters General come and Postmasters General go and therefore we feel it is of the utmost importance to have this matter specifically dealt with in the amending legislation. The reason this question is of great importance to rural constituencies not only in western Canada but in all parts of the country lies in the fact that the continuing decline in service to rural communities is having a detrimental effect on their well-being. This matter was debated on the motion introduced a week ago by the leader of the NDP. He suggested this situation was the result of government policy and was encouraging the depopulation of rural Canada, aggravating both rural and urban community life and intensifying the problems facing all communities. He suggested that it could be regarded as an integral aspect of some of our social and economic problems of today.
I have spoken on this matter on many occasions in the House of Commons. In 1968-69 we were debating the previous amendment to the Post Office Act. At that time we took a strong stand on this question. In spite of our representations post office closures continued. I quote from a weekly newspaper, the Reston Recorder. It is published in the southwestern corner of Manitoba. This article attributes the end of one of our long-standing communities to the disappearance of the rural post offices. The article is entitled "End of an era for the Findlay community". Let me read some of the homespun writing which forms part of this story:
Life was never dull to these energetic, intelligent folks. The majority of each generation left to fill various occupations-but in each case the "home place" was taken over by some member of the family. Now the fourth and fifth generation is coming along.
6750

June 15, 1971
Post Office Act
The Findlay post office closed Friday, September 25th, 1970, and the postmistress, Mrs. Georgina Atchison, will also close the general store. The mail will be delivered from Pipestone to group boxes.
The pertinent phrase is that the closing of the post office meant the closing of the general store, and the closing of the general store meant the end of another rural community in western Manitoba. It is a fundamental fact of life in these small communities that the general store has marginal economic existence. In most instances the post office is located in the general store. Once the postal service is removed, that is usually the straw which breaks the camel's back, to use a figure of speech, and the general store is closed with the result that the whole community disappears. A general store has a commercial aspect in community life and it also has a strong sociological impact.
Let me make it abundantly clear that if the government pursues this foolish procedure of closing community post offices which it has been following now for more than two years, the responsibility for the disappearance of these rural communities must be placed on the doorstep of the minister responsible. This policy was initiated during the time of the former Postmaster General.
There is another aspect of this matter which I should underline. We are in the process of rural rail line abandonment in western Canada. We are losing these services right, left and centre as a result of concentration upon urbanization which is part of the basic social pattern in Canada. Rural rail line abandonment is in a state of suspended animation but the freeze will be off one of these days. What will happen to postal services in smaller communities as a result of continuation of the rail line abandonment policy? That is something we want spelled out specifically. Where does the responsibility lie for the decision to close rural post offices?
I would mention one final point. In addition to hundreds of rural post offices being closed, the department is substituting rural mail deliveries. This is similar to the stoppage in cities of door to door delivery. When the post office is located in the general store, post boxes are available. For some inexplicable reason, when the mail is not delivered to the front door of the recipient a service charge is made in the form of a post office box rental fee.
There was no rational explanation for this procedure other than that it has always been done. The only logical explanation I have ever heard on this matter is that it makes it possible for a person to have access to his mail over a 24-hour period. However, it is much easier to distribute the mail through a post office than by providing door to door delivery or rural mail delivery service.
In the 1968 amendments postal rates were increased. They were opposed but still went through. As an addendum to the subject matter of the amendment I am proposing at this time, I trust the Postmaster General will review once again this anomalous situation and
make available to rural folk, those who receive their mail through post boxes in a local post office, the same service without additional cost that is made available in the cities through door to door delivery or in other areas through rural mail delivery service.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I think most members would agree, as I understand the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) does, that the general purpose of the clause to which the hon. member has referred in his amendment is one with which we can agree. I believe the idea of some decentralization of the administrative functions of the Post Office is good because many decisions can best be made on the ground, as it were, by those who are responsible in the various regions of the country.
I think we must recognize that certain decisions are by their very nature really political decisions. For this reason I feel the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has a very sound point in his amendment which would continue to give direct responsibility to the Postmaster General in the closing of post offices. When I say "political" I am not using this expression in the partisan sense but, rather, in the sense of the function that is involved- I think the Postmaster General probably would agree with me-in the closing of a post office where not only the Postmaster General is involved but also the member for the constituency in which the post office is located. Willy-nilly a Member of Parliament becomes involved in the matter.
I would call to the attention of the Postmaster General a rather recent example of this in my own constituency, where because of changes in the system of delivering the mail it was proposed that a post office be closed. Whether it was my own desire or not, I found myself very rapidly involved in the question. As the sitting member for the constituency I was asked to attend a meeting of citizens of the community, where I underwent the kind of scrutiny which politicians quite properly should undergo from constituents concerning the ways and means, whys and wherefores, ifs and buts of the whole question. I am happy to report to the House that as a result of discussion with the Postmaster General and his agreement to undertake a review of the situation, the matter resolved itself to everyone's satisfaction as I indicated to the minister only yesterday in private conversation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has a good point because it recognizes one of the facts of life in Canada, certainly one of the facts of life in the more rural areas of the country. It probably does not create very much excitement in a large urban area when a decision is made to move an urban postal station from one place to another within that metropolitan area, because the system is diffused and even if one post office or postal station were to close it would not be very far to another one.
I am sure the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is correct when he suggests that in a small community the

June 15, 1971

post office is, among other things, one of the principal social centre of the community. It is a place where people meet their friends, and in many communities it is the only direct link between the citizens and the federal government. It is the only existing symbol as it were, that Canada is a country federal in nature with a federal government in operation. I suppose the exception to that statement would be in the annual forms which come from the minister's colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray), but fortunately that is not a daily or weekly occurrence: once we as citizens get over our yearly bout with that form we tend to forget about it until the next year comes around. So I think there are good and practical reasons for this amendment to allow the decision to be made at the administrative level. It is a good suggestion on the part of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and one which I can support.
As the hon. member has pointed out, there had been a policy of closing small, rural post offices across the country in the interest of economy. I believe this policy began in the earlier days when the present Postmaster General held this portfolio. One of the features of that policy which applied, certainly, in my area-and for this I commend the minister-was that if consideration was being given to the closing of a post office, the member was advised.
My constituency is not rural in the sense usually referred to by people like the hon. member for Brandon-Souris or other members from the great plains region. It is not a farming area. But it is one in which there are a number of small, isolated communities each of which had its own post office. One case of closing involved a post office designed to serve only employees of the federal government and their families. This is a situation which develops around some of the installations of the Department of Transport in fairly isolated places along the coast. I
I cite one example because I believe one would agree it is a little different from the ordinary rural community. I refer to the post office at Estevan Point, which is a lighthouse installation of the Department of Transport on the west coast of Vancouver Island which had at one time a slightly larger population than it has now because it also included meteorological services, weather reporting services, and so on, which have since been consolidated in another area. Despite protestations from the people there and from myself, the decision was made to close that post office. Now, of course, the people working there for the Department of Transport are at the tender mercy of the department in respect of receiving their mail. This may not be a major question but it was a matter of great regret to the residents of that small community made up, as I say, of employees of the federal government, that they no longer had direct contact with the Post Office Department in the sense of being able to send and receive their mail.
Other post offices have been closed in this general region along the west coast of Vancouver Island to which
24171-8J
Post Office Act
I, after thinking the matter over, raised no objection. In fact, one of the more historic post offices on the west coast of Vancouver Island was closed some time ago, the post office of Clayoquot, where the settlement was originated by a European fur trader who set up a post office. I believe he married an Indian woman and carried on his trade there. In time a store was opened up which was a distribution centre, and I think that for some time it has been a resort hotel.
It is fairly easily accessible from another community but there are no permanent residents there, despite the fact that it was one of the more colourful post office establishments on the west coast. I know that some of the more interesting records from there were garnered and put into whatever the Post Office Department considered its archives to be. It was a matter of regret to see one of the earliest post offices on the west coast of Canada disappear. In plain, practical terms there was no justification for the continuance of such a post office in that particular spot and I as a member raised no objection to its being closed.
On the other hand, the Post Office Department decided to close another post office serving a relatively small number of families as well as some single working people. It was not far from another post office but in practical terms it meant that the community would be almost completely cut off from any regular access to mail service. Ojections were raised and I looked into the facts as best I could. I was provided additional information on the kind of weather conditions that existed there and the body of water that would have to be crossed by small boats if these people were to be able to reach the nearest settlement where there was a post office. On the basis of those facts the decision was made by the Postmaster General not to close the post office. This was not a matter of political controversy between me and the Postmaster General but, as I tried to say, it was essentially a political question because it involved a decision which in my view went beyond the purely administrative area.
I spoke of the way in which some of these post offices were closed to suggest that if this proposal to delegate entirely the authority to local or regional administrators is carried out, the chances are that a post office such as this would be closed by a simple administrative decision made by someone without political responsibility. Members who are aware of what is being planned and who are able to assess the general picture could provide the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) with additional facts on which a decision can be based in the general interest of the community.
The first that a Member of Parliament hears about the matter is if someone sends him a bomb through the mail-I mean a bomb in the sense of a letter that is hot enough to blow the roof off. By this time the decision is made. Anybody with experience in the operation of government knows that usually it is much easier to prevent a decision being made than it is to have a decision reversed once it has been made. So I feel that this amendment leaves the situation as it should be and I hope the Postmaster General will on reflection agree that

June 15, 1971
Post Office Act
the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has a valid point in putting forward his amendment.
I know that we are going through a period of rapid change in the functioning of the government. Generallyspeaking, I have been one of those who has argued in favour of the decentralization of authority so far as administration is concerned. 1 think it is fair to say that there has been a change in this direction which, in my experience with various departments, has worked out quite well. I emphasize this point because I would not want it to be thought that I am arguing against the general principle in supporting this amendment.
I do think that one of our functions as members is to try to assess how we can retain a happy medium between decentralization of administration and administrative authority and the need to keep things in focus as the occasion warrants, and to maintain proper responsibility and authority not only in the hands of the minister heading a department but in the hands of the elected representatives of the people.
These lines are not always easy to draw. One cannot be too dogmatic one way or the other in every situation. However, if one thinks about this situation one must agree that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has made a wise and sound proposal in his amendment. It is one that I hope hon. members and the Postmaster General will support.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak for a few minutes in support of the amendment now under consideration.
I can say that my own constituency has been affected by the closure of post offices in many parishes that still exist, where there are churches and populations of 30, 40 or 50 families. Officials have simply decided to eliminate these post offices.
When I was informed, final action had been taken, despite protests and representations. I realized that the decision had been made by officials-mark my words, by officials-for I realized that they had been instructed to pronounce the "death sentence" of post offices in our smaller parishes, which had proved immensely useful for more than 50 years. I think that this has affected the people very much, while the Post Office Department did not save any money.
With this low level of service, the performance has declined so much that we have to increase the number of rural postmen to provide some sort of service to these villages.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, that the people from these communities are less than satisfied. It seems that in the Post Office Department, even more than in some others, the more you spend, the less service you get. And now for the best: when a decision has been taken, standards are set up. If the standards have been established for 50 users, they provide service to these 50 people, but this does not bring any change in the government's decisions-bureaucrats' decisions-because the sentence has been meted out it is useless to present them with request
after request and attempt to prove to the Department that these remote communities are in an unsavory situation; they just won't budge. The postal system is the only link between urban centres and villages and the practice of closing down post offices has not been accepted by the population. They pray for the day when they will get rid of a bureaucratic government and replace it by responsible men who will know how to take their responsibilities.
That is why we ask that in future the decision be up to the minister. If he makes mistakes, he will suffer the consequences. It is not a matter of knowing who made the mistakes among the many postal officials, but I would very much like to know once and for all to whom I should refer, who is to blame under such circumstances and then, we will at least know whom to see when another campaign is launched to close post offices.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words in support of my colleague's motion. But first may I be permitted to observe that there is an error in the report of the proceedings on this bill before the Transportation and Communications Committee, Issue No. 18, at the top of page 43, erroneously attributes remarks to me which I believe should be attributed to the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Rock). In any event, they are not mine. I think that the problem here is one that is pretty relevant to the political process and I hope that the arguments of the last three speakers, of myself and perhaps of other hon. members will commend themselves to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote).
So far as the closure of suburban post offices is concerned, I do not think we have a problem there at all. These offices are generally being replaced by postal boxes as the suburbs grow into the cities of Canada, and no one is greatly distressed by their disappearance. But so far as rural closures are concerned, this is an entirely different matter. I think we can say that for historical as well as business reasons some of these post offices should not be closed. A rural post office may be small, but the industry that does its mailing through it may depend for its life on having that postal service. Then, there are the larger reasons, the social reasons some of these rural post offices should not be closed.
I think these argument have been pushed on the Postmaster General in the past and upon his predecessor, so I do not scout them at any great length. In fact I am going to be brief, almost laconic in my contribution tonight, but I would suggest to the Postmaster General that the criterion for closing post offices should not be strictly determined by a business motive. In this respect I think the minister and his predecessor have been pretty good. They will listen. Sometimes they harden their hearts to you but, as I say, at other times they are inclined to listen. I prefer it to be that way.
May I point out two things in this area to the Postmaster General that I think are very important. The first is that he is politically accountable to all the rest of us in

June 15, 1971

the House of Commons, and that is undoubtedly as it should be because he is one of her Majesty's ministers. But also, if this awful task of determining whether or not to close a post office is to be delegated to a public servant, then we will wind up with that public servant being faced by an angry MP. I suggest that on a good many occasions the public servant will be damned by the MP if he does close the post office, and damned by his boss, whether that be the Postmaster General or the Department in Ottawa, if he keeps the post office open. So I suggest that from several different aspects, but largely on the ground of political accountability, the Postmaster General would be well advised to accept the amendment which is suggested by the hon. member for Brandon-Sou-ris (Mr. Dinsdale).
If I may trespass briefly into the field of the arts, Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that a poem will encompass such disparate communities as Joe Baths Arm, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Kouchibouguac and Ecum Secum, but a year ago when the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kier-ans) was the Postmaster General, I wrote such a poem. It is to be found in the records of this House, records which no longer are read, and I am sure we are all the better off for that. But when I did make the plea that for historical, social, economic and other reasons post offices should not be closed, and in particular simply should not be closed according to strict rules of thumb-and as I say my poetry did include all the small post offices at these various establishments-I concluded my poem to the then postmaster general with these lines:
Lest in his zeal he abolish them, all
Including the office in Montreal.
You know, Mr. Speaker, if you want to stretch arguments, formulae or the like to their logical limit, there possibly is not a post office in Canada you could not close down for economic reasons, because we are told with great sincerity, by the minister and his staff, that the Post Office is losing a great deal of money for Canadian taxpayers. Therefore, I suggest that in order to save himself some difficulties the Postmaster General should be a good fellow, accept the principle of the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Brandon-Souris and be prepared to have members stand up from time to time in the House of Commons and defend their favourite small post offices. I suggest that he should not turn what is a rather difficult political chore into something that really could be much worse, namely, the wielding of an axe by a bureaucratic computer. For these reasons, I hope the Postmaster General will now tell us that the argument of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has made a great impression on him.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: I should like to pursue the theme introduced by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. I do not know whether I misunderstand the situation, but it would appear to me that the clause to which the amendment of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) pertains would allow the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) to delegate all of his responsibilities
Post Office Act
under the act to certain public servants. This raises a question in my mind about what has been going on in the Post Office Department for the past number of years. It would appear that what the Postmaster General is now seeking is authority to carry out his duties under the act by a process of delegation. Surely, this is what should have been happening all along. If there has not been a delegation of responsibilities in the department, then it is little wonder it is faced with the problems which have plagued it in recent years.
My understanding of the public service is that it is there to carry out the policy of the government of the day on the basis of delegated authority. There is a minister who is responsible to this House and he has a deputy minister who is head of that branch of the public service. Surely, the public servants within that branch act on the basis of delegated authority. Obviously, no minister can do everything within his department. If the process of delegation is not being followed at the present time, I wonder what the people named in this amendment to the act are doing, that is, the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, regional general managers and directors of postal districts. Surely, their duties must arise as a result of the process of delegation. I really cannot see the need for subclause 3 of clause one in the bill, and I hope when the Postmaster General speaks to this motion he can explain it. If the process of delegation has not already been followed, then I think there is a very grave misunderstanding on the part of this government as to how the job of governing the country is to be accomplished.
A reading of this amendment would lead one to believe that the minister, is attempting to get away from the principle of ministerial responsibility in the discharge of his duties. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether this is a harbinger of a later proposal to this House, which would be the ultimate in eliminating ministerial responsibility, namely the creation of a Crown corporation to carry out the functions of the Post Office Department. I take the position that such a proposal would only reduce the principle of political accountability in the discharge of this very important public service. I hope we are not presented with that proposal in the near future. I hope we are never presented with it, but it appears that this amendment to the present act is a step in that direction.
Previous speakers have made reference to how the wholesale closing of rural post offices has weakened the fabric of that portion of this country's society. We keep hearing about the inevitability of urbanization and the weakening of our rural society's fabric. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is because of the type of action exemplified by the post office closings that this inevitability becomes a fact. The government is responsible in large measure for this situation, even though we hear that it cannot be stopped. It has been contended that there have not been any great savings as a result of the closings.
There have been a great number of post office closings in the province of Newfoundland and a great number of memorials to Mr. Pickersgill have been erected there at the expense of the lower cost community type service

June 15, 1971
Post Office Act
which existed before. Probably the cost of the janitorial services alone for these facilities exceeds what the previous Postmaster received for the discharge of his duties. Of course, since they are more expensive there are not as many of them so the service deteriorates and the area suffers.
When the minister speaks to this motion, I hope he will explain why we must have this further delegation of responsibility and whether it relieves him from the actual accountability that he owes to members of this House. As things stand now, I think all members should support the motion by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris so some accountability will remain in this area.


Randolph Harding: I, too, would like to speak briefly on the amendment before the House. I endorse the motion and I congratulate the member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who introduced it. The area I represent is largely rural with many small post offices. A great number of these have been closed to the detriment of the area generally, I believe.
It seems to me that one of the tragedies of the over-all closing program carried out a number of months ago was the fact that the Post Office Department viewed it strictly as a business venture. The criterion used was whether this small post office paid and whether it was in a certain category. The department did not look into the entire background of the community to find why the office was set up in the first place, the role played by the post office or how essential it was to other services in the area. I regret that although I got in touch with the department on a number of occasions urging that some of these small post offices be kept open, they were closed down. I think the area has lost a great deal from what I consider were ill-advised decisions taken at the administrative level. Unfortunately, this sort of thing often happens.
I now wish to raise a point that has been raised before. I ask is the Post Office to be run as a service or as a business? If you are to make it a paying proposition, that is one approach. But if it is to provide a service to the Canadian people, and if we are interested in keeping alive many of our rural communities, I suggest to the minister that the department must be run as one that is providing a service. In many instances you will take a loss, but you must take a loss sometimes in giving postal service to rural areas of Canada.
As other hon. members have said, there are statistics pointing to the increasing urbanization of our society. So far as I am concerned, this is one of the worst things that could happen to our nation.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: We must again build up our rural
communities.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: We must begin spreading out industries and getting people to move out to God's country, if I may put it that way, so they may know what it really means to live in a clean environment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: If you take away amenities such as post office service from rural areas, the people will not want to move to those rural areas. I know this. I have lived in a rural area for a great part of my life, and receiving your mail daily and having good mail service is a right that no one should be denied. People in rural communities already do without many of the important amenities of life such as theatres, art and cultural centres. These facilities are to be found in urban centres. They are there because the taxpayers of the nation have put them there. Many of our taxpayers live in rural areas. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when it is the turn of people in rural communities to be given a small subsidy in the form of mail service, that subsidy should not be withheld or taken away from them by a government that looks only at the dollars and cents side of the ledger when considering the benefits of mail service.
May I point out a matter that has been referred to previously. The silliest arguments were used by the Post Office to justify the closing of a number of small post offices. First, the department said that there were not enough people in the area to warrant the service. Then they suggested that people who lived 15 or 20 miles from another community should collect their mail from that community. Mr. Speaker, I am sure nobody in Ottawa and no hon. member would like to drive 15 or 20 miles every day for mail. Then the department said: There is a shopping centre in that community, and if people can drive 20 or 30 miles to do their shopping they can pick up their mail at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, people do not go shopping every day of their lives. Many people do not own a vehicle in which to drive 15 or 20 miles to the next town. In any event, they would not want to shop every day of their lives merely to pick up mail. Driving such distances involves considerable cost for those who have chosen to live in rural communities. They are like the pioneers who helped to build our nation. I suggest to the department that we should not deprive any more rural communities of these services which they should not be without and to which they are entitled 100 per cent. I therefore support the amendment and suggest that the minister incorporate it in the bill.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot miss this opportunity of calling the attention of the minister to the dissatisfaction caused by the closing of some post offices in my constituency.
I am sure the present minister is not responsible for those changes that were made on the pretence that they meant substantial savings for the department.
I believe it is wrong to maintain such a thing, since facts show exactly the opposite. There is for instance, in
June 15, 1971

my constituency, the municipality of Saint-Louis-de-Bon-secours, where the post office was closed down. The people of that community are now served by the post office in Saint-Aime-sur-Richelieu. In order to give an even poorer service than the one that was formerly provided to the citizens of Saint-Louis-de-Bonsecours, the department's expenditures had to be increased, without mentioning the dissatisfaction created in the Saint-Louis-de-Bonsecours parish.
As I said earlier, so as to supply service which is not as satisfactory as it used to be to the people of Saint-Louis-de-Bonsecours, the department has had to increase the staff of the Saint-Aime-sur-Richelieu post office and also to raise the salary of the rural mail contractor now providing service to the Saint-Louis-de-Bonsecours parish.
I would like to ask the minister to see to it that in future such unfortunate situations that hurt the people so much do not arise again.
Everyone knows that in our rural communities, the postmaster renders great services to the people and each parish is deeply humiliated when its post office is closed. Quite often it is an occasion for the people from the neighbouring parishes to laugh at those who have lost their post office and say that their municipality is of no importance since it gets no attention from the federal government. I know that the minister will not allow such situations to happen again and will at least, in future, get the facts and consult the hon. member because it should be said that no meeting was held by the minister at the time, nor by his officials, with the hon. member of that constituency to get his opinion and learn whether he would give his recommendation.
These are facts on which I wished to call the minister's attention and I would like him to pay attention to the problem in future in order to prevent situations that create nothing but dissatisfaction among the people. No doubt the present minister will take into due consideration the remarks that were made to him by the hon. members who spoke before me. In turn, I shall consider it my duty to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this amendment.
No doubt arguments were put forward in the course of this short debate on the merit of the closing of rural post offices. In the amendment I am moving, there is no question of reverting to a policy aimed at closing rural post offices. Here the question is the delegation of powers.
As I said on second reading, when delegated the authority will be exercised within guidelines established by the Postmaster General. The sole purpose of the proposed delegation of authority is to enable us to derive the full benefit of decentralized administration by making it possible for field managers to deal primarily with prob-
Post Office Act
lems without the necessity of awaiting decisions from headquarters.
I also said that powers which are not already delegated to the deputy minister will not be delegated to other persons. This means that all the powers we are going to delegate to certain people in the field have already been delegated to the deputy postmaster general. These policies have to be in accordance with the guidelines that are being decided by the Postmaster General.
Hon. members know my policy regarding the closure of rural post offices. In the department we decided to close many rural post offices and many have been closed. This was for reasons of economy. Since October, 1970, I have said that we will not close any rural post offices for reasons of economy or in order to save money. Since that time we have closed some rural post offices. There are some reasons for which we will have to close more post offices. Upon the death of a postmaster in an area where there are only 25 or 30 families it is sometimes not possible to find someone to take the job. Upon the death of a postmaster we sometimes have to close the post office because we cannot find another postmaster. Many times no one wants to take over the post office and it must be closed. Sometimes there is a shortage of post office funds and revenue. On these occasions the people in the field have the authority to close the post offices concerned.
Under the present policy, the permanent closure of any post office must be personally authorized by the Postmaster General. Any future delegation of this authority which might be contemplated will be exercised within policy guidelines established by the Postmaster General. As I said before, no post office will be closed only for the purpose of saving money. I do not know what other safeguards hon. members can expect in this regard.
That is about all I have to say on this question, Mr. Speaker. I would like hon. members to clearly understand that any change in the legislation will not bring about the closure of rural post-offices. It is only a delegation of powers which will be exercised within guidelines established by the Postmaster General.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

June 15, 1971
Post Office Act


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion
stands deferred.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris moves motion No. 2 as follows:
That Bill C-240, an act to amend the Post Office Act, be amended by deleting from clause 2 the words "not established by this act," in line 41 at page 2 and substituting therefor the following:
"not established by this act and, in particular but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, establishing preferential rates on any such class of mailable matter in the case of a Canadian charitable organization that is registered under the Income Tax Act and operates for the benefit of a class of persons who are physically or mentally disabled and recognized as so disabled under any federal or provincial law or for the betterment of national health and welfare;"


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: golden egg. I would think that a loss of $1 million in postal revenue would make the deficit problem with which the minister is trying to deal in the amendments now before the House significantly more acute.
We can be sure that these worth-while charitable operations will not be discontinued. The department's proposal will only mean that some other method of appeal to the public will have to be adopted by the associations concerned. Unfortunately, this has been the case with so many Canadian associations and businesses as a result of the inefficiency and maladministration of the Post Office Department over the past three years. It is significant that the volume of mail in 1968-69 was 4.9 billion pieces and that in 1969-70 this has decreased to 4.8 billion pieces, notwithstanding a substantial increase in the number of businesses and households served.
This clearly shows that the Post Office, by its confused policy, by its reduction in the service made available to the people has been losing business to other carriers. This is a factor which the minister should take into account in addition to the basic point that the voluntary, charitable associations which are operating to assist the physically and the mentally handicapped deserve as much consideration as do the groups working for the blind. They are all in the same category because the regulations set out in the Post Office Act give the minister power to make special arrangements and concessions.
The amendment I am placing before the House tonight spells out in detail what I have in mind. I am sure this is a motion which all hon. members will desire to support. I am sure there will be almost unanimous support for the amendment as it stands. I do not wish to pursue this argument at length. We hope we can deal with all the amendments tonight. But I should point out that third-class mail does not place undue pressure on the resources of the Post Office, because such mail is handled during off-peak periods.
Then there is the additional argument that if financial assistance generated by the activities of the voluntary groups does not become available, the government of Canada will have to pick up the tab. It is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I trust that for all these reasons the minister will accept this amendment without further debate. By so doing he would make it possible for us to conclude discussion of this bill tonight.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: 
Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, again I do not wish to question the merit of the work being performed by benevolent associations. The problem is not there-

I believe, indeed, that all welfare, charitable and similar institutions serve the public interest and undoubtedly some are affected to a greater degree by increased postage rates. Literally speaking, I could by virtue of the powers vested in the Postmaster General by the Post Office Act establish preferential postage rates for nonprofitable, charitable or voluntary organizations. Yet I can assure the House that a decision to introduce such a measure would be fraught with far reaching consequences extending beyond the scope of the Post Office. A measure such as that advocated would more or less compel the Postmaster General to set special rates of postage based on welfare or social considerations.
The question would have to be resolved as to how the Post Office could pass a value judgment on the merits Of particular charitable, humanitarian, welfare or voluntary organizations, of which some 35,000 are registered with the Department of National Revenue as charitable institutions for income tax purposes, as opposed to organizations engaged in other worth-while endeavours, without

June 15, 1971
Post Office Act
running the risk of being accused of discrimination. It would be impracticable and inequitable to set rates favouring particular types of organizations without extending the same privilege to all other organizations whose members may claim that their activities are of benefit to the public at large.
Because of these repercussions and the difficulties the Postmaster General would face in trying to set rates1 for certain organizations, we take this position. This matter has nothing to do with the law, because third-class rates are not statutory but are set as a result of a ruling by the Postmaster General. For this reason I have asked for an opportunity to study the matter. As recently as today one of my officials had a meeting with representatives of these groups in an attempt to come to grips with the problem. As I said before, I am not too optimistic about the decision we will make.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the points the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) has made-and I am happy to call him that- but it seems to me he has not been as convincing as he may believe. I may say initially that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) spoke at some length on this matter at second reading of the bill and set out our position. It is not my intention to go into this at length, but I am brought to my feet by one or two things the Postmaster General has just said.
First, may I say I note with interest that around the chamber there are a number of copies of the salmon coloured booklet on this matter. This is a copy of a submission to the Postmaster General. I think it is fair to say that we all take into consideration the nature of the organizations which make representations to us from time to time. When we receive a document supported jointly by the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled, the Canadian Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases Association and the key tag service of the War Amputees of Canada, we treat it very seriously. I appreciate the fact that the minister has done so as well.
As I understood the minister, the principle worry on his part is that it would be too heavy a responsibility for his department to make a value judgment in respect of each organization which might apply for a special rate. It seems to me that this submission has dealt with that point in a paragraph on the second page, which I might be permitted to put on the record. It reads as follows:
In previous discussions. Post Office officials have stated that they cannot accept responsibility to determine which charitable institutions should qualify for concessions. This does not seem reasonable, as all such institutions are registered with the federal government and must file annual financial statements. Some difficulty in deciding eligibility for special rates is inevitable but it is not insurmountable. In this respect, the Post Office Department already has established machinery to decide upon categories for second class mailings. A similar procedure could no doubt be adopted, using an acceptable set of standards to determine which organizations could qualify for rates allowable to those in the special category.
I quite agree that it would be too much to ask the Postmaster General or the Post Office Department to make a value judgment in respect of every individual
organization, but it does seem to me it is possible for categories to be defined and for standards to be set and then let the chips fall where they may. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who proposed this motion has suggested a definition that narrows the field considerably from the 35,000 organizations mentioned, and I think what he has proposed should be looked at very seriously.
I appreciate the point the Postmaster General made to the effect that this is something which comes under his authority and that it does not need to be put in the statute. I suppose the answer to that is that so long as it is under his authority and he is prepared to make the decision, we are stuck with his statement that he is not very optimistic. We know what that means.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: A nice polite way of saying-


Stanley Howard Knowles: A nice polite way of saying no. I think, therefore, it would be better if the House expressed itself by supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, and we intend to do so.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
In accordance with the special order made earlier today we will now proceed to the consideration of motions Nos. 3 and 4, which will be considered together.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) moves motion No. 3 as follows:
That Bill C-240, an act to amend the Post Office Act, be amended by deleting clause 3, lines 23 to 41 at page 3 and lines 1 to 27 at page 4.
[Mr. C6t6 (Longueuil).)
June 15, 1971

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) moves motion No. 4 as follows:
That Bill C-240, an act to amend the Post Office Act, be amended by deleting clause 3 of the said bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, with these amendments we come to the crunch of the legislation before the House. Except for this clause a good part of the proposed legislation in Bill C-240 is of the housekeeping variety. Here, however, the minister and the government of Canada are recommending a specific increase in the first-class mail rate which by December 31 of this year would mean that Canadians would be paying eight cents for a letter of one ounce or less both for local delivery as well as for delivery to any part of Canada.
The minister has circulated a considerable amount of background information to assist in achieving support, no doubt, in this House for his proposal, but also more than likely to soften the blow to the people of Canada who judging from the mail I am receiving on this matter are not at all convinced of this necessity. I notice in the background material the minister includes tables which point out that the cost of postage in Canada has not kept pace with the inflationary trend in other sectors of the economy. I am sure he is aware that the last time we had Post Office Act amendments before the House the basic amendment was much the same as the one now before us. It was an increase not only in the first-class letter rate but also right across the board.
If the present proposal should go through, it would mean that in respect of local mail-and a good deal of the mail in Canada is of the local variety-there would be an increase in cost of 100 per cent since 1968. In other words, it would increase from 4 cents to 8 cents in a comparatively short period of time. It should also be noted in a preliminary way that while the minister argues that this increase is necessary to deal with the deficits which have been growing in the past three years since this administration came into office, the fact is that the former Postmaster General when he amended the legislation said it was the dawning of a new age of greater efficiency in the operations of the postal department and that with a decrease in service, plus an increase in cost, we were moving the operation of the postal service of Canada into a position where it would be operating in the black.
The minister is using precisely the same arguments again this time. We have never seen any evidence based on past performance that would persuade us he will be any more accurate in his prognostication than was his predecessor. I do not agree with the fundamental argument that the Post Office Department must operate in the black. Postal service is one of the major communication services in Canada. I could not accept the thesis of his predecessor when he argued for a balanced budget in respect of postal service and increased the rates to such amounts that several weekly newspapers have gone out
Post Office Act
of business as well as other Canadian publications because of the exorbitant increase in distribution costs.
We heard the former Postmaster General argue for a balanced budget in respect of postal services and then speak in astronomical terms of the $75 million to be expended on the Canadian Telesat experiment. There would appear to be a lack of consistency in this regard. For generations the postal service has been the basic means of communication. It has played a vital role in holding the nation together because it affects every single person. Telesat is in the realm of space technology which no doubt will play an increasingly important role as we move into the space age. My hon. friend behind me says it is up in the air, like this government. I agree with that.
At the moment the fundamental need is for an efficient, low cost postal service that will make it possible for Canadians everywhere to communicate readily and that will also assist Canadian newspaper and magazine publications, which find it increasingly difficult to compete with the United States, to continue to serve the needs of the nation. So in the first instance I move the deletion of the proposed increase by the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) because it is flying in the face of what has always been a basic function of postal service, that is, to provide a cheap service to Canadians even if it is not entirely operating in the black.
There is another inconsistency in this matter. In this day and age of electronic communication the government quite happily subsidizes CBC to the tune of $200 million and nobody raises the argument that broadcasting services in Canada should operate at a profit. As a matter of fact, since I have been a member of this House of Commons we have removed the radio and television licences which used to be more of a nuisance value than a revenue raising operation. We accepted the principle that it was in the interest of the Canadian nation that the state should sponsor electronic means of communication.
By the same token, why should this raise be necessary when the minister, according to his own pronouncements, has embarked on a reorganization of the Post Office Department that will bring about greater efficiency and greater productivity and, as a result, lower the costs of the service? According to this thesis, which was advanced by his predecessor, this should gradually bring the deficit down. I think that before the minister in the short space of three years again asks this House for a substantial increase in first-class postal rates, he should wait and see whether his new policy initiatives will have the desired effect.
One of the debating points which the minister makes is to refer to the recommendations of the Glassco commission. The Glassco commission, which was established by the Diefenbaker administration to look into the operations of the government of Canada, made the recommendation that revenues and expenditures of the Post Office should be related. That is a good proposition. Hon. members will find it enunciated at page 113 of volume 1 of the Glassco commission report. The report reads:
tolls should be fixed at levels that permit recovery of the total cost of each class of service.

June 15, 1971
Post Office Act
This statement appears at page 319 of volume 3 of the report. But the Glassco commission report goes on to make the following significant statement, and it is something that is not quoted by the government or by the minister. It states that loss, the deficit in the postal service, arises mostly on second-class mail. Glassco himself says that other classes were operating close to the break-even point, and by that he means first-class and third-class mail. That particular statement appears at page 324 of volume 3 of the Glassco commission report. Obviously then there is no support from this source, as has been implied by the minister, for what the government is attempting to do under the present amendments to the Post Office Act.
When the minister introduced the legislation on second reading he made the following statement:
There has been a loss of public confidence in recent years in the Post Office Department.
I would like to suggest that this loss of confidence is largely responsible for the growing deficit that has been given as one of the main reasons for the necessity of an increase in rates at this time. When I was discussing the previous amendment I stated that there has been a decrease in the business of the Post Office Department, a decline in volume. I would think that this as much as anything else is the reason for the deficit of some $32 million with which the minister is wrestling during the fiscal year, rather than any other particular cause or factor. Again I would argue that this deficit of some $32 million will be removed if the policies of the government have the beneficial effect that the minister has indicated.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: That is on first-class mail.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, first-class mail. I do not have the figures for second-class and third-class mail but, as the Glassco commission reported, first and third-class mail prior to the machinations of the former Postmaster General were operating at the break-even point and the real source of the deficit was in the second-class mail category.
Before we accept the proposal of the minister we should think in terms of its inflationary impact on the economy. I asked the minister, when we were discussing the subject in the committee the other day, whether this particular item had been referred to the Prices and Incomes Commission. He implied that it had been looked at by PIC and that they had given it their blessing.
The Prices and Incomes Commission has been coming under increasing criticism from all segments of the Canadian economy because it has not been performing the tasks that it was assigned by the government. If it is true that a 100 per cent increase in the cost of local mail delivery during the three years this government has been in office has the approval of PIC in light of the continuing inflationary pressures, I can understand why there is a growing clamour on the part of the people of Canada that PIC has outlived its usefulness and that it should be disbanded as something that is quite ineffective in discharging the responsibility that was given to it by this government.
It is unfortunate that we did not have a chance to hear from Dr. Young, chairman of PIC, because perhaps he could have given us some statistics which would demonstrate that he has thoroughly examined the inflationary impact. I think that a 100 per cent increase at this time is not in the best interests of Canada. I see it is ten o'clock. I will continue this discussion when we resume the debate. At this time I put the amendment before members of the House. I am sure that in the interval, if the Postmaster General looks at it from this standpoint he will agree to it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

['Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on a matter pertaining to my question of last Thursday, June 10, when I attempted to obtain from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the real reason for the removal of the flag of Nationalist China from their pavilion at the recent British Columbia Trade Fair which closed on Saturday, June 12, after what I hope was a successful fair.\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion\nWe are informed by an article in the Vancouver Province of June 8 that the flag of Nationalist China was removed as a result of pressure from Peking, or Communist China, upon our Department of External Affairs in Ottawa which in turn exerted their authority upon the fair, Info-EXPO/71, the British Columbia International Trade Fair. The president of the fair, Mr. Hyland, as a result of this discourteous act was very humiliated and angry when he said, "I think it is a strange type of diplomacy wherein to show friendship for one party"- that is, Communist China-"you have to be rude to another," which is Nationalist China.\nMr. Speaker, I do not ask this question or raise the matter tonight because Communist China has been recognized. This was accomplished last October by the Prime Minister and his government. I believe in the de facto recognition of all nations on the face of this earth. I raise this matter tonight to put on the record the Prime Minister\'s espousal of and obsession with communism. This is so acute that he and the Secretary of State for External Affairs do not mind in the least insulting non-communist countries. Canada is a member of the United Nations and so is Nationalist China. Communist China is not.\nI have received quite a bit of information on this incident. I find that the communist, or red flag of China is a red flag bearing five stars. I find that the flag of the Republic of China, or Taiwan, is mostly red with a blue quarter which bears a 12-pointed white sun. Since these flags are dissimilar there was no international impersonation in the flying of the Nationalist flag. I am informed that the fair was flying all the flags of the participating guest countries and these flags were raised by the fair management itself. So there was no obtrusion on the part of Taiwan. I find that the first invitations to this fair were verbally issued by the Premier of British Columbia at a dinner in Ottawa about two years ago during the constitutional conference of 1969.\nI am informed that among all the countries invited, Taiwan, or the Republic of China, was the first to accept the invitation and the first to enter into a contract and to pay rent for the premises occupied. As late as last March the British Columbia government confirmed the exhibit. That was six months after this government recognized Red China, which took place in October, 1970. It is not considered in the interests of international courtesy for any country not to accept the invitation and the Taiwan government kept its word, later to be rebuffed and insulted by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.\nI submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in relation to this incident the Taiwan government was not flying its flag at the British Columbia fair under any guise of being the government of Mainland China, as was implied in the Prime Minister\'s answer to my question. I say that they were only trying to promote friendship and what is left of democracy, democratic good will and economic and profitable international trade. It is obvious that to promote his communist interests and biased leanings the Prime Minister would insult a democratic country such as Taiwan, and by doing so it is obvious that he would', 'June 15, 1971\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion just as willingly jeopardize international trade with such countries.\nI point out that this can happen, Mr. Speaker. The Globe and Mail reports on Monday, June 14,-which was immediately after this flag insult incident-that the Australian Wheat Board had signed a $10 million trade agreement with Taiwan to sell 250,000 tons of wheat to that country over the next 18 months. Mr. Speaker, Canada should have had that business. But no, the Prime Minister would rather insult Taiwan while Australia sells them wheat.\nAt the same time, the victors in this affair, Communist China, on the same page in the Globe and Mail are reported in their propaganda and in their immense numbers, 800 million strong, as saying, "Follow Chairman Mao, forever make revolution, hold high the revolutionary red flag. Brave heroes, kill the enemies."\nOne final point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that this action of the Trudeau government is not conducive to badly needed employment in this country nor to badly needed Canadian world trade. Trade with Taiwan has been quite healthy and we have benefited thereby. The latest figures that I have are for 1970. In that year this injured country bought $18J million worth of commodities from Canada, and Canada bought $51.9 million worth of commodities from them. In addition to this Taiwan, or Nationalist China, bought an atomic reactor from Canada in 1969 to be installed by Canadians, this costing about $35 million. Also, Taiwan has agreed to buy the heavy water from Canada which will be necessary in the operation of this reactor.\nI think, Mr. Speaker, that I have made my point that neither this country, its government nor its Prime Minister is big enough in world circles to insult with impunity any of our good neighbours and in this case the Prime\nMinister and our Department of External Affairs owe Taiwan an apology.\nMr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State)} Mr. Speaker, representations have been made to the Canadian government by the Chinese embassy in Ottawa concerning the flying of the so-called Nationalist flag at the B.C. International Trade Fair. These representations, however, were not necessary since the federal government had previously informed the authorities in British Columbia that the flying of the flag in question at a provincial fair was inconsistent with Canada\'s "one China" policy and with our recognition of the People\'s Republic of China as "the sole legal government of China."\nAs the House is aware, last October Canada recognized the government of the People\'s Republic of China as the sole government of China and consequently withdrew recognition from any other government claiming to be the government of China. This information was conveyed at that time to all provincial authorities. However, the government of China which Canada had previously recognized had already accepted an invitation to take part in the B.C. International Trade Fair and the authorities in British Columbia saw difficulty in withdrawing the invitation completely at that stage. They did, however, make certain modifications which would lessen any erroneous impression regarding the status of the Taiwan regime. Because Canada is endeavouring to develop a relationship with China that would be beneficial to Canada as a whole including British Columbia, we regarded it as most desirable that any confusion which might have existed at this fair be removed. This is not a question of showing friendship or courtesy but of simply being aware of what government is recognized by Canada as the government of China.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.', 'Wednesday, June 16, 1971']
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, on June 10 I directed a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) asking whether instructions had been issued by his department to Manpower and Immigration officials in the Kitchener-Water loo area that pursuant to the Official Languages Act employees must answer the telephone in French and English, and if the caller starts to speak French the employee will interrupt, indicate that he cannot speak French and that the caller will have to ask his question in English. I am very pleased the minister is in the House and I hope he will provide an explanation for the manner in which these instructions were issued.
We in the New Democratic Party supported the Official Languages Act. We took a great deal of pride in going along with that controversial measure because we felt it was something that should be tried in Canada, was worthy of our support and should be given all possible encouragement. In an election campaign a former member of this House who is now Premier of Manitoba took very considerable risks to support the official languages bill despite the advice he was getting from many people about the nature of the political dynamite with which he was dealing. I say these things as an indication that we have not waivered in our support of the Official Languages Act.
My concern, therefore, is that if instructions of this type are issued the minister should give an explanation for them. Perhaps they were misunderstood, but in this form they simply rub people the wrong way. They look ridiculous and the whole official languages' approach may be placed in jeopardy due to the insensitivity of people who issue instructions of this kind.
In my area the languages that would be most in use in immigration offices are Portugese and German. My understanding is that almost no calls come through in

June 15, 1971

French. Since it is not a bilingual district it is important for the minister to tell us why this order was given and why it was given in this particular way, because on the surface it seems a pretty hopeless approach to a problem of this kind.
Is the minister in fact only interested in having the name of the department given over the telephone in English and French and dropping the other language from there on in? This would not seem to make much sense and it certainly is not an objective of the Official Languages Act; it is not fulfilling the intent of that legislation. It is for that reason I asked for this adjournment debate, to provide the minister with an opportunity to explain why this order was issued and why it was issued in the particular form that was brought to my attention.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the hon. member bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It is a matter which was first raised with me some weeks ago by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford). The department had some instructions in connection with the use of language which were open to an interpretation that required the use of both official languages fairly universally in Canada. On the instigation of the hon. member I reviewed this matter personally and reached the conclusion it would be better if there were, in fact, a great deal of flexibility in the policy.
Of course, both languages are used in answering the telephone in the national capital region and will continue to be used in many areas where there is a significant minority group that would be served that way, especially where there are demands by people in the region for service in the minority language. The basic position at the moment is that regional directors have a discretion to determine whether in fact a significant body of the public would be served by answering the telephone in both languages.
As I say, I trust in most cases this will really mean that where there is a significant group for whom that kind of service will be of benefit, it will be generally available. In cases where there is need for service in the language of the minority, we are providing service in that language or will be doing so. I agree completely with the hon. member about the need for intelligent application of the rules and the use of both languages so that the policies which we both so strongly support may in fact work for the good of Canada as a whole.



Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on a matter pertaining to my question of last Thursday, June 10, when I attempted to obtain from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the real reason for the removal of the flag of Nationalist China from their pavilion at the recent British Columbia Trade Fair which closed on Saturday, June 12, after what I hope was a successful fair.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
We are informed by an article in the Vancouver Province of June 8 that the flag of Nationalist China was removed as a result of pressure from Peking, or Communist China, upon our Department of External Affairs in Ottawa which in turn exerted their authority upon the fair, Info-EXPO/71, the British Columbia International Trade Fair. The president of the fair, Mr. Hyland, as a result of this discourteous act was very humiliated and angry when he said, "I think it is a strange type of diplomacy wherein to show friendship for one party"- that is, Communist China-"you have to be rude to another," which is Nationalist China.
Mr. Speaker, I do not ask this question or raise the matter tonight because Communist China has been recognized. This was accomplished last October by the Prime Minister and his government. I believe in the de facto recognition of all nations on the face of this earth. I raise this matter tonight to put on the record the Prime Minister's espousal of and obsession with communism. This is so acute that he and the Secretary of State for External Affairs do not mind in the least insulting non-communist countries. Canada is a member of the United Nations and so is Nationalist China. Communist China is not.
I have received quite a bit of information on this incident. I find that the communist, or red flag of China is a red flag bearing five stars. I find that the flag of the Republic of China, or Taiwan, is mostly red with a blue quarter which bears a 12-pointed white sun. Since these flags are dissimilar there was no international impersonation in the flying of the Nationalist flag. I am informed that the fair was flying all the flags of the participating guest countries and these flags were raised by the fair management itself. So there was no obtrusion on the part of Taiwan. I find that the first invitations to this fair were verbally issued by the Premier of British Columbia at a dinner in Ottawa about two years ago during the constitutional conference of 1969.
I am informed that among all the countries invited, Taiwan, or the Republic of China, was the first to accept the invitation and the first to enter into a contract and to pay rent for the premises occupied. As late as last March the British Columbia government confirmed the exhibit. That was six months after this government recognized Red China, which took place in October, 1970. It is not considered in the interests of international courtesy for any country not to accept the invitation and the Taiwan government kept its word, later to be rebuffed and insulted by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in relation to this incident the Taiwan government was not flying its flag at the British Columbia fair under any guise of being the government of Mainland China, as was implied in the Prime Minister's answer to my question. I say that they were only trying to promote friendship and what is left of democracy, democratic good will and economic and profitable international trade. It is obvious that to promote his communist interests and biased leanings the Prime Minister would insult a democratic country such as Taiwan, and by doing so it is obvious that he would

June 15, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion just as willingly jeopardize international trade with such countries.
I point out that this can happen, Mr. Speaker. The Globe and Mail reports on Monday, June 14,-which was immediately after this flag insult incident-that the Australian Wheat Board had signed a $10 million trade agreement with Taiwan to sell 250,000 tons of wheat to that country over the next 18 months. Mr. Speaker, Canada should have had that business. But no, the Prime Minister would rather insult Taiwan while Australia sells them wheat.
At the same time, the victors in this affair, Communist China, on the same page in the Globe and Mail are reported in their propaganda and in their immense numbers, 800 million strong, as saying, "Follow Chairman Mao, forever make revolution, hold high the revolutionary red flag. Brave heroes, kill the enemies."
One final point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that this action of the Trudeau government is not conducive to badly needed employment in this country nor to badly needed Canadian world trade. Trade with Taiwan has been quite healthy and we have benefited thereby. The latest figures that I have are for 1970. In that year this injured country bought $18J million worth of commodities from Canada, and Canada bought $51.9 million worth of commodities from them. In addition to this Taiwan, or Nationalist China, bought an atomic reactor from Canada in 1969 to be installed by Canadians, this costing about $35 million. Also, Taiwan has agreed to buy the heavy water from Canada which will be necessary in the operation of this reactor.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have made my point that neither this country, its government nor its Prime Minister is big enough in world circles to insult with impunity any of our good neighbours and in this case the Prime
Minister and our Department of External Affairs owe Taiwan an apology.
Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State)} Mr. Speaker, representations have been made to the Canadian government by the Chinese embassy in Ottawa concerning the flying of the so-called Nationalist flag at the B.C. International Trade Fair. These representations, however, were not necessary since the federal government had previously informed the authorities in British Columbia that the flying of the flag in question at a provincial fair was inconsistent with Canada's "one China" policy and with our recognition of the People's Republic of China as "the sole legal government of China."
As the House is aware, last October Canada recognized the government of the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China and consequently withdrew recognition from any other government claiming to be the government of China. This information was conveyed at that time to all provincial authorities. However, the government of China which Canada had previously recognized had already accepted an invitation to take part in the B.C. International Trade Fair and the authorities in British Columbia saw difficulty in withdrawing the invitation completely at that stage. They did, however, make certain modifications which would lessen any erroneous impression regarding the status of the Taiwan regime. Because Canada is endeavouring to develop a relationship with China that would be beneficial to Canada as a whole including British Columbia, we regarded it as most desirable that any confusion which might have existed at this fair be removed. This is not a question of showing friendship or courtesy but of simply being aware of what government is recognized by Canada as the government of China.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Wednesday, June 16, 1971