1972-04-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Foster.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move under Standing Order 43 a motion of urgent importance with regard to the fate of coal mining communities in the province of Nova Scotia, especially those depending upon independent coal mining operations.
In 1967 an agreement was reached between the federal government and the government of the province of Nova Scotia which resulted in the federal government assuming responsibility for the former Dosco mine operations on the understanding that the government of the province of Nova Scotia would assume full responsibility for independent coal mining operations in that province. As a result, the federal government established a Crown corporation known as Devco and the provincial government assumed obligations, including the payment of subventions or a substitute for subventions, for the coal produced by independent coal mine operations. At the present time in Nova Scotia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that under the provisions of Standing Order 43 he should not make a speech in support of the motion. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 hon. members are entitled to make a motion without notice, but this can only be done in very exceptional circumstances. The hon. member should indicate as quickly as possible the motion he proposes for consideration of the House.


Robert Carman Coates: I felt it was only proper to give members an opportunity to have some understanding of the agreement I would like to see referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development. The problem is related to the fact that the coal mining operations in a number of communities in Nova Scotia that are the responsibility of the provincial government are now being threatened. I believe
that the original agreement between the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia is now being breached.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he should indicate what his motion is. If all hon. members are allowed to make three or four minute speeches in support of proposed motions under Standing Order 43, I suggest that would lead to difficulties. I would hope we can count on the co-operation of hon. members to indicate as quickly as possible any motion they may have in mind.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the agreement between the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North. This motion, moved under the terms of Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



AUTOMOBILES-HIGHER CANADIAN PRICES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, . I rise to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order , 43. It arises out of the revelation today that North American auto producers are reaping an excess profit of $150 million at the expense of the average Canadian as a result of their charging approximately $300 more for a Canadian-made car in Canada than they do for an identical car in the United States. Such prices are not only-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to bring to the attention of the hon. member the considerations I brought to the attention of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North. There is no provision at all in the Standing Order or in the practice of the House that allows hon. members to make speeches in support of a motion under Standing Order 43. To do so is entirely against the spirit of that rule. Hon. members should indicate as quickly as possible, without speeches, what the motion is that is proposed under the terms of the Standing Order.

April 26, 1972
Automobile Prices


John Edward Broadbent: I heed your admonition, Mr. Speaker. I ask leave to move, seconded by my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House urges the Prime Minister to summon to Ottawa next week the heads of the North American automotive companies in Canada with a view to instructing them that within a three-month period factory list prices for their products in Canada should be on the average at par with the prices for the identical product sold in the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put at this time.



AUTOMOBILES-POSSIBLE UNLAWFUL PRICE PRACTICES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

['There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.']
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales):
That this House, holding the opinion that offences are being committed under Part V of the Combines Investigation Act, orders the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs forthwith to cause inquiry to be made into the following question: whether all four automobile manufacturers in Canada have committed and are following unlawful trade practices by discriminating against Canadian consumers by charging Canadian dealers what appears to be about 10 per cent more than they charge United States dealers for made-in-Canada cars.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is also proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. I have to inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


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



Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), to move a motion under Standing Order 43 concerning the proposed French nuclear tests. I move:
That this House is of the opinion that inasmuch as Canadian government policy is opposed to further nuclear proliferation by all nuclear powers; and inasmuch as a motion was passed by this House on October 15, 1971, protesting the United States underground test at Amchitka,
Therefore be it resolved that this House of Commons express its unequivocal objection to the proposed atmospheric nuclear test scheduled this summer by the government of France over the South Pacific and that we communicate this motion to the President of France forthwith.


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 unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister ol Manpower and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-195, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much money has been allocated under the federal government's Local Initiatives Program to (a) municipalities (b) local groups, etc. in each province?
2.	What criteria were used in the provincial allocations for both municipalities and local groups, etc.?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. As at March 17, 1972, the following sums had been allocated to municipalities and local groups in each province under the Local Initiatives Program:
	Private	Municipal
	$	$
Newfoundland	6,603,143	3,312,039Nova Scotia	7,775,356	2,620,640Prince Edward Island	1,524,687	522,707New Brunswick	6,654,816	2,576,686Quebec	39,008,426	24,069,219Ontario	14,277,652	7,729,497Manitoba	3,428,396	1,937,847Saskatchewan	2,557,885	1,409,231Alberta	4,240,750	3,714,612Northwest Territories	602,839	442,131British Columbia	9,171,991	4,328,213Yukon Territory	312,269	115,5502.	The allocation was made proportionate to unemployment in the provinces to the base rate of 4.5 percent unemployment and adjusted for out migration and native

April 26, 1972

population that would not otherwise be reflected in unemployment figures.


ATLANTIC REGION FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. Muir: How much of the subsidy paid to highway carriers under (a) The Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act on shipments from select territory to points outside select territory (b) the Special Regulations issued under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act and approved by Order-in-Council P.C. 1970-2015 dated November 17, 1970, has been paid on shipments having their origin in that part of the Province of Quebec included in the definition of select territory as found in the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission reports as follows: The information is not available in the form requested and the Commission does not have the necessary staff to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to prepare the information in the said form.


SUBSIDIES TO HIGHWAY CARRIERS ON WESTBOUND MOVEMENTS FROM SELECT TERRITORY, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Muir: In accordance with the recommendations of the report of May 6, 1970, of the Federal-Provincial Committee on Atlantic Transportation, has the government taken any steps to provide for the payment of subsidies on westbound movements out of select territory to highway carriers on the same basis as they are calculated and provided to the railways, thereby bringing the payments to the highway carriers to the same level per unit of traffic as that now paid to the railways?


Gérard Duquet: The government has not taken steps to provide for the payment of subsidies on westbound movements out of the select territory to highway carriers on the same basis as they are calculated and provided to the railways.


SUBSIDY ON USED HOUSEHOLD GOODS CARRIED BY HIGHWAY TRANSPORT FROM SELECT TERRITORY, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Muir: 1.	In accordance with the recommendation of the report of May 6, 1970, of the Federal-Provincial Committee on Atlantic Transportation, has the government taken any action to eliminate the subsidy now being paid on used household goods carried by highway transport from select territory to points outside select territory?
2.	How much money has been paid under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act to highway carriers for the movement of used household goods from the select territory to points outside of select territory since the implementation of the subsidy provision of the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission reports as follows: 1. No.
2.	$558,726.00 for the period July 9, 1969 to March 1, 1972.
Questions


ALCOHOLISM IN CANADA
Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the estimated number of alcoholics in Canada?
2.	On what definition of an alcoholic is this estimate based?
3.	What is the alcoholic rate among native Canadian peoples?
4.	What is the relationship between alcoholism and homicides?
5.	What is the relationship between alcoholism and traffic death?
6.	What is the estimated number of years which alcoholism can cut off an imbiber's life?
7.	What is the estimated cost to the Canadian economy of alcoholism?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Transport as follows:
1.	It is estimated that over 600,000 Canadians consume a hazardous amount of alcohol, and that of this number one half may be termed alcoholics.
2.	The level of hazard referred to above is consumption of 100 millilitres of absolute alcohol daily, and that for the alcoholic 150 millilitres.
3.	No precise data are available to answer this question.
4.	It seems, from data available, that the incidence of homicides among alcoholics is higher than for the general population.
5.	Data obtained by the Department of Transport indicates that drivers who have a drinking problem are 20 times more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than drivers who are not problem drinkers.
6.	Estimates vary but range between eight and twelve years.
7.	No reliable data is available to answer this question. The estimated cost would include: lost of productive worktime, health and welfare costs, property damages.


BORDEN-TORMENTINE FERRY SERVICE-INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL FACILITIES ON VACATIONLAND AND HOLIDAY ISLAND FERRIES
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Has the Department of Transport been in consultation with the Government of Prince Edward Island regarding the inadequacy of the stairs on the Vacationland and the Holiday Island, the two new car ferries operating on the Borden-Tormentine Ferry service and, if so, with what result?
2.	Is it the intention of the Department of Transport to provide escalators or elevators on these ships, or to make some other modifications to reduce the amount of stair-climbing that passengers will have to do before the commencement of the 1972 season?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Yes. (note answer to number 2).
2. The investigation by the Department of Transport into the question of the use of the stairs revealed that some people, primarily the elderly and handicapped passengers, found it difficult to climb the stairs to the upper deck where washroom facilities are located. Since major alterations would be required to change the design of the ship superstructure to accommodate escalators or elevators, a decision was made to locate additional washroom facilities on the lower car deck. These new facilities are presently being installed and they will be ready in time for

April 26, 1972
Questions
the 1972 summer season. The situation will be monitored during the summer and if further problems occur appropriate action will be taken wherever possible.


CONSTRUCTION OF COAL SLURRY PIPELINE FROM EAST KOOTENAYS TO ROBERTS BANK, B.C.
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): Is the government currently involved in discussions on the proposed construction of a coal slurry pipeline from the East Koote-nays to Roberts Bank, British Columbia and, if so, who are the other parties presently involved in such discussions?


Gérard Duquet: Transportation Development Agency advise as follows: The feasibility of the coal slurry pipeline referred to is being investigated by Shelpac Ltd. (slurry pipeline consultants) for Canadian Pacific Ltd. The proposed pipeline will extend from the East Koote-nays to Roberts Bank, British Columbia and thus it is strictly within the jurisdiction of the British Columbia government. No official discussions with the federal government on the proposed pipeline construction have been made or are underway.


NATIONAL REVENUE-DISPOSITION OF OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): What was the disposition of objections and appeals arising from assessments made by (a) the Penticton District Office of the Department of National Revenue (Taxation Division) (b) the other District Offices located in the Province of British Columbia (c) all of the 28 District Offices in Canada, over the past five years?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: In so
far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned:
Offices and Withdrawn or	Allowed	Allowedfiscal years dismissed	in part	in full
No. % No. % No. %
Penticton
1972	
40	44	33	36	18	201971	
65	50	37	28	31	221970	
50	32	70	45	36	231969	
49	43	35	31	29	261968	
27	44	21	34	14	22Total	231	42	196	35	128	23
Other B.C. Offices
1972	
258	41	213	33	167	261971	
295	44	210	31	170	251970	
304	44	194	28	198	281969	
204	35	184	32	187	331968	
203	40	128	25	182	35Total	1,264	41	929	30	904	29
All Canada Offices
1972	
3,230	40	2,839	35	2,111	251971	
3,744	39	3,295	34	2,587	271970	
3,144	36	2,722	31	2,826	331969	
2,705	35	2,345	31	2,574	341968	
2,415	35	2,044	30	2,351	35Total	
15,238	37	13,245	33	12,449	30


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT-COMPLIANCE LABEL REQUIREMENTS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With regard to regulations under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act requiring all vehicles manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada subsequent to January 1, 1971, to carry a label specifying month and year of manufacture (a) what methods are being taken to enforce these regulations (b) will penalties be invoked for failure to comply and, if so, what are they (c) have any prosecutions been initiated to this date?


Gérard Duquet: (a) The Department of Transport ensures compliance with the compliance label requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations, by obtaining a signed declaration from importers relating to each vehicle, by auditing manufacturers' and importers' records, by inspecting vehicles at Customs Ports of Entry or in possession of importers, by investigating inquiries from the public and by inspecting of manufacturers' operations in Canada, (b) Violators of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act are liable to a fine in summary conviction of $1,000 to $10,000 or upon conviction by indictment of $5,000 to $200,000 depending whether he is an individual or a corporation, (c) No.


PEI NATIONAL PARK-NUMBER OF VISITORS TO COVEHEAD HARBOUR
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	For the past 20 years, has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development any estimate of the number of visitors to Covehead Harbour in the Prince Edward Island National Park?
2.	For the same period, what amounts have been expended by the government in improving and extending the harbour facilities at this port?
3.	What is the estimated expenditure for this port in the forthcoming fiscal year?


James Alexander Jerome: The Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Public Works advise as follows:
1. Year	Visitors	Year	Visitors1950-51	87,851	1960-61	412,4631951-52	107,981	1961-62	775,5831952-53	122,290	1962-63	1,009,0211953-54	146,827	1963-64	1,019,1041954-55	158,984	1964-65	1,112,5361955-56	172,884	1965-66	967,3721956-57	181,692	1966-67	1,130,7731957-58	200,748	1967-68	769,9701958-59	206,245	1968-69	1,345,7991959-60	224,781	1969-70	1,288,350
These figures represent the number of visitors to Prince Edward Island National Park only. Visitors figures for specific areas of the Park are not available.
2.	$73,029.13.
3.	$1,500 for maintenance.

April 26, 1972


INSPECTION OF MECHANICAL FITNESS OF INTERPROVINCIAL TRANSPORTS
Mr. Mather: Are checks by federal inspectors carried out on commercial interprovincial trucks and buses in highway use and, if so (a) what percentage of checked vehicles have been found to have mechanical deficiencies (b) are such vehicles ordered out of service until the deficiencies are corrected?


Gérard Duquet: Federal government inspectors do not check the mechanical condition of commercial trucks and buses in interprovincial operations as regulation of the mechanical fitness of such vehicles is a provincial responsibility.


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT-SAFETY STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TIRES
Mr. Mather: In line with motor vehicle safety standards, are tire dealers required to complete a written record of the purchaser's name and address and the tire identification numbers in the sale of new or retreaded auto tires?


Gérard Duquet: The federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations contain safety standards applicable to the tires provided with new motor vehicles manufactured in or imported into Canada. The provincial governments issue and enforce standards for replacement tires but have not as yet established any requirement that dealers maintain records of tire purchases.


CONSTRUCTION COST OF DAM ON SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What were the construction costs of the dam on the Saskatchewan River?
2.	Was the Bank of Canada responsible for the financing of this project and, if so (a) what amount was loaned (b) at what rate of interest (c) for how many years (d) what are the payment terms?
Mr. ]. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Finance as follows: 1. For the Government of Canada, the construction costs for the South Saskatchewan River Dam, incurred between April 1, 1958 and March 31, 1972, totalled $91,006,828.
2. The Bank of Canada was not involved in the financing of the dam on the Saskatchewan River.
ISSUANCE OF COMMEMORATIVE STAMP ON 100th ANNIVERSARY OF DEATH OF JOSEPH HOWE

Question No. 438-Mr. Dinsdale:
Is the Post Office Department planning to issue a commemorative stamp next year on the centenary of the death of Joseph Howe, recognizing the contribution of this distinguished Nova Scotia statesman to freedom of the press and responsible government?
Questions


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: The 100th anniversary of the death of Joseph Howe is among those subjects being reviewed as possible themes for Canada Post Office commemorative stamps in 1973.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES INCOME TAX AND SOURCE DEDUCTIONS
Mr. Godin: 1.	What percentage of his income does a resident of the Northwest Territories, who works in the Territories, pay in Income Tax?
2.	What percentage of his income does a resident of Quebec, who works in the Northwest Territories, have deducted at the source for Income Tax?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so
far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: 1. A person resident in the Northwest Territories on December 31, 1971, calculates his tax in the same manner as other residents of Canada, except that he is not liable for provincial tax and not entitled to the abatement for provincial taxes, because he is not a resident in any of the provinces at the end of the year. The actual percentage of tax paid is contingent on the amount of the person's taxable income.
2. It is not possible to determine the percentage of income to be deducted for income tax purposes without having the following information: (a) Employee's rate of pay; (b) Employee's personal exemption, and (c) Whether the employee is required to report for work at an establishment of the employer in the Northwest Territories.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM
Mr. Burton: 1.	What was the initial allocation of funds under the Local Initiatives Program for each province at the time that the program was announced?
2.	(a) What number of applications were received from each province (b) what was the total estimated cost to the government of assistance requested?
3.	What number of applications were approved from each province?
4.	What is the estimated federal cost of the Local Initiatives Program by province?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. No allocation of Local Initiatives Program funds was made at the time the program was announced.
2.	(a) Newfoundland, 1142; Nova Scotia, 1009; Prince Edward Island, 258; New Brunswick, 712; Quebec, 5215; Ontario, 2238; Manitoba, 594; Saskatchewan, 493; Alberta, 607; Northwest Territories, 109; British Columbia, 1323; Yukon Territory, 36. (b) $482,747,000.
3.	Newfoundland, 400; Nova Scotia, 430; Prince Edward Island, 114; New Brunswick, 385; Quebec, 1979; Ontario, 1007; Manitoba, 201; Saskatchewan, 174; Alberta, 310; Northwest Territories, 35; British Columbia, 642; Yukon Territory, 22.
4.	Newfoundland, $9,900,113; Nova Scotia, $10,395,996; Prince Edward Island, $2,047,394; New Brunswick, $9,173,511; Quebec, $62,698,549; Ontario, $22,175,018; Manitoba, $5,365,159; Saskatchewan, $4,029,018; Alberta, $8,027,r

April 26, 1972
Orders for Returns
544; Northwest Territories, $1,039,483; British Columbia, $13,670, 599; Yukon Territory, $428,058.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Horner: How much money has the government spent in each of the past ten years on the ports of (a) Halifax (b) Quebec (c) Montreal (d) Toronto (e) Prince Rupert (f) Vancouver (g) Saint John (h) Churchill?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR-NUMBER OF CONTRACTS AWARDED FOR PUBLICITY
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Were any contracts awarded by the Department of Labour (including the Unemployment Insurance Commission) for publicity and/or information in the fiscal year 1970-71 and, if so (a) what were the names and addresses of firms which received such contracts (b) what was the amount of each such contract (c) what was the specific purpose of each such contract?
2.	Do the main and supplementary estimates of the Department for the fiscal year 1971-72 provide an amount to be spent on publicity and/or information and, if so (a) what amount is provided (b) what amounts have been encumbered or spent to date (c) what are the names and addresses of the private firms which have entered into such contracts (d) what is the amount of money involved in each such contract (e) what is the specific purpose of each such contract?
Return tabled.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the failure of the government to answer question No. 475, which asks:
1.	Who are the members of the Special Planning and Research group attached to the Solicitor General's department?
2.	What is the authority or area of responsibility of the said group?
3.	In what manner is the choice made of the members of the said group?
4.	Who is the head or senior member thereof?
That question has been on the order paper since March 29. This House has a right to know who these people are in this special corps. Are they incognitos or inconnus? There should be no difficulty whatever in answering that question. The people of Canada want to know who are the personnel of the Solicitor General's "security selects anonymous".


Mr. Hogarth:: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the right hon. member's suggestion to the Solicitor General's attention.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to look into questions Nos. 197, 198 and 199 which have been on the order paper since February 24 and which were on the order paper for some time in the last session.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I will draw the appropriate minister's attention to the hon. member's remarks.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 35 and 41.



FEASIBILITY STUDY ON MARGINAL DAIRY FARMING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 24-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the feasibility study on marginal dairy farming undertaken for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the fiscal year 1967-68, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament excluding confidential references to individuals or individual firms.
Mr. John Roberts (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the study requested was research undertaken for use by officials in programs planning and was intended solely for internal use. I would therefore request the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, this motion has to do with regional economic expansion. I feel that the people of Canada are entitled to know what type of programs the government has in mind.


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND CNR RELATING TO CNR PENSION PLAN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 25-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Transport and the CNR pertaining to recommendations of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications concerning the CNR Pension Plan.
Mr.Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, the correspondence which the hon. member requests in this motion pertains to the internal operation of a Crown corporation and is considered privileged and confidential. The hon. member may therefore wish to withdraw his motion.
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, the CNR pension plan happens to be pretty important to many people in this country. I call for the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF STUDY BY DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION REGARDING EFFECTS OF INCREASE IN FREIGHT RATES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 26-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study undertaken in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion regarding the effects of increase in freight rates on regional economic expansion as mentioned by the Minister of Regional Eco-
[Mr. MackaseyJ
April 26, 1972
[Stage Direction]
nomic Expansion and reported in Hansard of March 18, 1970 at page 5184.
John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the department studies the impact of various federal programs as part of a continuing appraisal of slow growth regions. However, this is designed to assist in drafting policies and programs rather than to produce formal reports. Therefore, since there is no report which could be tabled I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE DATED SEPTEMBER 17, )970 BETWEEN CNR AND MINISTER OF TRANSPORT RELATING TO CNR PENSION PLAN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 35-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the correspondence, dated September 17,1970, between the President of the CNR and the Minister of Transport outlining the company's position on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications concerning the CNR Pension Plan.
Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, this question is of the same type as the previous one. As it concerns again a matter of internal operation, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, we certainly cannot withdraw this one. I call for the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF REPORT OF COMMITTEE CREATED TO DEAL WITH PROGRAM TO HELP SMALL FARMS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the final report of the Technical Committee created by the Minister of Agriculture to deal with the development of a national program to help the small farms in Canada as well as any documents, letters or communications related to the Technical Committee.
Mr. Baldwin:: I move the motion for the hon. member.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, the technical committee referred to by the hon. member was established by the 11 ministers of agriculture and any reports from this committee would be made to the ministers and considered confidential documents. I would therefore request that the hon. member withdraw the motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this affects the small farmers in Canada, in whom this party is
Inquiries of the Ministry
very interested, I would ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I would ask again that the parliamentary secretary make inquiries about notices of motions Nos. 16 and 18, both in my name. They were placed on the order paper on February 24, over two months ago. Surely the government should be able to give some indication of its response by now, particularly since most of its responses are negative.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, I will pass on the hon. member's remarks to the appropriate minister.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of the rather sleek economic review tabled by the Minister of Finance yesterday in which it is stated that "it is expected that real growth will continue to surpass its trend rate through 1972." I am not asking the Prime Minister to interpret what this jargon means, but I would ask him to tell the House what is the specific goal of the government during 1972 in respect of real economic growth?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will be pleased to take notice of this question on behalf of the minister, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I accept that, of course, Mr. Speaker, but I am rather surprised the Prime Minister does not know what that objective is. In view of the position taken by the Economic Council of Canada that the rate or real growth attained even during the last six months of 1971, which seems to have fallen off, would mean that the rate of unemployment would not fall even to 4 per cent in three years, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to take any new initiatives to spur on the real growth of the economy with a view to reducing the rate of unemployment within some reasonable time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can announce today, but the Leader of the Opposition might want to take note of the fact that the rate of real growth in

April 26, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
this country has been higher than predicted by the Economic Council.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the very complacent answer the Prime Minister has given, is the government prepared to accept the continuing high rate of unemployment at existing levels?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When is the Prime Minister going to tell us what he will do about it, Mr. Speaker?



INDUSTRY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact North American automotive producers are making excess profits in Canada of about $150 million as a result of charging Canadians on the average $300 more for a car made in Canada than they do for the identical product in the United States, would the Prime Minister consider requesting that the heads of the North American auto companies in Canada meet with him next week with a view to effecting a meaningful reduction in prices to approximate or full parity with prices in the United States within a three-month period?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to draw this representation to the attention of the minister.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact the Prime Minister indicated that no action is viewed seriously in this direction by his government, would he consider announcing or having the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announce to the House within the next few days measures the government intends to take that would effectively reduce automotive prices and subsequently result in an increase in employment in that industry because the price of cars would then become closer to the price of foreign imports and thus lead to the creation of more jobs in this country? Does he intend to move in this direction at all?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is false but as to the willingness of the minister to discuss this problem, he has constantly indicated to the House his willingness to do so.



ELECTIONS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the original question. When is the Prime Minister going to take the one major initiative which will eventually result in restoring confidence in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to call-


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



AGRICULTURE


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture to the effect that some companies would want a share of the subsidy paid to pork producers, what steps does the department intend to take to advise producers so that this truly deplorable situation might be avoided?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for putting the question. It gives us one more opportunity to advise farmers of the situation. The statement of the Minister of Agriculture having been made publicly, the newspapers will surely by now have reported it, so that I feel the pork producers of Canada and Quebec will be informed of the situation and will take steps accordingly.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Considering that some producers do not regularly read newspapers, has the Price Stabilization Board taken steps to advise producers, by sending a publication to them or to slaughterhouses?


Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-Iean):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. I will check and inform the hon. member.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. According to the text of a television interview released today, the Prime Minister referred to tough negotiations
April 26, 1972

that are currently taking place between Canada and France in respect of that country's claim to certain portions of the continental shelf off eastern Canada. In light of the treaty of 1763 by which Britain ceded St. Pierre and Miquelon to France, has the government of Canada taken any position whereby Canada would concede any portion of the continental shelf to France in light of the provisions of that treaty?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the upshot of my comments was that we had been discussing various forms of an agreement with France and, as in negotiations of this type, both parties had different points of view and no agreement had been reached yet. But we are hopeful that one can be reached in the future on the basis of the different propositions, either from Canada or from the French.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the Prime Minister what position Canada is taking with respect to the provisions of the Treaty of Paris of 1763, amd may I also ask the Prime Minister whether the province of Newfoundland has been consulted with respect to these negotiations, bearing in mind that province's special claim to the continental shelf as a result of the Act of Union of 1949?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is hard to have a unique opinion on the Treaty of Paris of 1763. Various results flowed from it for various parts of the country. I can only say that it is an historic fact, that we in Quebec are prepared to live with it and I hope that you in Newfoundland are also prepared to live with it.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the Prime Minister whether Canada is prepared to concede that France has any claim whatsoever to any portion of the continental shelf off eastern Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be to the advantage of Canada for me to say publicly what our negotiating posture is. But the hon. member himself must realize that in so far as there is any territorial water at all around an island, some of it must lie over the continental shelf.


INDUSTRY
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would he give consideration to examining the original agreement entered into between the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia with regard to the take-over of Dosco Mines in Nova Scotia and make a statement in the House on whether or not the government of the province of Nova Scotia is living up to its end of that agreement?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister oi Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, part of that agreement is not under my administration but under that of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
With regard to the McBean mine, if that is what the hon. member has in mind, I would be prepared to consider making a statement in the House on the government's position about continuation of the mining operation.


Robert Carman Coates: Would the minister, in co-operation with his colleague, examine the position of the province of Nova Scotia with regard to its obligation to undertake the responsibility for all independent coal mine operations in Nova Scotia because of the agreement of the federal government to assume obligation for the Dosco operations in Cape Breton? From that point of view I wonder whether the minister would consider making a statement to indicate whether or not the government of Nova Scotia is living up to its part of the agreement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am certainly prepared to discuss that with my colleague.


SUGGESTED ENLARGEMENT OF JURISDICTION OF DEVCO TO INCLUDE THORBURN COLLIERY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, the minister may have already answered my supplementary question, but would he consider, while he is looking over the general situation, enlarging the jurisdiction of Devco to include control over the Thorburn colliery since there is already an indirect administrative connection?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada entered into an agreement with the government of Nova Scotia and the colliery itself for the phasing out of that particular operation. The coal body in essence has been substantially exhausted at this time and it was agreed that the government of the province of Nova Scotia would assume the responsibility for the winding up of the mine operation. As the hon. member knows, I have seen the respective interests down there and communicated to them the government's decision: it would be in the best interests of all concerned to take other means, such as manpower policies, to deal with that situation rather than to try to keep a virtually exhausted mine going.



POLLUTION


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the answer he gave me on April 21 as recorded at page 1515 of Hansard in which the minister indicated that Cherry Point was not necessarily a terminal for the TAPS program. Has his
1648

April 26, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
attention been drawn to the fact that a United States official has stated in Washington that a survey is now being made of the waters adjacent to Cherry Point to a depth of 90 feet with a view to accommodating oil tankers of some 500,000 tons? In view of the fact this survey is being made, is the Canadian government now prepared to change its position and to ask the U.S. government to join with Canada in making a joint submission to the International Joint Commission with respect to the entire TAPS program?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with some of the representations that have been made and the work that is going on. The view of the Canadian government is that the moving of oil to Cherry Point is not an essential part of the TAPS program. We have been urging upon the United States, if it does decide to go ahead with the TAPS program, that the oil should not be brought into Cherry Point. The government has made this position very plain and it is well known to the United States. Of course, they make the decision since the oil will move through American waters only and not through Canadian. On the other hand, I suggested to Secretary of State Rogers when he was here that there might be a joint reference to the International Joint Commission on the whole question of pollution in that very beautiful vacation land that none of us want to see despoiled. That is under consideration. As I said to the hon. gentleman, it is not possible, of course, to make a recommendation unless we do have the support of the United States. This we are trying to obtain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, while undoubtedly the minister is correct that the Cherry Point refinery can get crude oil from other sources, in view of the fact that a survey is now going on which would indicate that a decision has been made to use Cherry Point as the terminal for the TAPS program, may I ask the minister whether he has made any formal application to the United States government asking them to join with Canada in a reference to the International Joint Commission?


Mitchell William Sharp: Surveys do not imply decisions. There have been many surveys made which were aborted by later decisions. I have made formal representations to the Secretary of State that he should join with me in making a reference to the IJC. I have not yet had a response.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having regard to consideration that is being given to this question in the United States, I ask the minister whether or not Canada has given or will give consideration now to recognizing Jerusalem as the historic and lawful capital of Israel and accept Israel's right to designate her capital city, and in so doing would he move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?


Mitchell William Sharp: The kind of considerations that are now weighing with the Canadian government are exactly the same as weighed with my right hon. friend when he was the Prime Minister of Canada. We do not want to jeopardize in any way the possibility of a peaceful settlement of the dispute. I am sure he would join with me in that wish.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister always goes back to other days. I am asking him about today. Is he aware of the fact that the Republican House Leader, Gerald Ford, in the United States, has proposed that this be done now-not ten years ago but now-and will the minister say therefore that consideration is being given to this matter? I ask that because of his pretended affection for Israel.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Of course consideration is being given constantly to this question because I do know the views of the government of Israel, but, like many other countries, we have not felt it desirable to complicate the negotiations for a peaceful settlement between Israel and her Arab neighbours, just as my right hon. friend seems to have taken these considerations into account when he had the responsibility of office.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I now rise on a question of privilege. As usual, the minister manufactured an answer. The matter never came up nor was it ever suggested during that period of time.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint ]ohn-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister been in touch with the province of Quebec this week, and can he say when parallel action will be taken by that province with respect to the ban on salmon fishing that has been applied in other provinces?


Hon. lack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: I had discussions with the province of Quebec about two months ago. The substance of the announcements of the last few days has been transmitted to that province but I have not heard from Quebec in reply.


ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY CLOSURES-SUGGESTED TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO OTHER PROVINCES IN ADDITION TO QUEBEC
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the minister's statement yesterday that the province of Quebec will take similar action on its salmon rivers can the minister indicate whether that province has been given jurisdiction and control over its salmon fishery? If so, will similar consideration be given to the provinces of
April 26, 1972

New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, the province of Quebec has been administering the federal Fisheries Act since the early 1920's.


John Howard Lundrigan: Would the minister answer the second and most important part of my question? Perhaps I ought to repeat my question. Let me get back to the important issue of 1972 and ask the minister whether, in view of the fact he has taken action against New Brunswick and against Newfoundland last week, he will give consideration to having that type of resource administered by these provinces inasmuch as Quebec has had control of that resource since the 1920's, as the minister ought to know?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the action to which the hon. member is referring is assistance in support of a fishery which is in difficult straits. I have not had any offer either from the maritime provinces or from Newfoundland with respect to helping finance this compensation program.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We shall have to move on. The hon. member has asked two supplementaries on this subject. Perhaps he might be recognized for a last supplementary and then we will go to the hon. member for Kent-Essex.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase my question because I am not communicating very well with the minister. Last week the minister made a unilateral decision imposing a ban on the fisheries of New Brunswick and Newfoundland without consultation with the provinces or even with his own officials. In view of the fact that this arrangement has been imposed on the province of Newfoundland, which could not have been imposed if it had not been part of Canada, is the minister considering having that resource at least under joint control with the provinces or administered in some way so that we will have some input into it as a provincial jurisdiction?


John (Jack) Davis: The simple answer, Mr. Speaker, is no, but the premise of the question is wrong. There has been consultation. I spoke with the ministers responsible for fisheries in the maritime provinces, with the Premier of Newfoundland, and with their senior officials beforehand.


NUMBER OF NURSES TRAINED FOR FIELD SERVICE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the great scarcity of medical doctors and the establishment of paramedical training courses, would the minister state the number of nurses who are now being trained for field service and indicate how soon they will be operative?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question might be more appropriately placed on the order paper. I do not have the precise figure with me, but I will try to let the hon. member know.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister would have it, from the speech he made the other night in Hamilton.




Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What action is the government taking in response to the renewed crisis in Viet Nam and the appeal by the Secretary General of the United Nations to end the bombing of North Viet Nam and to reconvene the Geneva Conference so that this tragic war may finally be brought to an end?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government was not consulted by the Secretary General of the United Nations before he made his offer of good offices, but we have indicated that we would be prepared to co-operate with him in any way, either by the provision of observers or anything of this kind, if suitable terms can be worked out, or in any other way that might be useful. I think it may be partly as a result of the efforts made by the Secretary General that the Paris peace talks have been resumed, and I think the hon. member and myself are both gratified that that much progress has been made. There is no prospect whatsoever, I think, of any reassembly of the Geneva group.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I point out that the hon. member for Egmont put a question to the Prime Minister yesterday in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs related to action in regard to Canadian personnel who perhaps are in war zones in South Viet Nam. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs any answer with respect to that matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker. It is rather long and I do not know whether I would be permitted to make it now, because I think I should give some detail.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister might like to give this information on motions at some other time.
25104-45!

April 26, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette ):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Yesterday, Max Gros-Louis stated that he had asked the federal government to intervene in connection with the James Bay development project. Can the minister tell us whether he has received such a request and, if so, what does his department intend to do about it?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have effectively received such a request from the Quebec Indian Association and we are now considering the situation. I will soon get in touch with the Quebec Indian Association in that connection.


Roch La Salle: I would like to direct a supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Can he tell us if he is now engaged in consultations with the Quebec government and if the latter has also requested the federal government's co-operation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter several times either with the premier or with other Quebec ministers and, of course, we are ready to co-operate in order to find a solution agreeable to all.


ASSISTANCE TO JAMES BAY AREA INDIANS IN OPPOSING HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I again ask the Minister for Indian Affairs whether, in light of the requests for assistance from the Indian Association of Quebec, he can assure that group that the Indians in the James Bay area will be helped by his department if they request legal assistance in their dispute with the government of Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have already said, Mr. Speaker, that we would be ready to help Indians in seeking a solution to the problem they are facing in the James Bay area. If the whole thing boils down to some kind of legal assistance, we shall be glad to consider this request in due course.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who was in his seat just a minute ago, but I shall address it to

his parliamentary secretary. It deals with a number of complaints I have received, and I am sure other hon. members have received similar complaints, regarding unemployed people who have received overpayments. In most cases these overpayments were caused by errors made by the staff of the unemployment insurance offices during that state of confusion they went through. Now these claimants are being asked to repay this money. What steps will be taken in this regard?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has returned to the chamber I will put my question again. It deals with the large number of claimants who have been assessed for overpayments. In most cases these overpayments were due to errors made by the staff in the unemployment insurance offices during the recent state of confusion they went through. Will these claimants be expected to repay these overpayments, or will each case have an individual assessment?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the custom has always been in these types of cases, to discuss the individual problem rather than give a blanket ruling. If there have been any errors because of the administration during what the hon. member quite properly describes as a period of confusion, every effort will be made with the individual to make the repayments as easy as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I note that there are a number of supplementaries sought, but hon. members should realize that we are running short of time and perhaps we should try to limit supplementaries. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.


Mr. Yewchuk:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Athabasca has been trying to ask a question supplementary to the previous one, and he might be recognized for that purpose.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I had to rise on a point of order in order to get your attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member rises on a point of order that is a different matter. I will hear the point of order.


Paul Yewchuk: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I just want to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has already recognized the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, and immediately thereafter I will recognize the hon. member for his supplementary. I think that would be more orderly.




Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Has the United States government indicated to Canada any intention of phasing down its base operation at Goose Bay or has it indicated its intention to maintain operations as at present?


Hon. E. I. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are presently going on with respect to United States operations at Goose Bay. When I have additional information that I can give to the hon. member, I shall be pleased to do so.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It has to do with difficulties connected with the James Bay power development project. Would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions early next week, on Monday or Tuesday, outlining the position and action that he and his department have taken in regard to protecting the rights of the Indian people involved in the area?
[Trans lation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday officials of my department met the representatives of the Indian Association of Quebec who submitted a proposal. I intend to discuss the matter personally with the Indian Association of Quebec before announcing the government's position in this respect.


Paul Yewchuk: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Perhaps it is a related question, but since we are dealing with our first citizens may I direct my question to the Minister of Justice who I hope has had placed before him by the Prime Minister the matter of Judge Collins and his use of some derogatory remarks with regard to our first citizens.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My question is-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for a supplementary question. If hon. members seek and obtain the floor for the purpose of asking supplementary questions which are not supplementary questions, there will be grave disorder during the question period. The hon. member wishes to ask a related question. I am prepared to recognize him for that purpose and he will be allowed to ask his question. I make these remarks as a caution to hon. members not to seek the floor for supple-mentaries when the questions are not really supplemen-taries. Having made these general remarks, the hon. member can proceed to ask his question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hope that at this particular stage of the question period, when we are talking about the rights of Canada's first citizens, we may ask questions about judges who are making derogatory remarks against them. If they are not to be treated as citizens it is meaningless for us to discuss their problems in regard to the James Bay project.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not ask the Chair to rule on that kind of point of order. He is obviously out of order. He was recognized for the purpose of asking a question which really was not a supplementary question. That is my ruling. However, he is still recognized for the purpose of asking the question to which he has just referred.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Justice again. Is the government prepared to make some statement, since it has had the opportunity of looking at this matter for some four months, on what the government's attitude is regarding the statement made by Judge Collins of Sudbury regarding Canada's first citizens? Has he looked into the matter and is he now prepared to make a statement in order that we may be advised whether this country is a multicultural country or not?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister oi Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been gone into thoroughly. May I say I regret that the hon. member, with his legal mind, would liken one situation to another, which can cause great unfairness to individual people involved, as he did in his question the other day. Examination of the whole transcript of the proceedings convinces one that Judge Collins, while perhaps having made an unfortunate remark, particularly so because it can be taken out of context, was in the course of the proceedings fair and lenient to the person who was before him. He made the remark in the course of a lecture while imposing a suspended sentence. The case was discussed with the Department of Justice of Ontario and also with Chief Judge Collin Bennett of Ontario, and we are satisfied that no further action needs be taken at this time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Although the Minister of Justice seems to think that these are unrelated instances, in my opinion, and I say this with all due respect, they are both similar in that derogatory remarks were directed against individuals. Would the minister be prepared to table all correspondence and other material related to the investigation? Further, would he be prepared to bring the matter to the attention of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in order that it can look into it?

April 26, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to examine the question of what properly might be brought forward to the hon. member in connection with this case. I would be pleased to discuss it with him privately. I will not engage here in comparing one case with another, but I suggest to the hon. member that it is extremely unfair to do so.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I cannot understand that remark being made when a member has risen to question the minister in a responsible way in order to obtain information. This matter has been before the Minister of Justice and the government for some four months. The province of Ontario moved with dispatch, and I say this with the greatest respect, with respect to a similar type of situation immediately it became known. Why can this government not move as quickly? I ask this because many people wonder what the minister's attitude is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yor kton-Melville.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and is supplementary to the question asked earlier about the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In view of the numerous delays in the payment of unemployment insurance benefits over the past few months, is the minister in a position to assure the House that he will introduce appropriate amendments before next fall to take care of some basic problems regarding such things as sickness benefits, severance pay, etc?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: If he is here then.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had attended the committee yesterday when the estimates of the Unemployment Insurance Commission were discussed, he would have found that members of all parties congratulated unemployment insurance officials for the return to the degree of efficiency which has always been synonymous with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, with the exception of only two months. He is perfectly willing and able, I am sure, to appear before the appropriate committee tomorrow when it continues and pose these questions to the officials who will be on hand.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the continuing shortage of various types of railway cars

serving the forest industry of British Columbia, may I ask whether the minister is aware of the situation and what action is being taken to correct this worrisome problem.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered various forms of this question during recent days and conveyed the information given to me by the railways, which is that the shortage is being reduced and that more cars have been obtained in the United States and are either in Canada or on the way to Canada. I will be glad to get another status report as of today and pass it to the hon. member.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY PLAN


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Are the minister and the government considering deleting a certain section of the FISP bill so that children in foster homes and institutions will not suffer further disability because they will not receive the increase that other children will receive under the plan?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that this only happens in cases where we are already supporting these children through the province by cost-sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Mr. Fairweather:: Has the minister now responded to a telegram from the minister of welfare of New Brunswick objecting to the bill in its present form, pointing out that these family allowance funds are held in trust for the benefit of children and objecting to the fact that the bill took on its present form without any consultation with that province?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Is there to be no answer? That was not a hard question to answer.



MEDICARE-INVESTIGATION OF REPORTED EXCESSIVE CHARGES BY SOME ONTARIO PRACTITIONERS

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister working with provincial authorities to investigate charges that under medicare some Ontario doctors are gouging the public at rates of $1,000 per week for services in institutions and $300 an hour for clipping toenails?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I must advise the hon. member
April 26, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry AIRPORTS
that medicare, so far as the federal government is concerned, is a cost-sharing arrangement with the provinces. The administration is entirely within their area of responsibility and jurisdiction. They have not asked that any role be played by the federal government in this.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since medicare-


An hon. Member:: The minister has just answered your question.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, and I will ask another one. Since medicare is a federal-provincial cost-sharing scheme and since it is essential for medicare to work better and for the public to have confidence in it, does the minister intend to insist on a full investigation of these charges which indicate that very serious practices are going on?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I answered the hon. member's question precisely as to whether we were investigating this particular area of alleged abuse, and the answer was no. The province has not asked us to investigate. If, on the other hand, she wishes to know whether we are behind the provinces and support them in attempting to cut down wastful expenditures and abuses of this kind, the answer is yes.



MANPOWER


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question related to the bill to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act.
Can the minister assure the House that those now receiving vocational training will be able to complete their studies before the minister's new bill is implemented?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the two matters are unrelated. I might say, while I have the opportunity, that I intend later in the week to table the appropriate correspondence between my department and the premiers of the various provinces. People presently on courses will not be affected by this bill; it simply widens the scope of the program and permits people who were previously ineligible for courses to become eligible.



PICKERING TOWNSHIP SITE-PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. When will the documents that were made available at the airport meeting with the minister this morning be available to members of this House and the general public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is now. Rather than make a general distribution-I would be glad to do but goodness knows we receive enough paper-any member who wishes to see the documentation should call my office and we will see that it is delivered right away.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, will these documents be made available in sufficient quantity to allow members of parliament to cope with the heavy demand for additional information regarding the Pickering site?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Any information that any taxpayer wants on the plan can certainly be made available.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that a special group of departmental officials is being made available to provide in-depth information to the People Over Planes group regarding the Pickering airport site, will the same expertise be made available to others who express interest in obtaining similar in-depth information?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Whether their name is Pop, Pow, Alakazam or whatever it happens to be, they will get the same treatment.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about Danson?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. It relates to the indication we now have that Treasury Board is going to initiate a review with regard to housing for employees within the public service. My question is more specific and concerns members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Will the minister assure the House that representation will be made within the context of this policy review with regard to a method by which members of the Canadian Armed Forces might build some equity through the rents which we compel them to pay because of the nature of their service to Canada?

April 26, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to consider this representation.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Has a progress report been received from the conciliation board appointed by the federal government to assist in working out a contract between grain handlers on the west coast and the employers?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, both parties have agreed upon a chairman for the conciliation board and preparations are being made to bring representatives of the two parties together before the board.



FINANCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the extent of the indecision that seems to reign in government circles these days-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I ask the Prime Minister whether he has yet given the Minister of Finance permission to bring in a budget?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister aware that west coast fishermen are advertising for fishermen's mates for the current season on the basis of 15 per cent of the gross catch plus $400 a month, plus unemployment insurance guaranteed for a number of months?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, knowing the vagaries of the sea and recognizing the fact that most fishermen in this country have a very indefinite type of income and should be assisted rather than ridiculed, I think that type of advertisement is not necessarily out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister be less flippant and investigate the allegation and, if it is proved to be correct, introduce some changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which will remove some of these grotesque anomalies?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the advertisement which the hon. member has described is certainly quite legal. If he knew a little more about the fishing industry and how it is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. The House might allow the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West who has been trying to ask a question for at least two days.
# * *



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the need for more environmental protection in the north, I ask the minister whether the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and the Northern Inland Waters Act which were passed a year ago have been proclaimed by the government and, if not, when will these acts be officially proclaimed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned they have been proclaimed. However, I will double-check and inform the hon. member accordingly.


Randolph Harding: Have the regulations governing both these acts been drafted by the minister's department and, if so, are they available to members?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I believe these regulations were promulgated by the Privy Council and should be made available to hon. members. I shall see that they are handed to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is in the form of a request to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to seek the consent of the House to revert to motions so that he can make a statement on the situation of Canadians in the war zones in Viet Nam.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that this is entirely in order, but with the consent of the House the Secretary of State for External Affairs might be allowed to reply to the question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 26, 1972



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, since Canada has no diplomatic representation in Viet Nam, the British Embassy in Saigon provides consular assistance to Canadians in the area and has agreed to include Canadians and certain other Commonwealth citizens in its contingency plans for evacuation. We are in consultation with the British authorities concerning the present situation.
Until recent developments in the central highlands region of South Viet Nam, Canadians serving under the development assistance program have not been in areas affected by the present hostilities. However, in recent days the security situation has deteriorated in the coastal city of Qui Nhon where the joint Canadian-Vietnamese rehabilitation centre is located, and it was considered necessary to move part of the Canadian team and their dependants temporarily to Saigon to await an improvement in the situation. Other Canadians working on assistance projects elsewhere in Viet Nam remain outside the major areas of hostilities, but we are continuing to watch the situation closely. The remainder of the Canadian aid program which comprises in part humanitarian and paramedical projects such as providing vaccines, food aid and emergency relief is continuing, and in response to an appeal from the government of the Republic of Viet Nam for assistance to persons displaced by the current hostilities Canada has undertaken to provide 500 metric tons of canned fish on an emergency basis.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Peace River. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rises on a question of privilege. I will recognize the hon. member for Peace River shortly.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In the last few days a number of questions have been raised in the House concerning the salmon fishery and the need for consultation with the provinces. Reference was made to what took place under the administrative arrangements with Quebec arising from the understanding reached in 1920. The Minister of Fisheries, I do not think deliberately, has consistently stated that such consultations have taken place, and he referred specifically to the Premier of Newfoundland with respect to the salmon licensing arrangements on the southwest coast of that province.
Two considerations arise. First, I should like to state for the record that there have been no such consultations specifically in connection with these problems and the minister has a responsibility to set the record straight. Second, there ought to be some means whereby urgent questions of this kind-
Assistance to Canadians in Viet Nam War


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a question of privilege by any stretch of the imagination. I do not know under what guise the hon. member is trying to bring this matter to the attention of the House. Does he intend to propose a motion or ask for a reference to committee in connection with this matter? This is not a question of privilege and the hon. member is entirely out of order. He has a question which he would perhaps like to clear up during the question period, but this is not a question of privilege.


Gerald William Baldwin: My comment will be brief, Mr. Speaker. I am sure hon. members appreciate the fact that the minister has responded to requests for information on this serious situation. Because of the gravity of these events and the fact that Canadians are involved, I would only ask the minister whether, within the limits of security for Canadians who are in the area, he would from time to time keep the House informed as to what is being done.


John George Diefenbaker: How long is "from time to time"?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps going beyond my experience as a member of parliament, but I understand that if information is conveyed to the House which is not in accordance with the facts, an hon. member has a grievance. I have just had a discussion with the Premier of Newfoundland, and in connection with the statement by the minister that he did hold consultations with that province on the recent announcement concerning the salmon fishery, specifically on the southwest coast of Newfoundland, may I say that the minister has not given the House information in accordance with the facts. Is there no provision whereby the record can be set straight-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may have a grievance, but the matter he has raised is one for debate. It cannot be raised or discussed in the House by way of a question of privilege. There are opportunities for hon. members to bring to the attention of the House grievances of this kind, but again I suggest to him that the correct procedure is not by way of a question of privilege.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-170, to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lewis (p. 1448).
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, before the Easter recess I made a speech in which I set forth in detail my criticisms of Bill C-170. Since then speakers who have
1656

April 26, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
taken part in the debate have contributed further arguments criticizing the bill and strengthening the points I made in opposition to the measure.
There were three main areas of objection to which I directed attention in the course of my previous speech. The first was that Bill C-170 replaces the principle of universality with the principle of selectivity; second, the bill stigmatizes people in receipt of low incomes; third, that the measure is so confused that it will lead to misunderstanding and resentment. Moreover, the abandonment of the principle of universality will lead to divisiveness, as has been the case in the past when the government has applied the principle of selectivity to other acts.
I hardly need to remind the House of the divisiveness which has been created in connection with the old age security legislation and the income supplement related to that scheme. All hon. members have received letters reflecting the ill-feeling which has been created among senior citizens who receive the basic old age security allowance of $80 and do not benefit from a cost of living bonus. They contrast their position with that of people who receive old age security payments together with the income supplement and the 2 per cent cost of living bonus. I do not think it is worthy of the government to ignore these feelings which have been engendered among recipients of old age security benefits.
The government is repeating this mistake in connection with family allowances. The principle of selectivity was applied recently in connection with unemployment insurance benefits and has created not only chaos but ill-feeling among workers. I was surprised yesterday when the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) said the government intended to make money available at low rates of interest to people in low income brackets so they might purchase homes. I am surprised he should have chosen this course rather than announcing comprehensive housing plans which would lead to a proper mix of people at different income levels. The government is once again stigmatizing and segregating a certain group of people. I have given three examples of the improper use of the principle of selectivity as opposed to the principle of universality.
The House has before it an amendment to the motion, in the name of the leader of my party. In substance, it says we should give consideration to the introduction of legislation amending the Family Allowances Act and Youth Allowances Act to provide for substantial increases in the allowances paid thereunder, to continue the principle of universality and make related changes in the income tax legislation. I hope the minister will support the amendment.
It is heartening to note that members of the Conservative party have been speaking in support of the amendment. It is also heartening to note that members of the Creditiste party have in their speeches indicated support of the amendment. I would think the substance of their argument can be deduced from the amendment itself; many of us wish to continue the principle of universality.
I would remind the minister that when he brought forth his white paper on family income security, many of us believed he would refer it to the appropriate committee for study in depth before legislation was brought down.

He did not do so. He introduced legislation concerning old age pensions and this resulted in the criticism to which I have referred. One of the ways in which the hon. gentleman could avoid criticism of this bill would be by supporting the amendment, continuing the principle of universality and at the same time making an appropriate increase in the allowances under this program. Alternatively, he could withdraw the bill and refer this legislation, together with the white paper, to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs where it could be studied in depth.
I recall that in his opening statement the minister attempted to persuade members of the House that the Canadian Council on Social Development and the Canadian Labour Congress were in agreement with the terms of the measure before us. The speech of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) drew attention to the criticisms and reservations expressed by those bodies.
I am making a special appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who I think basically is attempting to bring forth legislation to help the children of Canada. I ask him to support not only the amendment but to give full consideration to transferring the subject matter of this bill to an appropriate committee. I think he would be the last to want to stigmatize or categorize people in regard to their income. It is high time that we in Canada stopped doing this and I think the minister, who most of the time wants to do his best for Canadians and is concerned for them, would not want this principle to continue.
The third point that I set forth regarding the complexities of the legislation I am sure has had an effect upon the minister. It certainly has had an effect upon hon. members who have read the bill and have tried to determine what its provisions mean and how they will be applied. Some have said that it would require the genius of a Philadelphia lawyer to determine what will be income and how much income a person must have before qualifying for family allowances.
We should always make bills as simple and as understandable as possible. The minister has failed to do this. He has taken directions from a cabinet committee as to what should be done and has tried to squeeze into the bill a principle that should not be applied in Canada. I ask the minister not to be persuaded or counselled by his officials regarding this bill but to read it and see whether he can understand it. He is a lawyer by profession and knows how to read statutes and the clauses of bills. I would give him the Pulitzer prize or the Nobel prize if he could tell the members of the House in clear, concise and convincing terms what is meant by some of the provisions of the bill.
As I have said, I have had the opportunity of setting forth in detail my main criticisms. At this time I rise only to repeat them and to plead with the minister. He has brought forth a very bad bill both in principle and in administrative complexity. I would ask him as a Canadian, not as a Liberal but as a Canadian who is concerned for the social security of all Canadians, to reconsider the bill and to bring forth a measure that is clear, concise and
April 26, 1972

convincing. If he does this he will have the support and gratitude not only of the members of our party but of all Canadians.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the amendment to this bill moved by the New Democratic Party, one of the members of that party has indicated that I am surprised by their opposition to the bill, that indeed I looked surprised when they took the position that they would vote against the bill on second reading. They are right; I am surprised. As many hon. members know, the Economic Council of Canada, the Senate report on poverty, the Council on Social Development, to say nothing of numerous other studies, have all indicated that in this country perhaps four to five million Canadians are living below the poverty line and that something must be done to alleviate their situation.
This is why the government has brought in what is undeniably an anti-poverty bill, a bill that is based on the principle of selectivity which will vertically redistribute income to the low income groups. Added to the present $650 million paid out yearly in universal family allowance payments will be another $170 million, making a total of $820 million vertically redistributed to improve the economic condition of those in the lower middle and lower income groups. And the New Democratic Party, the supposed party for the underprivileged, is going to vote against it!
Some 1,249,000 families, representing 35.5 per cent of all families in Canada which have been receiving universal family allowances, are below the minimum income levels provided in the bill. The minimum income levels in the bill are higher than the minimum tax levels and these families will receive maximum benefits under this legislation. If we relate the benefits under the bill to the family allowance we will see that the benefit structure under the bill provides benefits that are more than double for children up to 10 years of age. For children 10 to 12 years of age the benefits are doubled. For children between 12 and 15 the benefits are, again, more than doubled. For children between 16 and 17 the benefits are exactly doubled. And one wonders why I am surprised that the New Democratic Party is voting against this bill!
The bill provides greater benefits than is now the case for an additional 623,000 families. These are in addition to the 1,249,000 families I referred to earlier who will receive full benefits, more than they receive today. These families are, of course, in the lower and lower middle income groups. Again, some ask why I am surprised, as indeed I am, that the New Democratic Party is voting against the bill.
Let me give an example of what this legislation means to a family at the $5,000 annual income level. Take a family with two children receiving the maximum benefit of $30 a month if the children are under 12, and up to a maximum of $40 a month if they are over 12. This represents a net gain of $18 to $20 a month. If there were three children in the family, the maximum benefit would be $45 to $60 a month or a net gain of $27 to $32 over the previous family allowances which were universal.
Family Income Security Plan
Looking at this situation in terms of yearly incremental income in both instances which I have just mentioned, a family with two children under the age of 12 would receive $216. If the children were over 12 the family would receive $288 per year incremental income. In the second example I referred to, the family with three children under 12 would receive a yearly incremental income of $324. With three children over 12 years of age, including those receiving youth allowances, the amount could be up to $432 a year.
Now let me cite the case of a family with two children, at the $6,000 a year income level. If both children were under 12, the family would receive $11.70 for each child or a total of $23.40 a month. This compared with the present legislation means a net gain of $11.40 per month. If both children were over 12, for each child the family would receive $16.70, a total of $33.40 per month, amounting to an incremental income per year of $208.80; in other words, under the family allowance program that represents a net gain of $17.40 per month.
In the case of four children under 12, the family would receive maximum benefits under this legislation of $60 or an incremental income of $432 per year. In terms of monthly net gain over the present family allowances it would be $36 per month. For a family with an income of $6,000 a year, with four children over 12, the maximum benefits would be $80 per month. In terms of comparison with the monthly benefit under the present family allowances structure, that is a net gain of $36 to $48 per month.
I ask hon. members opposite to tell the mother of a family at the $5,000 income level that this program is a cruel hoax. Let the leader of the NDP, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis),tell the mother of a family at the $6,000 level, with four children, that the incremental income here of $432 to $576 per year, a monthly net gain over the present system of $36 to $48, is a cruel hoax perpetrated on the poor. Let the leader of the NDP tell these families that is why his party voted against the bill.
Let me read an excerpt from a recent column by Douglas Fisher which appeared in the Toronto Sun of Monday, April 24, 1972, under the heading, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer". He was referring to a question placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). The question was:
In respect of the years 1961, 1966 and 1971, what was the distribution by income groups of families and individual taxpayers, and particularly the grouping of income above $1 million?
The question went on to ask what the levels were at $6,000, $5,000, $4,000, $3,000, $2,000 and $1,000 annually.
The answer from the national revenue department was that there was no distribution by family income groups, but it gave the following distribution of individual taxpayers based on the annual analysis of tax returns. These were the latest available figures, being those for 1969. They are very interesting. The table of figures shows that out of the total number of taxpayers in Canada, 7,363,000-69.9 per cent or a total of almost 70 per cent-were receiving a total income of $7,000 a year or less. If you take the intermediate figure for the group of taxpayers earning between $7,000 and $8,000, in order to arrive at
1658

April 26, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
the percentage earning $7,500 or less, using that calculation as a rough guide the percentage escalates to 74.1 per cent of the total number of taxpayers earning $7,500 or less. It is precisely this group that will do no worse than at present in respect of benefits under the family allowances program and a very significant majority of the people within this group of 74 per cent will do very substantially better under the legislation before the House.
Therefore I ask, when this legislation is of tangible benefit and improvement for a great majority of this 74 per cent, and none within the 74 per cent will do worse, can you wonder why I am surprised that the NDP will vote against it? Can one be surprised that they seem to be advancing their appeal to the top 25 per cent of the income earners in Canada? It seems to me a weird and wonderful posture for the leader of the NDP and its members who have historically adopted the posture of more for the little man.
It is very interesting that the leader of the NDP states that he has had a chance now to more carefully read the bill. He stated on April 19, as recorded in Hansard at page 1444:
-we have had an opportunity since the Easter recess to study the bill before us further and the more one studies it and its effect, the more it becomes clear to us that it is unacceptable in principle.
Then he said:
Of course, I know that my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in leading off for our party in this debate said that we were prepared to give the bill second reading and send it to the appropriate standing committee.
That was the leader of the NDP referring to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, saying that he was speaking for the entire NDP. The leader of the NDP went on to say, again referring to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the hon. member did have many serious objections to make in respect of the bill. So over the Easter recess the leader of the NDP decided to reverse the previous decision of that party as expressed by their own House leader and said that on second thought they were no longer prepared to support the bill. What kind of drivel is that? I suggest it is indicative of the cynicism of the NDP with reference to its posture on this bill. Will that hon. member for one minute and in all seriousness advance the proposition to all hon. members that the selectivity principle of this bill is new, that it spells the end of universality and that this became apparent only over the Easter recess?
All the essential features of this bill were in a bill tabled in the House in September, 1971. We know that when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated he was prepared to give the bill second reading he had stud'"d it fully. Every member of this House knows that he is a well known expert on matters of income security. Do the members of the NDP really expect the House to believe that only over the Easter recess did they become fully aware of the provisions of this bill and decided to reverse their stand and vote against it?
Are we to assume that the leader of the NDP thinks so little of his House leader that that hon. member would not have explained the provisions of the bill to the whole caucus and therefore they did not know what they would be voting for when they said they would support the bill

on second reading? Are we to assume that over all the months since September, 1971, during which this bill has been before us, a major piece of social legislation, none of the members of the NDP understood its provisions? I suggest that over the Easter recess the NDP decided to change its posture. It decided, cynically, that perhaps it could appeal to the middle income voter and obtain some political gain at the expense of the poor of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Carr Munro: Perhaps a further indication of this political cynicism and expediency can be found in the example which the leader of the NDP selected in pointing out why he could not support the bill. Of course, he picked out the income level of $7,500. I point out that this is the very level at which he hopes to capitalize by obtaining some support. When he refers to this level he does not refer to the man making $15,000 a year, $20,000 a year, or the millionaire, all of whom are losing all the benefits under the plan. He zeroes in on this particular income group and thinks it is the group where the government is vulnerable. This is the group to which he chooses to refer.
The leader of the NDP picks out the example of a family with an income of $7,500 and one child and says, "Look at the deplorable features of the bill" because in this particular case they receive $1 less per month than under the present family allowances scheme. If he had picked one child of that family, and instead of placing him under the age of 12 had placed him over the age of 12, then it could be calculated that they would not lose $1 per month compared to the present family allowance, but would gain up to $2.10 per month. Or if the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) had wanted to be a little more objective he could have said that that family at $7,500 had two children over age 12, and then he would have had to say they would receive extra FISP benefits of $3.50 to $7.50 per month.
Let us look at another example of picking carefully selected examples to point out his particular point of view. He went on to give the example of a family with an income of $8,000 and on that family he again bestows one child under 12. Naturally, the child receives the lower of the two benefit levels, $5 compared to $20. The leader of the NDP said:
If the family income is $8,000, the payment to the child will be $3.45 a month.
Of course, in that case the child had to be under the age of 12. If the family had two children, one under age 12 and another over 12, the benefit would be $15.10 instead of $14 as at present, for a net gain. But he did not give this family two children, or even one child, over age 12. This was probably contrived to indicate his point that here is an income redistribution policy which is detrimental to the middle income group. He had to pick an example where there is a marginal decrease of $1. Just how cynical an approach does the New Democratic Party think it can perpetrate not only on the members of this House but on the Canadian people? The leader of the NDP hopes he can show that he cares for the middle income people. He thinks he has assessed their most vulnerable spot and
April 26, 1972

therefore picks out this example which will cost them a little money.
I and the members of this party think the hon. member has misjudged the intelligence of the middle income voters in this country. I believe the members of the New Democratic Party have belittled themselves and the principles for which they stand. I think the leader of the New Democratic Party speaks with a forked tongue. He talks about policies designed to make the poor better off as setting class against class. I think his own design in picking out these contrived examples is to do precisely that, to turn the middle income group against the poor.
The leader of the so-called party of the left seems to be ready to resort to tactics of this kind. Now we see the real politics of polarization. Again he picks out the most contrived example in the middle income range to point out a marginal increase. We ask: Do the New Democrats feel they can win votes in this way, by disavowing everything they have said they stand for during the last decade? Does the leader of that party really believe he can cynically count on the tactics of polarization?
We know that at one time the socialists went about trying to constructively use the tactics of polarization. That was when they tried to polarize the poor against the rich to bring home their point and get action to alleviate their circumstances. Now they have moved up a notch and would endeavour to polarize the middle income group against the poor.


An hon. Member:: The government's economic policies are doing that.


John Carr Munro: I do not know what the New Democrats think they will gain, in terms of appeal, from the Canadian people. Many of the people in the middle income group are not prepared to support the New Democratic Party in any event. Even if they believe the New Democratic Party, they will think this is such a desperate and cynical move that they will not approve its tactics.


John Gilbert: We are getting to you.


John Carr Munro: The New Democrats say they are getting to me. I want them to get to me one of these days on an election platform in Canada, before the people of Canada and the middle income groups whom they are cynically manipulating for support and using as a justification for the fact that they intend to vote against this bill. I do not think they will stand up very well.
I would like to tell that party something about my experiences with the middle income group in this country. I have been going across the country talking to many of these people. I agree that some of them, apparently the ones to whom the New Democratic Party are listening, rather resent the fact that they are losing their family allowance, but on reassessment they indicated to me that they were prepared to lose part or all of it if it would be of tangible assistance to people in worse circumstances than theirs. Of course, they also said this applied so long as the wealthy in this country also lose all their benefits. That is precisely what this legislation provides. They know there is far too large a group of the work force earning a marginal income which means there is little incentive to
Family Income Security Plan
work. They know the wage scales do not take into account the number of dependants but merely the value of the labour to the employer.
They know that a worker's wages do not provide adequate compensation to a man who has family responsibilities, and that this discourages him and provides little incentive for him to remain in the labour force. They know there is inducement for him to go on welfare. They know that a man with a marginal income must receive incremental assistance. They are prepared to join the ranks of other Canadians in attempting to do something about it and to build incentive back into the welfare scheme, as well as attempting to make up for deficiencies in the minimum wage laws and provide incremental income to the man with a family.
The people in the middle income group are prepared to pay their fair share to see that this is done. They know that the man earning an income of $5,000 with children is living in poverty in Canada. They know that it is the unorganized worker about whom so many of us should be concerned. He is the income earner who does not have a union to represent him. They also know something about the minimum wage legislation. Many of these income earners know that the minimum wage legislation only assists single persons and married couples without children. But even as low as the income of low income earners is, whatever tangible benefit they do have from the minimum wage legislation is diminished in terms of anything approaching a semblance of adequacy every time an additional child comes into the family. The middle income workers know that only by raising minimum wage levels above the social assistance level will there be any real incentive to work. They know that the only way this can be done is by legislation providing incremental income based on additional children. Once we bring in legislation of this kind we can realistically raise our minimum wage levels and perhaps make a joint, effective attack on poverty.
In that connection let us look at the minimum wage levels in some provinces, including those which have NDP governments. I will pick one province in particular, Manitoba. It provides for a minimum wage of $1.65 per hour. Extrapolated in terms of a week of 40 hours, this works out to $66 a week. How can a man with a family live on that? How much is it a year? It is $3,432 a year. Why would that man with a family not go on welfare? The minimum wage levels there depress the social assistance rates and ensure their inadequacy.
Under this legislation, if a man has three children and, say, two are over 12 and one is under 12, we can give him an extra $660 a year. That, combined with a more realistic minimum wage law, would at least elevate that man to the poverty line. Surely we must all agree that taking the legislation in terms of what the minimum wage laws can do, it would be virtually impossible to expect it to take care of the situation of the low income earner with a family. It can relate only to the single and married people without children. But we can have a realistic policy to combat poverty when we combine the minimum wage laws with FISP, which would provide incremental income such as I have just stated, and in the process would

April 26, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
provide real incentives for people to remain in the labour force and not to go on welfare. So a combination of these two policies would take care of the most difficult problem over which this country and those concerned about poverty have agonized for many years.
The NDP is voting against this legislation and they wonder why we in this party are surprised. They wish to go to the people of Canada with this cynical, political device. I submit that if they do they will be truly repudiated. The NDP states that they do not like this selective approach; they wish to adopt the universal approach; they would pay everyone a universal benefit irrespective of income, and they would not only double the present family allowances but, as their amendment indicates, they would increase them substantially over that which the FISP legislation before the House provides. Everybody would automatically ask: How in the world are we going to pay for this?
The hon. member who moved the amendment suggested that we amend the tax legislation but he does not say what amendments he would make. He is appealing to the middle income group by telling them that we should double or more than double their benefits, but he does not give any detail on how he would collect this money through amendments to the tax legislation. I wonder how naive he thinks middle income group earners are whom he is subjecting to such a cynical and blatantly superficial appeal for their support? These people know very well that if there is to be a redistribution of income in favour of those in the lower income group, someone has to pay for it. When the New Democrats talk about amending the tax legislation they mean that these benefits would be paid from taxes. The intelligence of the middle income group cannot be insulted in this way.
Let us consider the figures given by Douglas Fisher in the article in the Sun from which I quoted a few minutes ago. He indicated that those making $10,000 a year and over-as we know, under the present tax structure they are in the 35 per cent tax bracket-constitute only 11 per cent of the total number of taxpayers in this country. To only double the benefits under the bill presently before the House-not more than double them, as the NDP would have it-would cost roughly an additional $700 million a year. We know from these figures that only 11 per cent of all taxpayers in this country earn $10,000 or more a year.
Where would the leader of the NDP get the additional money to pay the $700 million that he wishes to pay out in universal benefits? is he going to tax this 11 per cent? If he wanted to recover that $700 million a year from 11 per cent of the taxpayers in Canada, he would almost have to apply a 100 per cent recovery rate through taxes; and even if he took back dollar for dollar the amount of the family allowance they receive he could not collect the $700 million which is necessary. So who do the NDP think they are fooling?
The NDP talk about the Canadian Council on Social Development which recommended universality. What they did not mention in any of their speeches is that the council recommended special recovery rates. The NDP would pay these cheques to all the mothers of this country and then they would take the money back from the wage earners in the form of income tax. They would pay out the

money on the one hand and on the other take it off the husband who is earning a salary, at a 100 per cent recovery rate. The wife would go out and spend the monthly cheque and the husband would lose the money from his salary dollar for dollar.
How naive do they think the middle income group is, to be fooled by this blatant charade according to which money would be given on the one hand and then taken back dollar for dollar from the income of the wage earner? Even so, the bill amounting to $700 million could not be paid. If the recovery rate through the taxation of many in the high income group was less than 100 per cent, there would be a significant wastage of funds. Money would be given to people who did not need it, to those in the high income group, and millions of dollars which could go to those in the lower income group who need it would be wasted.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the middle income group will be fooled one bit by this charade when they know that almost 90 per cent of the taxpayers in this country are below the $10,000 a year income level. They know that these bland promises are cynically thrown out in an appeal for their vote. They know, also, that the money has to come from somewhere, that it cannot come from just the 10 per cent earning over $10,000 a year. They know it is impossible to finance arrangements of this kind in that way.
Perhaps the leader of the NDP would suggest that we increase corporation taxes. What would he do? Let him be frank with the Canadian people. Would he increase corporation taxes by 10 per cent? My figures indicate that that might bring in roughly $230 million a year.


An hon. Member:: What about the resource industries?


John Carr Munro: Would he increase corporation taxes 20 per cent? According to the law of diminishing returns, that would bring in perhaps another $150 million a year. In effect, this would pay roughly only half of the bill that the Canadian people would have to meet as a result of the amendment the NDP are now advancing. Let them be specific. They are not fooling anybody. They say they are going to have special recovery rates. Are they going to give the universal benefit to the middle income group on the one hand and then take it back, dollar for dollar, at a 100 per cent special recovery rate? If so, will they apply that special recovery rate at the $8,000, $9,000 or $10,000 income level? Why try to delude the middle income earner? Why try to deceive him by in effect saying you are defending him at the expense of the poor?
Then there was the statesmanlike approach taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. He gave the example of a steelworker in my riding and said he would lose marginally on the benefit to be paid.


John Gilbert: That got to you.


John Carr Munro: Yes, that got to me. I would like the hon. member who is cynically trying to appeal for votes from that group to come with me and see whether the steelworkers in my riding are as naive as he thinks they are. I can tell him that they are not nearly so naive as he thinks
April 26, 1972

and this blatant insult to their intelligence will not get him or the NDP very far.
Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the just society. We have talked about licking poverty in this country. I will tell you something about the steelworkers, about these people in the middle income group. They, too, have been joining the chorus of voices that are saying we must do something about poverty. And if we can do something to redistribute more income to workers in the low income bracket, they are prepared to pay their share. That may come as a surprise to the cynics in the NDP. Any member of that party can come to my riding any day of the week and try to fight that issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Another misapprehension that the leader of the NDP had was that families on social assistance would receive only half the benefit. I state unequivocally that that is not the intention of the bill, nor does the bill state that. The children of families on social assistance will receive the maximum benefit. What he is talking about relates largely to children in custodial care or in institutions where half the benefit is paid and we share the cost through cost-sharing arrangements under the Canada Assistance Plan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It seems to be the disposition of hon. members to allow the minister to continue. This can be done only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up much more time. I thank hon. members for the opportunity to finish my remarks.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: May I ask a question at the end of your speech?


John Carr Munro: Certainly. As I was saying, it was stated that this program would not help families on social assistance. I repeat that they will receive the maximum benefit, contrary to what the leader of the NDP stated. I think it was the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) who indicated that although we pay out the maximum benefit for the children of a family living in poverty on social assistance, this will not mean any increased income to that family because the province in turn will deduct dollar for dollar the amount of the increased benefit from its social assistance levels.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: No.


John Carr Munro: That was the suggestion advanced. If the hon. member who just said no had been in the House yesterday, he would have heard a member of his own party say so.
The reply to that statement is yes. Conceivably, that could be done but it would have to be a conscious act or
Family Income Security Plan
policy of the provincial administration, that once such a family received the increased FISP benefit it would deduct dollar for dollar the amount of the increase from the social benefits paid to the family, the cost of which we share. I may say that I have not met in my travels any provincial ministers of welfare who have indicated that under any circumstances they would adopt a policy of that kind. I believe there are very few provinces in which that type of action would be resorted to, so I have high hopes that this measure will add to the disposable income of the people who desperately need more money. I would think that any provincial administration which would adopt such a policy of avarice, such a harsh policy in terms of the low income group, would be repudiated by provincial electors.
Another point that should be clarified concerns how income is calculated. For FISP, your income is the combined net income of husband and wife. This means all payments-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: Just hold your "Oh, ohs" because there are more breaks here than some members of the NDP think. This means all payments that both parties receive, but their unavoidable expenses are not counted. In other words, there is every exemption save two counted in assessing income; those two are the personal exemption for one's self, spouse and children and one's medical and charitable deductions. Thus, combined gross income would include the following: wages, salaries, rents, dividends, interest, capital gains plus certain government payments like unemployment insurance, Canada Pension Plan and old age security. Not included in the computation of income are workmen's compensation, veterans pensions, the guaranteed income supplement, social allowance, any insurance award for damages and the family income security payment itself.
So to arrive at net income you subtract all the money you do not really have use of, in other words your non-disposable income. This includes business losses, office overhead for the self-employed, union dues, membership fees for professional organizations, tools and equipment, alimony and child support payments, day care expenses, registered retirement savings plan including payments to the Canada Pension Plan, superannuation and other employee private pension plans, and personal annuity insurance policy payments. This gives you your net income before personal, medical and charitable exemptions. Income for the purposes of FISP is calcuated on this basis.
Some hon. member asked: What about the position of farmers and fishermen? Farmers and fishermen compute their family income security payments, so far as income is concerned, in the same way as they compute their income tax. Deductions from gross income are allowed as follows, taking fishermen first: fuel, repairs and maintenance of equipment, including boat, purchase of nets and net repair, capital cost allowance of equipment, insurance on equipment, municipal taxes on a privately-owned wharf and wages for employees on the boat.
For farmers the deductions allowed are as follows: wages to farmhands, cost of livestock purchases, all prop-

April 26, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
erty tax on farm buildings and farm house, insurance on buildings and equipment, livestock feed, grain seed for planting, twine and bags, pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer, repairs to buildings-100 per cent on farm buildings and 50 per cent on a farm house-and the capital cost of buildings and equipment. I could elaborate on some of these examples, Mr. Speaker, and in committee I will be prepared to do so in order to alleviate the fears of some hon. members.
Another objection taken to the legislation was the terrible administrative bureaucracy that it was alleged would be built up as a result. It is indeed strange to hear this type of argument being supported by the NDP who indicate that we should have more bureaucracy.


An hon. Member:: Why?


John Carr Munro: Their policy is that government should move into more areas to assist people suffering injustices in our society. Nevertheless, strange as the objections may be, I think hon. members have greatly overestimated the administrative problems that will be encountered. I ask hon. members to compare this plan with the guaranteed income supplement for the aged. In that program we brought in selectivity. Benefits were based on the previous year's income. If during the current year the recipient of the guaranteed income supplement suffered a marked drop in income, he was given the option of going on the current year's basis so that his benefit level would increase and overcome that hardship.
Upward of one million of our 1,700,000 old age pensioners are receiving all or part of the guaranteed income supplement. They must file an income statement in the same way as is proposed in connection with the family income security plan. I ask hon. members present to say frankly how many complaints they have received regarding those applications. There have been some, but not many. Can any member of this House say that the approximately one million pensioners receiving the guaranteed income supplement do not welcome that payment even though there is an income test? They must make a statement in full, but do they not welcome the program? No investigators come around bothering them. The cheque is in an envelope and they can go to an impersonal bank and cash it; therefore there is no humiliation connected with it. Do our approximately one million old age pensioners not welcome these payments, for all these reasons?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


David Orlikow: No, Mr. Speaker; I rise to ask a question.


John Carr Munro: Can any hon. member say that many of those one million Canadians have complained about being humiliated? In their objections, hon. members opposite have made excessive statements about this particular policy. The program we are considering will be administered in the same way. There will be many variations in payments just as there are variations in the cheques that go out for the guaranteed income supplement. Under this

program the size of the cheque will vary according to the number of children, the income level of the family and the ages of the children; so that even when a cheque is cashed, anybody else watching will have no idea of the income level of the family.
Objections along these lines entirely ignore the functioning of our banking system in many urban areas. One can simply cash a cheque by signing it and presenting it at the bank where it can be paid into an account. The gross exaggeration in terms of what will happen in the administration of this program is merely another device hon. members opposite are using to distract the attention of this House and the citizens of Canada from what is at issue. Those exaggerations are a form of blatant cynicism and an attempt to manipulate the opinion of a group in Canada that is not greedy, the middle income group. Hon. members will soon discover the truth once this legislation is passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Some hon. members wished to ask the minister questions and he agreed to accept them. The Chair recognizes, first, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather).


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for accepting my question and I apologize for interrupting him. The question I wish to ask is one of great seriousness. Does the minister not realize that family allowance moneys paid to children in foster homes, institutions and otherwise outside the normal family structure are used, as one might put it, to pay for extras such as school supplies, clothing and other supplies for children who in ordinary circumstances get a very meagre shake in life? That is what bothers me so much about clause 6(2). In many cases the money is used to help these children get a start in life and takes the place of help otherwise provided by parents. Can the minister see his way clear to changing this aspect of the bill?


An hon. Member:: Through amendments?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The hon. member will have to wait for the amendments that will be brought forward in committee.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to answer the question. May I say that I realize the significance of what the hon. member has said. Rightly or wrongly, in this legislation we are providing maximum benefits for children of families receiving social assistance who are not being raised in an institutional setting. We are trying to equate equally benefits received by children in families and by children in institutions. Since we are already sharing with the provinces half the cost of operating many of these institutions-


An hon. Member:: But those are different payments.


John Carr Munro: I am trying to explain in a rough way the rationale behind the bill. I believe the hon. member who asked the question, or a colleague of his received a communication from the minister responsible for social welfare in New Brunswick. I am perfectly willing to look at this matter again in committee and see if some better formula cannot be worked out.
April 26, 1972


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Thank you.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question? In talking about administrative problems, he said that there have not been many complaints or problems connected with old age pensioners receiving supplementary benefits. Would he not agree that there is a vast difference between people receiving the old age pension, who have a relatively stable income, and working people and farmers whose incomes fluctuate as a result of unemployment, pay increases and other factors, and that therefore there will be many problems for people in the latter category in figuring out what their benefit level will be because their incomes may change from month to month?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the recovery rates under FISP will be in a closely compressed bracket. Without doubt, there are considerable variations in connection with the guaranteed income supplement and, of course, there are bound to be great variations in the family income security plan, if for no other reason than that more people will be applying than is the case under GIS. I am trying to point out that the GIS program is selective, applying to a significant number of people, one million. Although members of parliament I have talked to have complained about benefit levels, and so on, they have not mentioned many serious complaints with respect to administration. That shows that this country, in advance perhaps of any other country in the free world, has been able to use the income test and not the means test in an appropriate way so that we are able to protect the dignity of people and still give them a supplementary income on which to survive.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? Perhaps the minister would clarify something that worries me. The best way of asking my question is by giving an example. Let us say that a man is earning $4,500 a year and is getting maximum benefits. Let us say, also, that his wife works for part of the year and that the family still gets maximum benefits. She may begin working six months after the beginning of the year. Then let us say that next year she loses her job and the family's income drops to $4,500. How will the government recover any overpayment? There is bound to be confusion because people will have to repay certain benefits received in the previous year.


John Carr Munro: If I understood the hon. member's question correctly, let me say this. If because of hardship in the current year a man decides to exercise his option on the basis of his current year's income, and if his income jumps back up in that same year, recovery will take place. This is all done by computer. A similar sort of thing happens in connection with the guaranteed income supplement for the aged. Speaking of the guaranteed income supplement for the aged, in cases where we had to effect recoveries in the following year, many of the complaints did not concern so much the recoveries themselves as the fact that we tried to make recoveries within too limited a time frame. Since then we have spaced out the time and minimized the payments; in other words, the monthly payments necessary to make recoveries are lower. By so doing we have effectively dealt with most of the complaints.
Family Income Security Plan


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since the hon. minister intends to solve the problem of poverty in Canada, I should like to ask him how he can do so by taking money away from those who do not have enough already.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I explained at considerable length in my speech the precise answer to that question. If the hon. member did not listen to it, I hope he will read it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker; I want to make a speech.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in the debate on this amendment as I sincerely believe it deserves our attention since the bill before us is not entirely adequate. This piece of legislation was not prepared well enough; in other words, it would be a good thing to accept this amendment even if we have to deal later on with another bill on that subject.
The reasons that lead me to support this amendment, Mr. Speaker, are the following: first of all, the basic problem dealt with in this bill does not seem to be solved adequately.
As for the inadequateness of clause 6, I have already proved it in a speech on the motion for second reading and I shall not go back to it.
Still, one of the factors which leads me to support the amendment is the inadequateness of the amounts provided for in respect of allowances. The vast majority of my colleagues have already spoken against selectivity being applied to family allowances. I share their views; consequently, that point should be reviewed.
Other major reasons should also be considered and lead the minister to pospone study of the bill, so that a better bill might be prepared.
Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with a constitutional matter. I believe the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has already mentioned it in a speech, and that the bill, because we are selecting those who will receive the allowances, becomes anticonstitutional, and that it was through an amendment to the very Constitution of Canada that the federal government stepped into this field of exclusively provincial jurisdiction.
Now, the amendment that had to be proposed when family allowances were introduced gave all Canadian families, without any distinction, the opportunity of receiving family allowances. Consequently, by accepting Bill C-170 as drafted, we are running counter to the Constitution itself. More especially, Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing with a matter about which there are great differences of opinion among the various parts of the country. We all know that Quebec does not accept that system and

April 26, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
that it would rather control all those benefits through a system which it would co-ordinate itself.
As for the bill, it even seemed to us that we were witnessing a federal-provincial race or, if you prefer, a Canada-Quebec race. They are both competing to be first. On the one hand, the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs, who had set May 1, as the target date, was compelled at a certain moment to say that he would postpone for a month or two his comprehensive family allowances plan. On the other hand, the federal government is endeavouring to have the legislation concerning family allowances passed quickly.
If in such an important part of the country as Quebec there is not full agreement with this measure, we realize immediately the need to further consider this subject and to pstpone for a little while the passage of this bill. There is a major reason, in my view, for supporting the amendment.
We must also, instead of making a petty reform of this kind, consider a general plan where anything relating to social questions would be coordinated within a system which would provide every Canadian with a guaranteed income.
It is in a comprehensive scheme that all these things should fit. This is why I say, again, that instead of passing a particular legislation, we should further consider a general solution to the whole problem, thst is, the establishment of a guaranteed vital minimum income for all. Such should be our objective. Social laws that we have considered should be drafted in view of this major objective.
It is obvious that giving $15 or $20 more, in a very niggardly manner, checking books of every family in order to find out, to the month, what is its income, will not solve the problem. It is some form of excessive socialism that such a method would introduce. And as was stated by, I think, my colleague from Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) a few days ago, such selective benefits create discrimination.
I say in effect, Mr. Speaker, that discrimination is created, considering that in knowing the amount of family allowances received by a family, one also knows the approximate amount that family's income. Is that not indirect intervention in matters concerning individual freedom, collective freedom and, especially, the freedom of families?
Some will say: The same thing happens with regard to income tax. The situation is slightly different there, because, as everyone knows, family allowance cheques are seen by all. Everyone knows that the children themselves speak about them, and that is why I say that there is discrimination.
It might even come to this. Two small boys, two little girls, or a little girl and a small boy will say: Me, I am not getting an allowance, while the other will reply: I am. So how are we going to accept such a situation? This is what I call discrimination.
One child will be told: I am not getting an allowance; at home, we are not getting any. The other will reply: I am because my parents are getting allowances. So, will they

have to argue and say: I am not getting any because my parents earn more money than yours; yours are no good. We can easily see what this could lead to. This may be a viewpoint which has not been considered but this is really what could happen, all the more so since when children are 12, 13, 14 or 18 years old, parents usually give such allowances to the children themselves, especially when they are old enough to attend secondary school. Then I would really think that there is discrimination.
If they really want to score political points right now, for electoral purposes or otherwise, Mr. Speaker, there would be a very simple solution. Instead of introducing this legislation, all that is necessary would be to increase family allowances as we know them. All we need to do is to increase them. There is nothing complicated there.
That is why I say that those who feel that by supporting this amendment we are against raising family allowances are completely wrong. On the contrary, I would be in favour of a proposal such as this: From now on, family allowances will be $12 and $15 instead of $8 and $10. I would not object to that. I would even prefer to see them tailored to the real needs of families. Therefore, I am not against their immediate increase within the framework of the legislation that is already in existence, and we should wait before introducing a bill which could really help families with the problems they are facing daily, and particularly those resulting from the continuous rise in the cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to remind hon. members of a major fact, that nothing can be changed through hastily developed legislation to increase family allowances for the purpose of making a good impression on people, so that the government can claim to have increased family allowances from one amount to another, whereas there has been in fact all kinds of chicanery to deprive some people of these benefits according to their salary bracket.
I feel that any effort to achieve a worthwhile legislation in this field should concentrate on the basic determining factor and aim at bringing about social security as a whole, which could really solve basic problems of all Canadian families. And I repeat that to achieve this, it must be taken into account that this field comes under provincial jurisdiction and that there should therefore be more consultation with the provinces on the subject. Also, any agreement relative to family allowances should first be examined jointly with those provinces which want to implement their own system.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest and very close attention to the speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). In terms of its construction and in terms of the manner in which he delivered it, I must say it was one of the best speeches he has made in the House of Commons. But in terms of any appreciation of social philosophy, in terms of any understanding of the needs of our society, that speech was so far off base I am as surprised he should have made it as he says he is surprised that we are opposing his bill.
April 26, 1972

The minister enjoyed using the word cynicism in the course of his speech. I did not count the number of times it appeared but it must have been a dozen or 15. Let me say to him, as one who for nearly three decades has been opposing needs and means and income tests, as one who has demonstrated a firm belief in the principle of universality, that I am not touched at all by his suggestion that our opposition to this bill because it does not stick by the principle of universality is a case of political cynicism, and I suggest to the minister that he himself knows better.
The hon. gentleman also appeared to derive some pleasure by affecting to discern a change in the position of this party between March 24, when I made the first speech on this bill, and the date on which my leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) spoke after the Easter recess. He was in the House for my speech on March 24-I presume he and his speechwriters have read it since-and he knows that that speech was one of opposition to this bill for the reasons I stated clearly at the time. At that point we considered that despite our opposition to the measure, we would let it go to committee in the hope that in committee we might be able to make the necessary improvements in it. However, the longer we studied the bill, the more we became aware of the obvious intent of the government to depart from the principle of universality wherever it could and the firmer became our conviction that at some point it was necessary to take a stand, that at some point it was necessary to say: You are going no further.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not mind telling you, Mr. Speaker, even though some of my hon. friends behind me may say I am revealing caucus secrets, that we had a struggle over the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act which the minister brought down in December, 1970. It confronted us with a dilemma. The bill did provide for some increase and for this reason we felt we ought to let it go through. But there were members of our caucus who argued that we should vote against it because it attacked the principle of universality.
On balance we let it go through, because although it attacked the principle of universality by increasing the guaranteed income supplement without increasing the basic amount-unless the minister still calls 42 cents an increase-nevertheless it was still true that there was universality at the $80 level. In other words, all persons in Canada 65 years of age and over can qualify for and receive that amount of money.
The minister now comes along and introduces a bill that completely takes away the principle of universality from family allowances. We know that the minister is a member of a government that seems to think it has to tear down everything that has been built up during the past 50 years and remake it, and we are wondering what is next. Will this government take universality away from medicare, hospital insurance and what have you? We think that in our day we should be moving further in the direction of universality, not away from it, and this is why our party has decided that at some point we have to say no. I say to
Family Income Security Plan
the minister that this is that point. We are saying no, in our amendment, to second reading and we are going to say no by our vote on second reading itself.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I was planning to make a speech today before the minister spoke, but in different vein. It was going to be a speech in which I would appeal to the minister to take this bill back to the drawing board or back to the experts in his department who drew it for him and to do his best to come back here with a reasonable and sensible piece of legislation.
I still think that the minister is a man of some common sense. I remember in particular the way in which we were able to work together when he was a private member and even when he became a parliamentary secretary, particularly in the days of the Canada Pension Plan. There has been a bit of a gulf between us since he became a minister and has all the authority and the power that goes with that, but behind all that I think there is still something in the minister to which one might appeal.
Despite the speech that the minister made this afternoon, which seemed to be one of defending the proposition he has placed before us, I say to him-and the minister referred to this-as one who has been paying attention to income maintenance and social security measures for a long time that this bill is a serious mistake in Canadian social security legislation. Far from his worrying about any disavowal with which he charges us, I would say to him that he and the members of the cabinet to which he belongs, led by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), are in fact disavowing a position that it has taken the Liberals 50 years to achieve.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: "No more of this free stuff", says the Prime Minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not only does he say that, but he says that it is a lot of guff for pensioners to be claiming that they are not getting enough to live on, and so on. Just as the government feels that every other area of government has to be torn apart and put together in some different way, they seem to think that King, St. Laurent, Pearson and the ministers that they had in their day were wrong to the extent that they moved gradually toward the concept of universality in social legislation.
Because this bill is not only opposed to what we have stood for across the years but is also opposed to what the Liberals themselves finally got around to putting on the statute books, we think that we are being true to ourselves, that we are doing a service to the Liberal party and most of all to the people of Canada, by taking a firm stand and saying that this bill in its present form ought not to pass.
I now want to say something about some of the comments made by the minister in his speech, on which I have commended him for its construction and the way he delivered it despite what I think of some of its contents. The minister rose in his seat only 20 feet away from me and said that we were voting against increasing allowances for the poor. I say nonsense, Mr. Speaker, we are not voting against increasing allowances for the poor. We want our people to get even greater allowances than the minister is proposing to assist them in the upbringing of their children. We are voting against the strings that the minister

April 26, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
and the Liberals are attaching to the increased allowances provided in this bill.
In the first place, despite all the persuasive language the minister used when he said that this is not a means test but an income test, the fact remains that it is a test to which people must submit themselves. Indeed, it is so far from the simple arrangements that have been in effect under the Family Allowances Act that I still cannot understand why the minister has brought in the bill.
Earlier today while thinking about the speech I intended to make this afternoon, which was to be different from the one I am now making, I went into the files in my office. Actually, I intended to pull out a copy of the original Family Allowances Act which Mr. King brought in in 1944 and to see what else I had in my files. I was amazed to see how simple the bill was-just a few pages, and there it was. But as I looked into my own files I discovered that in the 27 years since that legislation came into effect in 1945 I have not had ten letters from people complaining that they were not getting the right amount or that they were not getting the family allowances to which they were entitled. There were many letters calling for higher allowances, but almost none dealing with administrative errors.
We all know the kind of correspondence that we have been getting recently about unemployment insurance. We all know the kind of correspondence we receive about veterans pensions and allowances. We all know the kind of correspondence we have about problems experienced by our old age pensioners. Yet in a quarter of a century we have had precious little correspondence as members of parliament about family allowances cases because of the very simplicity and directness of the legislation that was brought in in 1944 and which was put into effect in 1945.
Under this bill we have a set of rules and conditions that I defy any member of the House, having read the bill three or four times, to comprehend. Under the old system, if you had a child of a certain age you got a certain allowance and that was it. Under the new rules you have first of all to consider the level of income of the family. During the latter part of his speech the minister made quite a bit about the limits on income for family allowance purposes being not as severe as we think they are. He went on to read off a long list of items. In effect, he was telling us that the definition of income under the family income security plan will be the definition of income used in the Income Tax Act. There might be one or two differences but in the main the definition is the same.
So that is where you start; you have to find out what is your level of income. You then have to face the fact that above a certain point, for every $500 in the family income there will be a difference in entitlement or in the amount of the family allowance. Even within the $500 range we will have to face the fact that every $100 difference in income can mean a difference of 33 cents per month in the amount of the family allowance. Then you will have to consider how many children you have, what their ages are, what happens when they move from one age to another, and so on.

Then there is this very interesting system that has been developed in the bill in which there are extensive references to the benefit year and to the base calendar year. The benefit year starts on September I and continues until next August 31. That is the period for which you get your allowance at a fixed amount, except that nothing is really fixed. The amount you will get in that benefit year from September to August in most cases is determined by what your income was in the base calendar year, which is the calendar year that ended eight months before the benefit year began. However, there will be many people, in fact I would say many thousands of people, who will find it difficult to base their claim on that base calendar year which, as I say, ended eight months before the benefit year began.
So there is a possibility of substituting for the base calendar year the current calendar year, but the conditions under which you can make that substitution take several sections to spell out. Then under certain conditions, if you cannot estimate your income for the full amount of the current calendar year you can submit what your average income is for a certain number of these months and multiply it by a certain figure, getting an estimate that will be accepted.
Then there is the whole question of what happens to people when their levels of income change, especially the working people of this country, the people whose wage rates may go up a few cents an hour or who may have a bit of time off, a lay-off, and so on. It does not take very much of a wage increase to amount to $500 a year. You will probably have cases where employees will be wishing the increase were $490 a year instead of $510 because of what it will do to the family allowance.
The point I am making is that the items which will have to be fed into a computer will be legion, and it was the minister himself this afternoon who talked about putting these things into the computer. Any suggestion that it is a simple arrangement, as simple as the guaranteed income supplement-and even the simplicity of that I deny-is inaccurate. It is suggested that this is a lot simpler, but what it means is that you have here a complicated system which will cause the recipients of family income security plan benefits to be completely ignorant of where they stand.
I say to the minister-and this was the kind of thing I intended to say when my speech was being planned, before he made his-that within three years of the time this bill comes into effect some minister of national health and welfare will be coming into this House seeking legislation to change it. Some minister will be coming in saying it is utterly too complicated and too unworkable, that we have to simplify it and go back to a system whereby the amounts are paid out and any recoveries that are to be made are looked after at the end of the year or through the medium of income tax.
When I was talking earlier about all the complications, I forgot to mention the question of recoveries and overpayments. The minister made some reference to these this afternoon. Sprinkled through the legislation-the public will be aware of this and it will have to be in the pamphlets put out-are references to the penalties which can
April 26, 1972

be suffered if one makes a mistake or files a wrong application. So the whole thing, compared to the simple plan we have, is such a hodge-podge of complications that for the minister to stand up here today and say we are making a mountain out of a molehill suggests he has not read the bill. Perhaps I should not say that because I am sure he has read the bill, but I wonder if he has read it, not just with an eye to understanding it as a lawyer and an intelligent person versed in these things but with any attempt to understand what it will mean to the ordinary people of this country.
I come back to what I said at the start of this part of my remarks. I deny completely the minister's suggestion that we are voting against an increase in family allowances. I say we are voting against the strings that are attached to it. One of the most serious strings attached to this whole measure is, indeed, this complicated structure and grotesque array of conditions that people have to meet. This will spoil the legislation. I suggest that within three years-


Mr. Gibson:: It is humanitarian.


An hon. Member:: Oh, be quiet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All I can say to
the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) is that his father was a smarter man. He was here in 1944 and supported the principle of universality.


An hon. Member:: He also knew when to keep quiet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Colin David Gibson: I think it is unfair for my friend to refer to paternity. I would have to be as old as Methuselah to have any knowledge of his father, so I do not think it is a fair comparison.


Mr. Peters:: He knew yours, but he sometimes wonders about him now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can tell the hon. member, in case he is not aware of it, that his father was not only a member of the House in 1944 who voted for the Family Allowance Act; he was also a member of the King government that brought it in. I hope the hon. member does not feel he has a question of privilege when I say that his father was a smarter man than he is.
I said that our opposition to this bill is not against the increases it contains but against the strings that are attached to it. The second string attached to this bill is the terrible uncertainty which hangs over it as to the amount which people will receive. They will have no idea of that amount, partly because of the complicated structure to which I have made a few references and partly because under the bill it is left to the government to change the amounts any time it wants, or make certain other changes in the legislation.
It is true there is a provision in the bill about the necessity of bringing these things before parliament for one of these affirmative or negative votes, and I am not sure which it is at the moment. The whole question of whether there will be any increase in the amount of the
Family Income Security Plan
allowances to keep pace with the rise in the cost of living, or to keep pace with other conditions that might make further increases necessary, is not in the hands of parliament but in the hands of the government. It is that kind of uncertainty that we feel is a string which should not be attached to these allowances.
Now, Sir, without following any particular order I come to the string in respect of this bill that bothers me most of all, and it is the reason why I have reached the point where, along with my colleagues, I have to say no. The reason I must say no is that there is a string attached to these increases which makes it necessary that those who get them must wear the badge of poverty. The government can talk all it wants about this being an anti-poverty measure, but the fact of the matter is that in order to get the benefits under this legislation people have to parade, declare and assert their poverty. I say this is no way to get rid of poverty. We have had far too much of this in Canada and in some other western countries, where we make handouts to people because they are poor.
The fact is that we should be providing the means for a decent standard of living for people because they are people, the way in which we did it under the Old Age Security Act, before this government messed it up, and in the way we have been doing it over the years under the Family Allowances Act. But now the government proposes that the allowance to be made available for the support of children is not to be made available because children are children. It is to be made available to those on whom we place the badge of poverty. That is a string we do not accept and that is why we are opposed to this bill in its present form. That is why I think this minister ought to use the common sense he has left and take it back to cabinet and to his research people and ask them to redraw the bill in the simpler terms we have had since 1944.
Another string attached to this proposed increase in family allowances is one that came out in the speech the minister made this afternoon. He says the whole purpose of this approach of the government is to redistribute our social welfare dollars to make sure that they go not to those who do not need them but to those who do. That would be a plausible argument if it were not being made by a government which has done the very opposite. It has done nothing toward redistributing the wealth of this country. In fact, the approach in this bill and in the tax legislation in particular has been one to redistribute the wealth of this country in favour of the wealthy. The minister stands here with all of the charm of which he is capable and says we must not give any advantage to the wealthy. Was he around in this House or in cabinet when the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Benson) was putting through the income tax legislation last year? Is he not aware that in that bill we gave to the wealthy infinitely more than we are giving to the poor, and infinitely more than we are taking away from the wealthy by taking away their family allowances?


John Carr Munro: We took one million off the tax rolls at the lower levels.

April 26, 1972
Family Income Security Plan


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, these people over there think they have done something about poverty. My hon. friend, the minister's colleague, should worry about the poverty of the Indians.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, and they will also benefit from this legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friends over there, both of whom have some experience of poverty in their background and who ought to understand it, seem to think that when they take one million people off the tax rolls, some of whom were paying taxes of $10, $15, or even $100, they are placed in the class of the affluent and suddenly their poverty problems are solved. Merely relieving people of $10, $15 or even $100 a year in taxation does not solve their basic problem of poverty. Giving people an extra $8 or an extra $10 a month per child of itself does not solve the problem of poverty.
I am as sure as I am that I am standing here that if the ministers opposite me this afternoon, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), were not here as members of a cabinet with all the power, authority and prestige they have-I see my friend laughing. Does he not have the power, authority and prestige I think he has? If they were just discussing this matter out of the chamber with some of us, out of their social concern, they would agree with me that what is needed in this country is social reform which moves in the direction of greater equality of income, and that we must bring up the incomes of those in the lower brackets and do it substantially. This business of a few dollars in the proposed legislation, or taking one million people off the tax rolls is peanuts and does not solve the problem at all.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You are voting against it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend says we are voting against it. We are not voting against the increase. We want an even larger increase. We are voting against the strings and against a government which thinks it is doing something for those in the lower brackets when at the same time it has given an increase amounting to tens of thousands of dollars a year to those in the upper brackets through changes in the income tax legislation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is not true.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is true. Do not ask us to look at these things in isolation. One of the reasons we have this kind of responsible government where the government controls the purse strings, and so on, is to have some integrity about these things and to have them looked at together. The fact is that all these things must be taken together. The increase in old age pensions, what we have done for the veterans and what we have done for the children of families represent a total package. This does not solve the problem of poverty and does not redistribute income. Maybe there is some redistribution. The poverty of the poor is being redistributed because those a little less poor will pay more so that those who are very poor will get a little more. However, those in the upper brackets, because of the changes in the tax bill of last year, get far more.

The minister stands up today-I was taking notes a dime a dozen-and says that one of the aims of the government was not to give money to those in the upper brackets and to those who did not need it so that these many millions of dollars could go somewhere else, to those who need it. It does not happen that way. Not giving this family allowance money to those in the middle and upper brackets does not result in more money going to those in the lower brackets. Until the government is prepared to come in with a total package that is deliberately aimed at redistributing the wealth of this country and raising the economic levels of our people so that no group in society is below the poverty line, this kind of legislation should not be put through. It should be taken back to the drawing board and improved so that it is something worth bringing in. The minister said that between four million and five million Canadians are living below the poverty line. What a statement from a Minister of National Health and Welfare of a country producing over $90 billion worth of goods and services, with a population of a little over 20 million people!


John Carr Munro: Why are you voting against the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister asks why we are voting against the bill. I have to come back to what I said at the start. He made a well constructed speech with excellent delivery, but he does not seem to have any appreciation of social philosophy and some of the real needs of our time. It is using a popgun against an atomic weapon for the minister to think that the kind of legislation he is bringing in today will do anything at all toward solving the problems of poverty in this country.
Our opposition to this bill is because we want something that will really tackle the problem of poverty. Even an adequate family allowance scheme would not do this, but a family allowance scheme that was simpler than this which paid everyone and in which there was no dividing of people into various groups would go in the right direction. What we need, along with that, is a program of really full employment and adequate social security measures right through the piece. We need programs of housing, urban development and anti-pollution. We do not want to have it said of Canada that it is a country that can produce $90 billion worth of goods and services and yet have four million to five million people, 25 per cent of its population, living below the poverty line.
I said earlier that a number of strings were attached to this piece of legislation and I singled out the one that bothers me most, namely, that these people are called upon to put on the badge of poverty, to advertise it, to assert it. This is really the reason that for all these years some of us have argued for the principle of universality. I am going to be accused of saying things I have said before, things which some of my own colleagues may have said, but I have the floor so here it goes.
I well remember the attitude of the older people toward the pension when it had the means test attached to it. They were ashamed to admit they were drawing the old age pension. That was back in the 1930s and 1940s. I remember equally well the change that came about and
April 26, 1972

how quickly it came about when that means test was taken off, the pension was raised a bit and people could say with pride that they were old age pensioners because everybody was receiving it. There was also the incentive to save something, and the lot of the older people materially improved, not only the economic lot but the attitude toward life.
I can go back in my memory to the golden weddings in the 1930s. There were not many of them and they were not very happy affairs, but in more recent years they have been and I think it is partly because of this attitude that once a certain age is reached everybody should be in the same boat. I think that is equally true about family allowances, and the fact that they have been universal, that the rich and the poor families received them alike, did something for the unity of this country.
Now, Sir, we are being told that that is an election issue. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was quoted a few days ago when he was Acting Prime Minister as saying that the real issue in the next election will be Canadian unity. I will not quarrel with that any more than I would quarrel with motherhood, but I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that this is not the way to do it. You do not bring the country together, you do not establish unity by dividing the country into the haves and the have-nots, by giving certain social moneys to people because they are poor rather than because they are people and dividing the country in this way.
We will go from bad to worse if we follow this course. We think it was a gross error when the Old Age Security Act was violated, as it was by this government, and part of it was put on a means test, a needs test or an income test basis, and we think that doing that to family allowances will have the same effect. I also think that the tendency will be for the children of families that are on family allowance because of their poverty to be another generation who will also get the family allowance because of their poverty. You perpetuate the very thing which we are trying to abolish.
What really annoys me about this minister, because I think he has enough sense to understand it, is this whole situation of the country being divided and of the divisions being perpetuated. It is the poverty that is here and that stays with certain classes of society that we should be attacking, and this bill, far from attacking this kind of division, this kind of poverty that is perpetuated from one year to another and from one generation to another, will actually increase it. So I still say to the minister, despite the confrontation we are having, despite the vote that may come on our amendments or on the main motion, despite the political challenge which he throws out and which is accepted-if he wants us to debate the issue on the hustings, we are prepared to do so-that he should take this bill back to the people in his department and back to the cabinet.
I wish it had been possible for us to get the original version of the Willard report. I do not know how many versions there were, but we did not see any of them. I hope that some day the records of this government will be open and students of history will be able to go into them and find out how it came about that under the present
Family Income Security Plan
Prime Minister it was possible to reverse all these trends that we had finally sold to the Liberals across the years.
I believe that if we could really get to the sensible people in the government service-and the Minister of National Health and Welfare has many of them in his department; I am talking about public servants-they would agree that our job is to unite society, not divide it, and the way to do it is not by this kind of bill but by a bill that retains the principle that was in the Family Allowances Act of 1944 and in the Old Age Security Act until the Pearson and then the Trudeau government altered it a few years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I see you getting to your feet. Perhaps I can have a minute or two yet. I am sure the minister will give me five minutes for the ten we gave him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member be permitted to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank hon. members and I shall not abuse the courtesy of the House.
We have been arguing that what should be produced is a piece of legislation similar to the one we had in 1944. The minister has put to us the challenge with reference to collecting money from taxes and whether we should follow the principles suggested by the Canadian Council on Social Development. I say to him, yes. There might be some details on which we would differ, but generally the idea of universality and an arrangement whereby in the case of those in the upper bracket the money is taken back in taxation, even to the point of 100 per cent, is infinitely better than this kind of arrangement.
When we drafted our amendment which the hon. member for York South placed before the House, we felt that it was a detail which we need not put into the amendment any more than we need put into it the amounts of the allowance. But we do feel we should get back to the principle of giving family allowance benefits to all families and making up for any excess that gets into the hands of the wealthy by a proper income tax structure. The minister says that we are not prepared to propose that kind of income tax structure. We certainly are, and he knows it. It is his colleagues, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), who are unwilling to propose the kind of taxation that would get this money back.
The minister said something about the wife getting the allowance and spending it, and then her husband having to pay it back in taxation. That will be up to them, and as a matter of fact I think there would be people who would not apply for the family allowance for that reason, but it would be available to them. You will find that there are many mothers in this country, even in the $7,000, $8,000, $9,000 and $10,000 brackets, who would feel that the rights they have enjoyed since 1944 should be continued, the right to receive that cheque even if the old man has to turn around and pay it back in income tax. I think also that the amounts should be even higher than the $15 and $20 levels proposed in Bill C-170.

April 26, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
The minister keeps telling us, as do other ministers when we advocate increases in the old age pension, that we cannot afford these things. As I have said many times-perhaps my interjections have not always gone on the record-that is what Charlie Dunning said to J. S. Woodsworth when Mr. Woodsworth was advocating a pension of $20 a month. We could not afford it. We could not find the money. The country would go broke. The Senate followed that argument and voted against the first bill. But we found we could pay $20 years ago and a lot more in recent years.
Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I said that things have to be looked at in their totality. What one has to look at is not just the budgets of governments, whether federal or provincial, but the total wealth-producing capacity of the country. That capacity today is producing goods and services in excess of $90 billion and if we had full employment it would be well over $100 billion. What we have to do in this Parliament is decide on a system of priorities. In a country that can produce this much wealth, the first question is how is that wealth to be divided, to be appropriated?
Is it to go into big bank buildings, the profits of large corporations, and that sort of thing? Is it to go into huge incomes, even though there may not be that many of them, that are taxed at only 30 per cent, 35 per cent or 40 per cent? Is it to go into resource industries that pay little or no tax at all, or is this $90 billion to $100 billion to be used to provide a standard of living for all our people that starts with the proposition that in Canada there should not be anybody living below the poverty line?
The minister said that he was surprised we were complaining about an increased bureaucracy because he thinks we want the government to get into all kinds of things. Mr. Speaker, that was just a by-play in that first-rate political speech which he made. And that is what is wrong with him. If he has any social philosophy he should not be sitting over there with the Liberal party. What is wrong with him is his failure to realize that the job of government and the job of parliament is not to touch just a few things in our lives but to cope with this whole question of priorities and to make sure that absolutely the first claim on the wealth we are able to produce is the well-being and the standard of living of our people.
If we are to have any priorities within that general framework, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that they should be for our children and our older people. That is why we want an adequate family allowance program and an adequate social security program. It is why we put such emphasis on health care, on housing, on the things that will give people a standard of living such as they can enjoy and such as the country is able to produce.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope I have shown the shallowness of the minister's attempt, in that speech of his that was excellent in its construction, to say that we are voting against something for the poor. Really, John, how could you say that? I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but really how could the Minister of National Health and Welfare say that of us?


John Carr Munro: I would like to know what went on in your caucus.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says he would like to know what went on in our caucus. I wish he had been there. He would have learned a few things.


John Carr Munro: I would like to know why you made the switch not to approve the bill on second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can tell the minister that there is another former Liberal who will be in our caucus next time, and she will enjoy it. What has to be realized is that it is possible for government to cope with this problem. It does not lie with the minister to say, as he tried to say today, that we are opposed to increased allowances for those at the bottom of the scale. We want family allowances to be increased even more than the minister proposes in this bill, but we want no strings attached.
We want unity, the kind of unity that comes from providing a decent standard of living for all our people. We believe this can be done. The time has come to say no to this regressive and restrictive measure. The time has come to strike out for a decent standard of living for all the people of this country.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have already had the opportunity of expressing my views on Bill C-170. I would like however to make certain comments regarding the amendment before us which aims at postponing the consideration of the bill.
I have no hesitation about repeating my support of the bill which, I think, sets a commendable, justifiable and very advisable objective.
I have listened with a great deal of attention to the speech of the member of the New Democratic Party who has mainly outlined the birth of the Family Allowances Act in 1944. I should like to seize this opportunity to suggest to him that, for almost 30 years, many changes have been brought, and if today this government saw fit to bring major changes, I think that this is justified, considering the changes, of course, that we have had over the past 30 years.
I would also add, for instance, that I have read certain comments, among others those of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) who did not hesitate yesterday to say that the debate has already been extended, and that this delay affects millions of Canadians. I think he is perfectly right, if there is a genuine desire to assist, not only those who are in need, but also the whole population of Canada.
I was very interested to hear from the minister that 11 per cent of Canadian workers earn over $10,000. This means that the bill before us is geared directly to the have-nots and I feel that any comparisons we can make between the principle of universality and that of selectivity lead us to believe that the bill aims at giving more to those who really need it.
April 26, 1972

I fail to understand those who are supporting the principle of universality, according to which no change should be made to the present system. It is evident that the purpose is to narrow the gap between rich and poor and I, as representative of a population which also includes a percentage of poverty, feel it is my duty to defend not the government's position, but those people who are in the greatest need, which, after all, is mere common sense.
Of course I have on occasion not seen eye to eye with the government or certain colleagues. I believe what matters is to support sensible policies regarding the common welfare. I feel in duty bound to support the legislation right away and I invite other hon. members to expedite the matter so that those who have been waiting so long for these changes may benefit by them as early as possible.
I read the speech of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe). He was in the House for quite awhile this afternoon. I regret that he is gone. I was very surprised to read, for instance, such stupid statements as he made yesterday when he mentioned that the government was more interested in subsidizing piglets which definitely belong to producers than in concerning itself with children. And he stated that the government had initiated a policy guaranteeing $5 per piglet, which is completely false. No grant is paid unreservedly to piglet producers. Everybody knows that the government has provided a $5 grant for hogs and that such a grant is limited to 200 hogs per producer.
I also note that he stated at a certain moment and I quote:
-50 per cent of the population is unemployed-
And he added later on:
Nearly 35 per cent of our population is now unemployed-
Such statements are nothing short of stupid and I wonder how a member of the Social Credit who often advocates redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor can put forward such arguments and reject such a legislation which, in my opinion, is precisely aimed at providing increased benefits to the needy.
Mr. Speaker, now that election rumours are flying, each member is tempted to add a dash of electioneering spice to his comments and thus I ask myself how can we serve the community when we raise partisan issues.
As for that redistribution which the Creditists are so eager to carry out, such is the object of the bill now under consideration. As for the amendment, it is aimed at further delaying passage of the bill. On the contrary, I think that it is urgent to pass it, considering that the legislation has remained unchanged for almost 30 years.
However, I cannot say that this bill is absolutely perfect, but even if it has some defects it is better to pass it as soon as possible than to do nothing at all.
Some members say that those who are opposed to this measure will vote against the poor. It is too easy to argue that way if one considers the complexity of this bill, the difficulties that might be ahead for those who will be allowed to take advantage of it and it does not seem to me that those arguments may justify the rejection of this bill.
It is very easy to criticize and to make people think that this measure will be a mystery to them. I do not think that
Family Income Security Plan
these arguments will convince people to refuse these very useful increases. It is clear that the families who need it most will definitely be protected under this legislation.
As members of parliament with a responsibility to society, we cannot but support this legislation. This does not mean that members of the House must remain quiet and accept it without saying a word. It is very desirable that each member express his concerns about this bill, but I cannot understand why anyone can object to legislation to assist a group of people in need. No member in this House can disprove this.
But to return to the election climate, we may be tempted by electioneering-as a matter of fact we have seen nothing else in this House for nearly a month-but I wonder to what extent, by so doing, we are serving the best interests of our society. Have we forgotten our duty?
The previous speaker, a representative of the New Democratic Party, mentioned the duty of the government and indeed of each and every one of the hon. members. When people talk about the Canadian government, they refer to those wise men who are responsible for the administration of this country's business. I assume that those who can hear the arguments of hon. members will realize their lack of interest in the collective good.
I know that according to our traditions, it is the role of the opposition to criticize the government. This is what members of the present government were doing when they were in the opposition. In my opinion, the Canadians have well understood this game of the system and this is why they have ceased to put their trust in parliamentary members who are indulging in this practice. In fact, this practice leads members to show greater concern for their political aims than for the well being of the people.
I am making these remarks because I share the feelings of those who are deeply disappointed at the attitude taken by certain members, merely bringing up arguments that will serve their political ambitions when, as we all know, more than a million families are waiting for this legislation that will enable them to get a supplementary income, long awaited and precious to them.
To what extent are we aware of this responsibility? When will the people be able to receive assistance from their representatives in the House, and that in a positive and objective fashion? Should we consider making some changes in the system, which would probably allow hon. members to express themselves more freely? We all know that there are awkward party policies. I never hesitated to say publicly that the party line often involves the conscience and the freedom of the member. But if these views are shared by some, I believe it is high time that certain changes be made in order that hon. members who support legislation that makes any sense at all may be able to do so without getting into any trouble.
Finally, I believe that the Canadian people want representatives who will defend a policy of good sense, representatives who will definitely show good sense in the interest of the community.
I say this because of some very favourable comments I made with regard to the legislation. An hon. member,

April 26, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
whether he be in the opposition or on the government side, must play a part in the interest of society. And, as long as the people's representatives are satisfied with making comments in order to delay the passage of a bill, to embarrass the government, or to make its work difficult they will continue to lose the confidence of the people and to serve the people badly.
In my opinion, the purpose of this bill is laudable, for it is designed to help those who most need it, and I do not think this can be denied. Of course, some provisions are disputable, some calculations need to be reconsidered, and I trust that at the committee stage some changes can be made to improve the bill. However, to oppose this bill designed to give more to those who most need it is, I feel, to be dishonest towards the class of needy people.
In my opinion, we should stop and think about this. If we consider this possibility, I do not think that arguments as stupid and weak as have been put forward hold. Any change involves difficulties.
But, Mr. Speaker, should we do nothing just because there are difficulties involved? I think we should be braver and more optimistic than some members are-and I want to say again that I am not talking in this way to try and save the government. I do not care whether the government is right or wrong; what matters to me is that it is introducing legislation which makes sense and which could help a class of people who really need it-and I am convinced that this legislation offers real advantages for those who most need help.
I feel, therefore, that we must be objective enough in our comments designed to improve the bill-but let us not try and unduly delay passing of this bill by proposing amendments which simply ask that consideration of the bill be deferred for an indefinite period, when we know very well that large families have for years been in neeed of an increase in family allowances.
Some members use arguments put forward in 1944 in favour of a universal system. This is the way the present family allowance system was conceived of at the time of its introduction. It was agreed to. I believe that those who introduced it 30 years ago were very clever people; that legislation was quite valuable and useful since it was accepted. However, taking into account the changes involved in the present context, where we admit that a number of people belong to the poverty group, we must act. Now, the government is introducing legislation designed precisely to give a little more to the group including the neediest people, and in that respect we are confronted with absurd and weak arguments probably prompted by election fever. I trust that the Canadian people who are closely following the progress of this legislation will not be influenced by such weak arguments since we know perfectly well that the requests of the less fortunate people are much more important than any possible electoral campaigning.
I shall end on these words: indeed, when shall we consider honestly enough the interests of the community? Indeed, when will we manage to behave as businessmen in the administration of the country, since its administration is our responsibility? Indeed, when shall we prove objective enough in this Parliament to get over partisan-

ship in order to grant to millions of people the increased benefits they are expecting?
I would like to think that these few comments will not be interpreted as a mere expression of support for a party. On the contrary, I am making them in the belief that this is my responsibility. If certain governmental measures were wrong, I would not hesitate to convey my opinions to the government. But since I believe that this legislation aims at rectifying a situation that can no longer be tolerated, I think it is my duty, as a member for a riding which has its own share of poor people, to deal with this matter.
This legislation will put a label on a certain category of people, those in need, who are going to be so constrained as to end up begging for their allowances. I am sorry that we should be compelled in the present circumstances to create those distinctions. However, I believe it is better still to implement this legislation as soon as possible. This does not mean that the government should fold its arms and do nothing for the next thirty years.
On the contrary, I think that this legislation should be implemented as soon as possible so long as the government does not entertain the belief that he has nothing more to do to try and find new formulas that will improve it.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will soon proceed with the study of this bill in committee and finally reach this third reading stage, in order that those who are most in need could benefit still more of a legislation that will have been passed by responsible people in Parliament.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I could not help noting the remark of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) when he suggested that although he regretted the fact that this bill provides selectivity, we should pass it. He said it is time we stopped thinking of what is contained in the bill, sent it to committee and passed it in the House so that those affected will know what is in it.
I am sure that anyone who does not belong to a political party which has a philosophy has no real concern about what happens in the House of Commons. People talk about political opportunists. The hon. member is in that category. He talked about sending this bill to committee in order for it to be improved. From his experience I am sure he realizes what little chance there is to do anything in committee when we have a government that is completely insensitive to the rights of Canadians.
In answer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made it very clear that we are not voting against the payment of $15 or $20 but against the type of administrative nightmare that will be created if this bill is passed in its present form. We listened to the minister. He said that something must be done to alleviate the situation now faced by people in the low income bracket. We agree that something must be done. However, when the minister talks about so-called vertical redistribution-I think that is the phrase-on a selective basis, that is not acceptable to the New Democratic Party nor is it acceptable to the majority of Canadians. If the minister
April 26, 1972

and the government would like to test the electorate on this issue and use it as something on which to go to the people, we are willing to withstand any type of criticism they may suggest with regard to our opposition to this bill. It has been said, and I think it bears repeating, that the type of bill we have before us indicates that the minister is not prepared to accept this type of assumption. It is a cruel hoax on the people of this country; it will divide our society as it has never been divided; our society will be divided into haves and have-nots.
The minister spoke about old age pensioners not being affected by this type of means test. He is not in touch with the people of this country. He cannot be reading his mail. The people of Canada do not like to be put on a selective basis. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated, the bill introduced within the last two years was a type of omnibus bill; you had to vote for it in order for some people to receive benefits. However, the selectivity part of this bill is not needed and we have no intention of supporting that proposition.
The minister asked why we did not look at the issues when the previous bill was before us. He said they were essentially the same. So far in this House we have seen a game of musical chairs. When one minister gets into some trouble, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appoints another minister to that portfolio. We never know what type of legislation will be introduced until second reading stage. This can happen with any legislation the Liberal government introduces into the House.
We thought that Liberal philosophy was somewhat concerned with the people of Canada but we have found it is no different from Conservative philosophy in so far as concerns recognition of the rights of the individual. It is time the people of this country realized there is not much difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. This bill is a good indication of that fact.
About two years ago Canada had two major social security programs, the old age security and the family allowances programs. These programs were supposed to be universal in character, a right of the individual with no type of means test. It was ably brought out this afternoon that the old age security legislation providing for the 42-cent increase violated the principle of universal coverage. We now see that the bill before us is based on a means test. Payments are not universal; they will not be made as a matter of right. Surely the minister can appreciate the argument that these two pieces of legislation should be universal in their application rather than selective.
The government has abandoned the principle of universality and entered into the dark, suspicious, degrading, double-standard area of selectivity. There is no escaping the fact that under selectivity where will be a double standard, a degrading, suspicious area in which people will be assessed and documented in a computerized society. They will be subject to a means test, and there is really no need for such a test to be applied. We do not need to perpetuate a society composed of haves and have-nots, yet this is exactly what the legislation would do. A means test in this context is not only objectionable in itself; it is
Family Income Security Plan
objectionable because it is burdensome in terms of administration. Many speakers on this side of the House have described the bureaucratic set-up which is involved, the administrative confusion which this bill will bring about.
As an illustration of the government's misguided thinking, let me refer to the attempt which is being made to deal with the problem of regional disparity. On one hand the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) is trying to insist on regional rates of pay in his negotiations with the Public Service Alliance; on the other hand the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) is spending millions of dollars trying to bring about a situation designed to eliminate regional disparities. In effect, the President of the Treasury Board is following the same principle as is contained in the bill before us. I use this as an analogy, one which throws light on this bill.
On one hand the government professes to abhor discrimination, but they are still applying discrimination between groups in the public service, on a geographical basis. A similar situation arises with respect to Bill C-170 where discrimination from now on will be shown when dealing with people who formerly were entitled as of right to the benefits of this legislation.
Even though there has been a rise in the cost of living amounting to 230 per cent since 1945, we could probably accept the minister's figures of $15 and $20 if these payments were distributed in the way they should be distributed. The minister says the bill is designed to rid the country of pockets of poverty. Will this, indeed, be the result or will it create a situation in which certain people are forced into a category from which they cannot escape?
I smile when I hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare say that people are not really concerned about knowing who receives what cheque or in what amount. I am sure he realizes that they are concerned about that, and to pretend otherwise is nonsense. We have all heard about the computerized society. I suppose many of us have read the book entitled "Future Shock." We know that today people are wondering exactly where they are going. They are beginning to realize that the system under which we are operating is a complete shambles. They realize they are becoming just numbers fed into a computer. They are faced with decisions of increasing complexity and are wondering how they can get out.
I understand that copies of the proposed new 1972 income tax return have been sent out to certain accountants for their observations and comments. I also understand that the 1972 tax return is red tape personified. There is no question that if one couples Bill C-170 with the 1972 income tax return, the only way in which those concerned will be able to work out what benefits they are entitled to receive will be to hire an accountant or a lawyer. If we suggest the principle of universal coverage and adopt the amendment which our party has introduced, we can at least escape the consequences of some of the rhetoric the minister has been using. As it is, the government appears to be showing no real concern for social justice or the equitable distribution of income in accordance with the social needs of our people. If time were available, I am sure we could continue for a long

April 26, 1972
Business of the House
time giving examples of what the government has done and has failed to do in this area.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask someone on the government side whether we can assume that if a certain
event does not take place during our weekly night off we shall be continuing the debate on this legislation tomorrow.


Mr. Deachman:: I understand we shall be continuing debate on this bill tomorrow.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday. April 27, 1972