1972-03-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday, March 29,1972, it shall stand adjourned until Thursday, April 13, 1972, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.


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


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there are just a few words I should like to say on this motion which has been placed before us by the President of the Privy Council. We have no objection to the motion, which calls for a two-week recess beginning at six o'clock tomorrow night, but I think that the President of the Privy Council at some point ought to take us into his confidence and tell us what is involved, particularly since we are coming back on a Thursday rather than on a Monday as is usually the case following an Easter break. In view of the fact that Thursday, April 13, is the day when President Nixon arrives in Ottawa, it seems only fair that we should be told what plans the government has in mind, particularly for the House of Commons.
My other comment, Mr. Speaker, also arises out of the proposal for a slightly extended recess at this time. With the speculation abroad about a general election, it seems to me that the government might also take us into its confidence in that matter. I realize that if I were to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) directly-and that is the way you like us to put questions-when the election is going to be held, he probably would not be as definite as some of us have been. But, Mr. Speaker, I remind the government that on certain occasions in the past when a general election has been more or less certain the government has told the House what its plans were so that the business of the House could be arranged for the last week or two in an orderly fashion. It seems to me, if the government is not prepared to make such a statement with
respect to this motion, that it should, when we come back after the Easter recess, make a clear statement as early as possible and tell us what the actual position is. If the election is going to be put off until next fall or next year, let the government say so categorically. But if it is planning to hold the election at the end of June, I suggest we ought to be told so that the business of the House can be dealt with in an orderly fashion during the last week or ten days that we are here.


Mr. Hees:: You guys just don't know when the election will be. You cannot make up your minds.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table four sets of documents dated March 27 consisting of an exchange of notes between the government of Canada and the government of Denmark concerning fisheries relations between the two countries, an agreement between Canada and France on their mutual fishing relations, an exchange of notes between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom concerning fisheries relations between the two countries, and an exchange of notes between the government of Canada and the government of Portugal concerning fisheries relations between the two countries.


Mr. McGrath:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I object most strenuously to the procedure being followed today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Members of parliament are not being given the same rights as the press in this regard. I point out to Your Honour that yesterday afternoon at five o'clock members of the press were briefed on these four important treaties by senior officials of the Department of External Affairs.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


James Aloysius McGrath: It is regrettable that the same privilege has not been extended to members of parliament. I want to be on record as being opposed to the procedure now being followed, and I wonder what is happening to the concept of responsible government.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on the same point of order. Yesterday afternoon, as the hon. member
1202

March 28, 1972
National Security
suggested, I signed agreements with the High Commissioner and the ambassadors of the countries concerned. I did not feel it desirable to do this in secret since we had nothing to hide. At the first opportunity I have tabled these documents in the House of Commons.



TABLING OF TELEGRAM TO CANADIAN COPPER PRODUCERS HAVING CONTRACTS WITH JAPANESE PURCHASERS

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to lay on the table of the House the text of a telegram sent by me, as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to Canadian copper producers who have contract arrangements with Japanese purchasers.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are fully aware that there is constant work and vigilance in Canada on security matters and that at the same time it is not customary to comment on these matters or on this work. Indeed, the success of security work requires this restraint.
There has been recent speculation concerning a security matter associated with the name Anton Sobotka. This speculation is based on a fictional account which itself was based in part on real facts, and which formed a part of training material for our security work.
I should reassure hon. members that, while the case is interesting, it bears little resemblance to the colourful speculation about it. Indeed, the espionage depicted is espionage at a low level, and the case is one of effective counter-espionage work in discovering it rather than a defection.
Having said that, I hope that hon. members will agree with the ordinary procedure of avoiding comment on security matters. In the ordinary course the Leader of the Opposition is briefed on security matters. In this case, as Acting Solicitor General, I would be glad to discuss in full detail with the leaders of the opposition parties the training material to which I have referred.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this place is getting to be somewhat like Alice in Wonderland. We get the brush-off from the Prime Minister one day and then the next day we get the statement that the Minister of Justice has just made.


Mr. Danson:: And is the Mad Hatter now speaking?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister said that the speculation is based on a fictional account which itself was based in part on real facts. That sounds like the government's version of its own record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will, of course, take up the minister's proposal to discuss this matter with him. But I want to make it very clear that I will do so on the basis that I do not tie my own hands with regard to information that may come from other sources.
The minister also made the statement that in the ordinary course of events the Leader of the Opposition is briefed on security matters. I do not want anybody to get the impression from this that I have been briefed on this or, indeed, on any other matter relating to espionage since I have been Leader of the Opposition.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT. 1971 AMENDMENT RESPECTING WAITING PERIOD AND DELAY IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS

Mr.   Peters. Timiskaming@for Mr. Howard. Skeena: for leave to introduce Bill C-185, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (justitia pro societas).


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


Mr.   Barnett. Comox-Albemi@for Mr. Howard. Skeena: for leave to introduce Bill C-186, to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.


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


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the very sharp decline in Canada's trade with the European Economic Community during the past year and in view of reports from within the community of very strong pressures in each country to increase manufacturing, which of course will make it more and more difficult for countries to trade within the community, will the minister advise the House whether Canada is taking special additional steps at this time to increase our trade with the EEC, and will he take the first opportunity on motions to outline what those steps are?

March 28, 1972


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, statistics are one of the strong points of my hon. friend, but he always neglects to digest them. If you look at the exports to Europe you will realize that the picture is not as he indicated. In 1971 we had a slower growth. This was due to the fact that in 1970 we had a rather extraordinary growth. This having been said, the efforts of my department were fully developed yesterday at a trade conference here in Ottawa to which 20 of our trade commissioners were recalled from Europe in order to advise and receive advice from Canadian businessmen. This is only one of many things we are doing to enhance our trade position with Europe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: In view of the fact the minister considers that a 5 per cent increase in trade, which is only about one-third of what is necessary, is satisfactory, and in view of the fact the steps he has outlined, as he knows perfectly well, are completely inadequate, will he get his head out of the sand and face reality instead of thinking of things as he would like them to be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is a suggestion. I do not think it is procedurally acceptable. I believe the hon. member for Waterloo has a supplementary.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether his department is working on a new industrial strategy for Canada, and whether this new industrial strategy includes a redefined role for Canadian international corporations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are working on that. I am afraid the hon. member will have to wait for some time before he is given a chance to see it in proper shape.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister whether it is the policy of the department to encourage Canadian corporations to establish subsidiaries within the European Common Market for the purpose of increasing sales there.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, when this is a way of enhancing Canada's national interests.


Max Saltsman: Can the minister give us some indication of when we might expect a report on the new industrial strategy he is preparing?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have already provided this information. I will send the reference to the hon. member.
_________________________________1203
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-DETERMINATION OF AREAS AFFECTED-USE OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since the minister has so far failed to enunciate any policy in response to the implementation of the DISC program in the United States because of the fact that there was not sufficient information as to what was being done under this program, and since the word from Washington now is that some 190 corporations have applied for tax status under DISC, I want to ask the minister whether his department is doing any research to determine which areas of our trade will be affected, and whether any countervailing duties will be applied in these particular areas?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I suggest that anybody reading Hansard tomorrow will find a good justification for not having done what is suggested, in the first sentence of that question. In view of the fact that we do not have sufficient information it has been difficult to devise a policy. I thought that was a good remark, good justification for not having devised a policy. Nobody has that information. The hon. member referred to 190 companies which might use DISC facilities. This is a figure which is sometimes given. Sometimes the figure 100 is mentioned; at other times it is 300. No information is available, to my knowledge, as to which companies are included in that number. There is not even information on many points of importance concerning the manner in which the DISC program will be implemented. It is still vague. So the hon. member is right: we cannot devise a policy unless we know all the facts.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The purpose of my question is to ask the minister whether he or his officials are making any serious attempt to find out the names of the corporations which have applied under DISC, what those corporations are, and especially whether any car manufacturers or manufacturers of car parts have made application. Has the minister any of this information, and, if not, when he gets this information will he make a statement in the House outlining the government's policy with respect to countervailing duties?


Jean-Luc Pepin: If the hon. member would care to look at past copies of Hansard he would find that I have already answered this question. My information is wholly hearsay; it is not based on documentation but hearsay, consultations and conversations we have had with the Canadian sectors of industry, and is that automobile manufacturers do not plan to use the DISC facilities and that a small number of parts makers are supposed to have filed applications under DISC, but a very small number indeed. My information from the parts makers in Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to both the hon. member who asked the question and the minister who replied that we are taking a little too long on each individual question. I would remind hon. members that there appeared to be agreement yesterday that we might

March 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
make an effort today to give an opportunity to those in the back rows who wish to participate in the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that last year's figures reveal an alarming increase of 20 per cent in bankruptcies in middle-class industry and business, and in view of the very serious ramifications that the DISC program might have on this segment of industry, can the minister not say whether countervailing duties have been considered by the government, and will he not consider making a statement on this matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my Bible is still what was said at the time by the then Minister of Finance, now Minister of National Defence, namely, that when a proper assessment of the effect of this program on the Canadian economy has been made, the necessary countermeasures will be taken.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a supplementary and then will go to the hon. member for Abitibi. I point out we have not yet completed the first round of questions and we should try to get on.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF CANADIAN LEGISLATION TO COUNTER EFFECTS

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact the government House leader in the Senate is reported to have said in a speech in Washington, I believe two days ago, that in fact the government does have detailed legislation prepared and ready to implement in order to deal with the effects of the DISC legislation of the United States, are we to understand from what the minister has said in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that the legislation that the government House leader of the Senate was referring to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the minister to reply briefly to the question, but the hon. member knows that the rules do not make it possible to quote what is said in the other place for the purpose of asking a question. I have the impression that this is what is being done at the present time. I believe there is good reason for this rule. However, since the hon. member has asked the question the minister might reply briefly.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The government representative in the Senate was speaking in another place, Washington, so perhaps we could make an exception here. It shows how well informed the government leader in the Senate is. He is aware-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's reply shows how well founded the rule is, because I suggest that in

replying to questions it is not in order for the minister to refer to statements made in the other place.


John Edward Broadbent: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is rising on a point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: I am sure Your Honour misheard me. I did not refer to comments made by the government House leader in the other place but to a speech that the government House leader of the other place made in Washington, with direct reference to government policy. Therefore I repeat the question and would ask the minister to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether that makes the question any more in order. The hon. member knows that speeches made outside the House can be quoted as support for questions only to ascertain whether such statements represent government policy. Because we are running short of time, if the minister has anything to add to his previous answer he will be recognized for that purpose, but I am anxious to give an opportunity to a representative of the party to the extreme left of the House to ask a question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I just repeat that the government House leader in the Senate is aware of a number of things that could be done, and that is what I thought he was referring to.
 * *



MANPOWER


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell the House whether he has accepted the suggestion of the Union of Municipalities and the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities that the deadline for the Local Initiatives Program be extended from May 31 to June 30?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the responsible minister is still of the same opinion that he held in the House, that is to say that, for the time being, he has no intention of granting an extension and that, should the matter be considered, a statement would be made in due course.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the large number of extremely serious and worthy projects presented by the municipalities and various other bodies, can we hope the government will add
March 28, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry
millions of dollars to the amounts already allotted, thus enabling government services to accept those projects?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, to my mind the hon. member should not entertain high hopes in that regard. We have already earmarked considerable sums for that program and the possibility of increasing them is rather slim.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES-POSSIBILITY OF PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that, in their brief, the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities seem to blame the federal government for a lack of consultation, does the Prime Minister intend to consult the provinces in the near future to discuss the possibility of negotiating with municipalities as far as pollution, taxation, transportation and industrial promotion are concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago, the federal government at a conference held in Winnipeg and attended by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs then responsible for Urban Affairs suggested tripartite meetings and that proposal was discussed on several occasions. I know that early in April the Minister of State in charge of Urban Affairs is also meeting his provincial opposite numbers to continue this discussion. Yesterday, at the meeting of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, I announced that we hoped there would be a tripartite conference before the end of the year.



MANPOWER


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to allot any further funds to the local initiatives program, and, in particular, are the recent reports that the government intends to allot a further $500 million to this fund accurate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that this question has just been asked by another hon. member. If I misunderstood, perhaps the Prime Minister could reply again to the hon. member's question.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think my question is more specific.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my question was whether or not the reports that the government intends to allot a further $500 million to this fund are accurate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the only accurate thing about the question is that it does indicate a great deal of enthusiasm on all sides for this program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate for a last supplementary and then recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REINSTITUTION THIS SUMMER WITH REDEFINITION OF CRITERIA

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the government plans to reinstitute the local initiatives program this summer with some redefinition of criteria and, if so, when can we expect an announcement in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I did not hear the question.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will repeat it, Mr. Speaker. Does the government plan to reinstitute the local initiatives program this summer with some redefinition of criteria and, if so, when can we expect an announcement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised several times last week. I do not know where the hon. member was but I think it has been answered many times.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest we are running short of time.


George Harris Hees: Ask the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: If we have time we will try to return to this important matter. I understand the hon. member is rising on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last week we had our own local initiatives program going in Newfoundland; it was an anti-pollution program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: I did not hear the Prime Minister's answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CONSTITUTION

March 28, 1972



QUEBEC LEGISLATION ABOLISHING OATH OF ALLEGIANCE FOR MEMBERS OF LEGISLATURE-SUGGESTED INTERVENTION BY GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister as the Queen's first minister. As the legislature of the province of Quebec is abolishing or has abolished the oath of allegiance for its members, which clearly contravenes that part of the constitution embodied in the British North America Act, does the Governor in Council intend to request that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor reserve royal assent pending the signification of the Governor in Council in respect of this measure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I do not know whether this has been done, as the right hon. member suggests. If it has been done and if it clearly contravenes the constitution, this action of the Quebec government is not valid and therefore we do not have to take action on it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this matter cannot be brushed aside like that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Is the constitution going to be upheld by this government or is it not? That is the question I ask the Prime Minister. If it is to be upheld, is the Lieutenant Governor to be asked to withhold royal assent pending the signification of the Governor in Council? Otherwise, the constitution is entirely swept aside.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on problems in respect of the reservation of provincial laws I believe it has been the policy of all governments in the past 30 years not to have recourse to this paternalistic and undemocratic method. I could go on to reassure the right hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Really, I am astounded to hear all the oh, oh's from the Conservative party members, Mr. Speaker. Our position is that if any law of a provincial or the federal government is anti-constitutional, it is up to the courts to decide rather than for the federal government to disallow, any more than it is for the Imperial Parliament to disallow provincial laws.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In other words-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have to interpret the Prime Minister because the ambiguity of his statement requires some clarification. I ask him whether any province is to be allowed to defy the constitution when there is no recourse against this kind of thing in the courts as the government argued in the language bill appeal raised by former Mr. Justice Thorson?



COPPER-SUGGESTED PROTEST TO JAPAN CONCERNING EFFORTS OF JAPANESE BUYERS TO CHANGE CONTRACTS

Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in connection with the document he tabled today regarding a study of the contractual relations between Canadian copper concentrate producers for the Japanese market and Japanese buyers. Many of the British Columbia producers are in my riding. I should like to know whether the minister will make a formal protest to the Japanese government concerning the efforts of the Japanese buyers to change established agreements?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the Telex indicated, we have asked the Canadian copper producers not to take any further steps to renegotiate contracts with their Japanese counterparts until April 30 so the government may have an opportunity to examine the proposed changes in the contracts. We look very seriously on any prospect of unilateral and retroactive changes in basic contractual arrangements with another trading partner.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary question and then the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, who I believe also has a supplementary question.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether during his discussions with the copper producers in British Columbia and other areas he will explore the possibility of establishing a copper smelter in British Columbia in order that these concentrates can be processed at home?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member's supplementary question is rather in the form of a submission.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to another subject and I address it to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the fact that the contract with the postal unions expired yesterday, can the minister inform the House whether the government and the postal unions are near agreement on a new contract and, if so, when will a statement be made on this important matter?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Postmaster General to reply to this question as he is more closely in touch with the matter than I am.
March 28, 1972


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, we know the contract expired yesterday, but it is normal for negotiations to continue and I can assure hon. members that the climate has been excellent. We do not necessarily anticipate signing the agreement in the immediate future, but I can assure hon. members that things are going quite well.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, can the Postmaster General assure the House that there will be no work stoppage during the continuing negotiations and, in particular, can he inform the House whether the government has made a specific offer on wages and job security to the postal unions?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be in the public interest to release any statement at all concerning negotiations which are being held in camera.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the strong representations made to the government by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and also by the Public Service Alliance of Canada for the tabling of the Bryden report on public service legislation, can the minister say whether this report will now be made public?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that it is not the intention of the government to make this report public. It is presently being studied within the government and if there is any legislation to be introduced when that study is concluded it will be introduced, but the report is not to be made public.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what is the government trying to hide?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if at this point the Chair might not seek the co-operation of hon. members to give me an opportunity to see some of the hon. members who were waiting yesterday for an opportunity to ask questions. I will return to the distinguished front benchers in a moment. The hon. member for Lisgar.
Inquiries of the Ministry SUPPLY AND SERVICES



POSSIBLE SHIPMENT OF SUPPLIES FOR NORTH FROM MONTREAL RATHER THAN CHURCHILL

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that in past years the port of Churchill has been used as a resupply port for the transportation of goods into the north, has there been a federal government decision to originate the northern resupply ships not from Churchill as has been the case in the past but rather from Montreal?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is quite a complex matter, one which I do not believe I could now have the opportunity to explain in full. I am contemplating whether it is necessary to make a statement on motions tomorrow in order to clear up some of the misunderstandings, but in any event I will make a statement available to all interested hon. members.


Jack Burnett Murta: Since it was reported on Saturday, March 25, in the Winnipeg Free Press that tenders for the contract for sea-lifting from Montreal were to open yesterday, I would hope the minister would make a statement to the House tomorrow so that the matter can be cleared up once and for all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That, of course, is an additional representation by the hon. member.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORT OF ISRAEL

Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could have your indulgence for a moment to call the attention of hon. members to the presence in the distinguished visitors gallery of a distinguished parliamentarian from ' Israel, the Minister of Transport for Israel, the Hon. Shimon Peres.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



TRANSPORT


Mr. Elmer M. MacKoy (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport on a subject of great current interest. In view of the findings of a special committee of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with respect to the updating of some foreign automobiles, could the minister outline the measures his department is contemplating in order to put an end to this practice, and could he give any information as to the number of vehicles that have been so updated in recent years, say over the last five years?
1208

March 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubts about the procedural acceptability of the question. The first part of the question invites a statement that should normally be made on motions. The second part of the question seeks statistical material which should not be sought during the question period. I would hope the hon. member might consider raising the matter at the time of adjournment this evening.



POSSIBLE ROUTING OF ARCTIC OIL THROUGH MONTREAL-DELIVERY OF ALBERTA OIL TO MONTREAL BY PIPELINE-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the provocative statements made to the Richelieu Club in Montreal on March 22 by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, suggesting that Arctic oil be routed through Montreal, I wish to ask if this is an expression of new government policy, and would the minister explain it in detail to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that the question could be asked directly. The hon. member knows that questions should not be asked about statements made outside the House. However, we can assume that it was asked directly and allow the minister to make a brief reply.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting suggestion. I would like to take a look at the full text of the speech before commenting.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can we assume that the government is now prepared to authorize a western pipeline to Montreal for the delivery of Alberta oil to the east?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, is addressed to the acting minister. In view of the recent appointment of the chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission as Deputy Minister of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, can the minister inform the House when a new chairman of the commission will be appointed?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Not at present, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform us whether or not this means that the services of the manpower department and the Unemployment Insurance Commission will function together or will be merged as they were several years ago?


Mr. O'Connell:: They certainly will be functioning in an integrated manner, but that should not lead to the other conclusion implied in the question.
s|<	*	*



ADJUSTMENT OF LEVY FOR POLLUTION CONTROL TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF SUPERPORT AT LORNEVILLE, N.B.

Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to inform the House that his conversation with Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick has resulted in an adjustment of the oil levy, which will result in work being resumed without further delay on the deepwater superport at Lorneville in Charlotte County, New Brunswick?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I had what I am sure were mutually satisfactory meetings this morning, first of all with the mayor of Saint John and, second, with the premier of New Brunswick who, in real bipartisan fashion, brought along the Leader of the Opposition. So they were very amicable meetings all the way through. I made some proposals to him. He is now taking them back to consult with his colleagues and presumably with the oil companies concerned. These proposals essentially maintain the integrity of our original position as to the need for a levy, but we have made some concessions which I hope will make it possible for him to get on with the project.



POSSIBLE RESUMPTION OF DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES-PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact he is going to Washington this week, is it his intention to discuss the resumption of energy discussions between Canada and the United States and, if this is so, would he be prepared to make a statement in this connection tomorrow before he goes to Washington?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second part of the question may I say I will be leaving early tomorrow morning to go to Washington. The intention is to have a general tour d'horizon with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior on questions of mutual responsibility, a general survey which we hope can provide the basis for further discussions on energy and resource questions.
March 28, 1972


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In light of statements made by the minister's colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with regard to the construction of a gas pipeline along the Mackenzie River, is the minister in a position to tell the American government that we in Canada are prepared to discuss a Mackenzie pipeline on the basis of the fact that Canada is satisfied one can be built there?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I intend to point out to the Secretary of the Interior, as has been pointed out by several of my colleagues in the past, that we are in the process of completing studies which indicate that both oil and gas pipelines can be constructed down the Mackenzie River, and also to reconfirm to the Secretary of the Interior our concern about heavy shipments of oil down the west coast which could be the result of a TAPS pipeline.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Has he sought to consult with the national or any other Indian organizations preparatory to seeking discussions in Washington with respect to the construction of a pipe line across the north?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who has that responsibility, has been arranging discussions on this question.



AGRICULTURE


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture.
A number of pork breeders being not quite satisfied with present regulations on federal subsidies for pork, could the minister tell us whether he is prepared to recommend an amendment to these regulations, for instance lowering the 100 index so that breeders might get more benefits from this assistance policy?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to change or modify that part of the regulations. We are, however, open to look at the wide variation of marketing procedures in order to make certain that every bona fide producer gets paid.
Inquiries of the Ministry DRUGS



INQUIRY AS TO LE DAIN COMMISSION REPORT ON CANNABIS AND THE LAW

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. Is the Le Dain report dealing with cannabis and the law going to be released officially when the House is not sitting and, if not, will the report be tabled in the House immediately after the Easter recess?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this question should more properly be directed to my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Is the Department of Justice now studying a confidential report on this problem?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would have to determine what the hon. member means by "confidential report". The Department of Justice at all times is studying very many subjects.


An hon. Member:: One that has not yet been leaked.



INDUSTRY


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the request by the mayor of Saskatoon that the Prime Minister ask the Quaker Oats Company of Saskatoon to defer action on the closing of its plant in that city pending discussion with civic, provincial and federal authorities concerning the possibility of continuing the operation of the plant, has the Prime Minister replied to the mayor and can he indicate the nature of his reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If there has been a message it has not yet been brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs with regard to the assertion he made on Friday afternoon regarding the leaking of the report of the task force on low-cost housing when he said that "whatever leaks there may be appear to be from the authors and not from CMHC". In view of the fact the authors have denied that, I should like to know whether the minister has any information upon which to found his statement?
1210

March 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: The advice I am given as a minister, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on, Basford.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister, who made that assertion in the House, whether he can justify that statement or is he prepared to withdraw it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the minister is not prepared to correct this statement, may I ask whether he has now made up his mind to release the report?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I answered that question on Friday, Mr. Speaker. We are considering all of the various studies and reports that have been submitted to determine which ones are appropriate for publication. Some of the authors are working on various abridgements of them in preparation for publication and until all of that work is done there can be no decision as to which should be published.



FISHERIES


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I directed a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries which can be found on page 1128 of Hansard. I asked whether the minister could give any details concerning an incident involving the Canadian fisheries patrol vessel Cape Freels and a Russian fishing trawler. Since that time I am in receipt of a copy of a telegram to the Minister of Fisheries from the fish association of Newfoundland protesting Russian gang fishing operations which in their opinion represent a threat to the flounder species and a great hazard to Canadian fishermen. Can the minister now report on the incident and the action he has taken to protest this method of fishing to the Russian authorities?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a careful report of the incident prepared and have made several attempts to contact the captain of the Russian fishing fleet. On each occasion he has suggested that we raise the incident at the next meeting of ICNAF in June. We have sent our fisheries patrol vessel, the Cape Freels, to the area, and it has been there more or less continuously ever since looking after Canadian interests in that part of the North Atlantic. We have also advanced an official protest to the Russian embassy through the Department of External Affairs.



STEPS TO INCREASE SURVEILLANCE OF FOREIGN FISHING VESSELS BY ARMED FORCES AIRCRAFT

James Aloysius McGrath: I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. As a consequence of these incidents have any steps been taken to increase surveillance by aircraft of the Canadian Armed Forces?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, fisheries protection vessels are out there and air surveillance is being carried on normally by DND aircraft.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of supplementaries but we should try to make them as brief as possible because we will be running short of time. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that all planes in the Argus Squadrons 1, 2 and 3-it is the patrol aircraft in the North Atlantic-were grounded last week because of structural defects that showed up due to wear and tear and general old age-


An hon. Member:: Like the government.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -has the government made any decision on a replacement for that aircraft? Is it going to do so before those who have to fly it in all types of weather conditions are involved in unfortunate accidents because of the old age of the aircraft?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would say that most of the old age is across the House. We still have Tracker aircraft flying. The Argus aircraft were temporarily grounded but they are now completely back in operation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question was whether the minister has made a decision. As far as old age is concerned, we will not worry about that as between the minister and myself because I think it is reflected in the answer from the minister. Is this Minister of National Defence going to start to discharge his ministerial responsibilities and make some decisions so that the military who defend the sovereignty of this country can rely on a basic aircraft without having to worry about whether that aircraft can fly?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might reply briefly and then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I meant to welcome the minister back because he has not been in the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, you asked me to comment briefly. I will compare my record of attendance in the House with that of my hon. friend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.
March 28, 1972


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was a little-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There was a little flak between the minister and this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. However, I hope the minister can give a serious answer to this question because the lead-in time for a replacement aircraft is long overdue. The whole North Atlantic is involved and our NATO commitment. Several bases on the east coast are affected which are trying to discharge their responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the minister for the purpose of replying briefly but we have gone beyond the end of the question period. The minister will be allowed to reply briefly.


Mr. Forrestall:: He has not been in the damn House for six weeks.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, first of all the comment was incorrect-


J. Michael Forrestall: And you won't be here for another six weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the minister reply briefly and as directly as possible?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to answer the question specifically. If my hon. friend would look at what I have said with regard to the Argus and Tracker aircraft he would understand that the question of their replacement is presently being studied and a report is expected in the very near future.


An hon. Member:: Three years. That is the way you move, like the tax bill.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister on a subject in which I know he has a keen interest. In answer to a question asked earlier this winter he said there would not be sufficient time to bring in legislation on election expenses. Would he now give consideration to bringing in two small amendments to the Canada Elections Act to require disclosure of election contributions similar to the practice now carried on in the Senate and House of Representatives in the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall certainly take the consideration under consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In an effort to try to conclude the previous question the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate who wishes to ask a supplementary.
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



NUMBER OF FORMAL AGREEMENTS REPRESENTED BY DIPLOMATIC NOTES TABLED

John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs how many of the documents he tabled earlier today represent formal agreements rather than an exchange of notes? In the event that none of them do, would he give consideration to consulting with the four Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec before there is official ratification of these proposed treaties?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the diplomatic notes in this case consist of agreements which are binding upon us and upon the governments concerned. In the case of France, however, the agreement constitutes a treaty and, as I understand it, it is the only one of these agreements that would be subject to ratification.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 27, 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.
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, last evening I was making some remarks with regard to criticisms concerning Bill C-170, an act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness to the hon. member who has the floor, I wonder if the conferences and consultations between hon. members might take place behind the curtains.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, last evening I was voicing my criticisms of Bill C-170, which is an act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children. I said that my three main grounds of criticism were, first, that in the act we replace the principle of universality with the principle of selectivity; second, that the act will stigmatize and categorize people earning certain incomes; and third, that since the act is so complex, it will lead to confusion, misunderstanding and resentment.
Some hon. members here no doubt will recall when legislation concerning family allowances was introduced back in 1944. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said that three members only who now sit in parliament were present when the late

March 28, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
Mackenzie King introduced the family allowances legislation. No doubt they recall the election of 1945, in which the Liberals were swept back to power through the political footwork of the late Mackenzie King. He introduced the family allowances legislation. I am sure that some here will recall the remarks made by the late George Drew concerning family allowances. He said that they were iniquitous. The Conservative party had a hard time living down the label which attached to it as a result of comments like that concerning family allowances. May I also remind hon. members that all members of all parties unanimously voted in favour of the family allowances legislation in 1944. I think it is fair to say that the prospect of family allowances was one of the determining factors that persuaded many of the people in Newfoundland that their province ought to enter confederation.
Between 1944 and the present, there have been no changes in the categories of people who are eligible for family allowances or amounts paid under that legislation, despite sharp increases in living costs between 1944 and 1972. Probably, because the legislation has not been changed, it has been criticized. Some people say that it has lost its effectiveness.
Acting on criticisms, the government prepared a white paper entitled Income Security for Canadians which was tabled on November 30, 1970. This dealt with two areas involving social security: First, old age security concerning senior citizens; second, guaranteed income security for families; in other words, family allowances. I remind hon. members that the white paper was tabled on November 30, 1970. On the following day, the government introduced legislation concerning old age security payments. Under that legislation the government increased the basic old age security payment by 42 cents. Cost of living increments were not to apply to the basic old age security payment. Also, for the first time, the government introduced the guaranteed income supplement for old age pensioners, and the 2 per cent cost of living escalation was to apply to the pension and supplement, when paid together. Mr. Speaker, there we saw the first departure from the principle of universality concerning old age security pensions. The government adopted the principle of selectivity.
May I remind hon. members that, beer use the government abandoned the principle of universality and adopted the principle of selectivity, many old age pensioners have experienced difficulty in determining their incomes, largely because of the complexity of the regulations. They have experienced frustration in anticipating their incomes for the following year and determining the amount to which they will be entitled. Also, unnecessary resentment has developed among senior citizens, since one group gets only the basic old age security payment and the other group gets the old age security payment plus the guaranteed income supplement. Many say that their basic old age security payment of $80 is a poor reward for their hard work in contributing to the development of Canada. At 65, if they possess certain assets or a certain income, they are deprived of any government pension payment larger than the basic old age security pension of $80 per month.
It can be said that in adopting the principle of selectivity as opposed to universality, the government has led to

divisiveness within the country. Bill C-170 adopts the principle of selectivity instead of universality, the principle formerly adhered to. Last Friday, the minister attempted to show that certain organizations across the country support the changes in the legislation proposed by the government. We must be thankful for hon. members like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Not only is he the father of procedure in this House-I should say, the expert on procedure-but he is also a man of great patience. He has tremendous knowledge in this field. He corrected the minister when the minister tried to leave the impression that certain organizations supported the legislation. In particular, I am thinking of the Canadian Council on Social Development and the Canadian Labour Congress.
May I put on record again what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said concerning the attitude of the Canadian Council on Social Development towards this legislation. On page 1140 of Hansard for March 24, 1972, the hon. member for Winnipeg No th Centre read a recommendation of the Canadian Council on Social Development, as follows:
The council believes that:
Family allowances should be universal, paid to all families with dependent children as a social right thus avoiding divisiveness among families and any element of stigma. The present program has this feature but FISP would eliminate it.
It took the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to set the minister straight with regard to the position of the Canadian Labour Council. It has been said, and it should be repeated, that the approach with regard to the problem as contained in the proposals in the white paper should have been referred to a committee of this House for study.
The minister attempted to answer the criticism on Friday by saying that the Senate Committee on Poverty had studied the question in depth. A matter of this importance should have been referred to the appropriate committee of this House. I am sure hon. members would not have objected if the committee had been comprised of members of the House of Commons and the other place. This opportunity for study has been denied because the white paper was tabled in November, 1970 and to date there has not been any reference to the committee. If we are to ascertain the attitudes and criticisms of organizations across this country, the white paper should have been, and still should be, referred to the appropriate committee so there would be an input from the many concerned people who are expert in the field in order to obtain the best possible legislation.
The change from the principle of universality to selectivity will create a divisiveness that is not worthy of pursuit. It will create a divisiveness between persons getting family allowances and those who are not. It will divide us into haves and have-nots. It will make the not-so-poor pay for the poor. If this is so, we should hesitate to proceed on a principle that will create divisiveness. I respectfully submit that the change from universality to selectivity will obtain that result.
The second point of criticism is that the act stigmatizes and categorizes people on low income. Poverty is a relative term these days. I can recall many members, myself
March 28, 1972

included, pleading poverty at the time the salaries of members of the House of Commons were increased. I am sure it can be said that poverty is a very relative term. We can have poverty which is a denial or absence of the basic living needs of people and cultural deprivement or spiritual impoverishment can be included in the general definition of poverty.
The Economic Council of Canada made a study of poverty. It found that the basic minimum income for a single person living in Canada today would be approximately $2,000 in order to keep him above the poverty level. The basic minimum income for a married couple would be between $3,500 and $4,000. The astounding fact is that 20 per cent of all Canadians live below the poverty level. This is why we have to look at this problem with all the seriousness and concern we can give to it. I have said that it will stigmatize people according to their income and divide us into the haves and have-nots. With regard to family benefits, it will make the not-so-poor pay for the poor.
One of the proud facts of being a Canadian is that regardless of nationality, race, linguistic or cultural differences, we categorize people as Canadians. We create unity amongst all people living in Canada. In fact, one of the clarion calls of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the last election campaign was unity. I respectfully submit that the programs we are developing and devising will not create unity in Canada, but disunity because of the divisiveness that will be created and the stigmatization that will be imposed on people according to their income. Surely, no man should be judged by the income he obtains. He should be judged on the basis that he is a Canadian and that he has a basic right to employment, education, medicare and all those things that make us essentially Canadian. To develop legislation which divides rather than unites is not worthy of this government.
It can be easily said that this may be an attempt by the government to deal with the problem of poverty by giving people with low incomes certain benefits which will close the gap of poverty. This is a very small step. The major step we as Canadians have to take is legislation to provide full employment, housing and medicare. These are the things that will attack poverty. The measure providing family allowances, even though it is a very minimal step, will do very little to close the large gap that exists between the income levels of Canadians today. Not only am I opposed to the legislation on the ground that it imposes selectivity rather than universality, but it imposes a stigmatization on poor people. This brings me to my third point.
The act is so complex that it will lead to confusion, misunderstanding and resentment. Mr. Justice Hart, the chairman of the Law Reform Commission, said last week that the laws of Canada should be so expressed that they are understood by all Canadians. I am sure all members will agree with that proposition. This government has brought forth legislation so complex that it makes it very difficult for any Canadian to understand it fully. Need I remind hon. members of the Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement legislation? I also remind hon. members of the tax bill that we recently passed. We now have the family allowances bill which is
Family Income Security Plan
very complex. I have had an opportunity to look at the bill. I have found it very difficult to follow. However, I have received some encouragement.
With regard to the complexity of the bill, the minister said last Friday, as recorded at page 1133 of Hansard, and I quote:
The white paper suggested that benefits might be reduced by $1 per month per child for each extra $500 of income. We find after discussion with various people that a provision of these lines might act as a disincentive. The plan, therefore, calls for an adjustment of 30 cents for each $100 extra of income.
He then set forth the principle. He said:
To make benefits selective, an income floor of $4,500 is established below which full benefits will be paid and above which benefits will be reduced as income increases. The income floor is raised by an additional $500 for each extra child in the family. The ceiling of cut-off point for benefits depends upon the number of children, their ages and the reduction rate.
That is the basis on which the allowances will be paid. He also said and I quote:
The scope of the new FISP proposals is such that it replaces both family allowances and youth allowances. The plan takes into account the number and age of children in a family. As far as coverage is concerned, all children under 18 are covered. As far as benefits are concerned, I have already indicated what they will be. In connection with the deduction as income rises, I have indicated that benefits per child are reduced in one-child families with incomes above $4,500 a year and in two-child families with income above $5,000 a year. The income floor rises by $500 for each extra child. The plan introduces a reduction rate of 33 cents per child per month for each extra $100 of income, or $1.65 for each $500, above the floor set for families at that size.
Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that it takes almost half a page to set forth the criteria? The minister went on to say:
The maximum income in one-child families beyond which no benefits are paid is $10,560 if the child is between the ages of 12 and 17 and $9,045 if the child is younger than 12. In the case of two-child families the figures are $11,060 and $9,545. For three-child families, if the children are aged between 12 and 17-and there is a mixture here between 12 and 17 and under 12-the figures are $11,560 and $10,045, and so on by $500 intervals. I repeat that FISP benefits are not counted as taxable income.
Then, Mr. Speaker, in a moment of graciousness, he said:
The House will perhaps be interested to hear what is counted as income in the determination of benefits. The income of a person includes all items of income subject to tax, plus unemployment insurance, scholarships and bursaries, adult training allowances and Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan, orphans and dependant children's benefits. It does not include social allowances based on a means or income test.
Further on, he says:
Options will be permitted allowing the substitution of an estimate of income in the calendar year of 12 times the average monthly income in the remainder of the current calendar year instead of being based on the previous year's income as is the usual case.
Mr. Speaker, it has taken me about five minutes to set forth the criteria on the basis of which family benefits will be paid. Under the 1944 act, the criterion was simple. If a person was of a certain age and fell into a certain category, a definite amount was obtained. This was understood by all Canadians. Under the new system it is almost impossible to determine whether a family qualifies or not,

March 28, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
whether the income, details of which are submitted, is sufficient to qualify one for benefits. I have never seen such a hodge-podge of rules and criteria. There is no question we shall encounter many difficulties, not only in relation to the act itself but in relation to the regulations which will follow.
There has been an outcry across Canada against the system of calculation of income which is being adopted in connection with UIC payments. Without doubt there will be similar protests concerning the method the minister proposes to use to determine whether young people qualify under this legislation and how much they are entitled to receive. Proposals of this type are not worthy of the government. One of the first objects we should seek to realize is clarity when it comes to legislation. The legislation before us will create division as a result of the change from the principle of universality to the principle of selectivity. It will have the effect of stigmatizing people whose incomes are low. It will introduce unnecessary complexity into the question of determining who should qualify for benefit.
It is for these reasons I have set forth my criticism of this bill. I hope the government will decide not to act at this time but, rather, they will agree to refer the white paper which was tabled in 1970 to the appropriate committee so that it might be studied in depth, enabling a bill to be presented which would be understood by all Canadians.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously interested in this legislation, not because I have ever benefited from family allowances personally but because of the circumstances connected with the bringing into effect by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King of the family allowances legislation in 1944 and 1945. I think I can speak dispassionately upon the subject of social security because I am one who has not accepted the old age pension, believing that the contribution I had made was not in keeping with what the return would be if I were to collect it. I can, therefore, speak with some objectivity concerning the bill before us. We note there have been a great number of changes in the present bill as compared with the bill introduced last session under the number C-264.
I look back to 1944 and 1945. I listened the other day to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) telling us what took place at that time. He pointed out that only three members of the present House were here at that time the vote took place. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was a member at that time, as I recall it, but left shortly for the pastures and power in the Province of Saskatchewan. These things bring to mind the attitude of the Conservative party at the time. Personally, I supported from the very beginning the principle of family allowances. There were some who said it was socialism. I was able to indicate that I did not believe socialism and social security to be synonymous, as is often claimed, or, indeed, on a par with that, that Liberalism and liberty were synonymous.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Both these myths have been dissipated in the intervening years.
I wonder why the changes have been made in the bill. I shall be interested to hear the minister. As it happens, there are only two ministers in the House at the present time, an indication of the degradation of this institution as a place in which, as a result of argument, changes can be brought about. In the days I have just been recalling, Mr. King was present a great deal of the time, despite the fact we were in the midst of a war.


An hon. Member:: He is probably present now.


John George Diefenbaker: He was present and he listened to arguments made by members of the opposition with respect and regard. If they were fruitful in content, they became embodied in the legislation. But that is all over now. The legislation is fixed up in the East Block by civil servants and that is all there is to it. This is the reason parliament is falling into desuetude. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has shown his disregard for parliament over and over again. This to me is one of those things which represents a situation that is dangerous to Canada and its freedom. For when this institution dies, freedom dies.
I go back to the bill that was introduced on September 13 last. I should like to know from the minister what kind of political legerdemain has been going on. Is it the result of representations made by the provinces? Why these changes? I intend to refer to a most striking example of how the constitution can be degraded, with the Prime Minister of this country passing it off, as he did. I refer to a matter that strikes at the very heart of the institution of parliament and of the legislature of the province of Quebec, or any province, namely that the oath of allegiance shall be removed without there being a constitutional amendment.
When the legislation was originally introduced it was gone into in an exceptionally masterful way by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). The last hon. member to speak analyzed this legislation in a way that showed he had given a great deal of study to the subject, yet there was no minister here to listen. He made a worthy contribution, and when a worthy contribution is made, from whatever part of the House, it should receive the attention of all parts of the House.
The Family Allowances Act that was originally introduced, the Youth Allowances Act, and Bill C-264, had one principle in common. Bill C-264, introduced last fall on! September 13 and thrown on March 15 into the ash can of/ desuetude, had about it a different principle, a different^ philosophy, a different legal concept from that now substituted in the present bill. Nowhere has there been an explanation by the minister. At page 1133 of Hansard for March 24 last he said this:

I do not like that abbreviation. Somebody is liable to think the "P" is an "H".
-benefits will provide a basic income for each child upon which can be built additional supports as deemed appropriate by provin-
March 28, 1972

cial or municipal authorities. We know that unemployment insurance does not make any special provision for children. Neither do old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada Pension Plan retirement pension or war veterans allowances.
He might have added: "Neither does FISP".
Section 5 of the Family Allowances Act as enacted by this parliament provides:
The allowance shall be applied by the person receiving it exclusively toward the maintenance, care, training, education and advancement of the child-
That was the concept that moved Mr. King. Subsection (1) of section 5 of the Youth Allowances Act provides:
An allowance payable to a parent in respect of a dependent youth shall be applied exclusively for the care, maintenance, education or advancement of such youth.
Clause 5 (2) of Bill C-264 introduced last session-see the great change that took place here-provided:
A benefit shall be applied
(a)	in the case of a child referred to in paragraph 3(l)(a), exclusively toward the maintenance, care, training, education or advancement of the child in respect of whom it was paid, and
(b)	in the case of a person referred to in paragraph 3(l)(b), exclusively toward the maintenance, care, training, education or advancement of the person in respect of whom it was paid in such manner as is prescribed by regulations,
Why were the trust provisions for the benefit of the children taken out? Why has this change come about? Those provisions do not appear in the present bill. Instead, this bill takes away the vested right of the children, a right that the minister said

and wrongly said- was the only right they now possess. What does this bill propose to substitute? It proposes outright grants to adults. The children become part of a formula upon which the right of the adult is based and calculated.
I suggest there is something behind this. Negotiations have been going on with the premier of the province of Quebec since the Victoria charter. Did this suggestion come from him? If not, from whom? Clause 5 provides that the recipient of an allowance shall be the parent or other authorized person. The definition of "family" and "parent" refers to the child as being in the custody and control of such person. Again I ask, why was this change brought about? This is a complete abnegation and denial of the basic principles upon which the family allowance legislation and the other legislation, including the bill introduced last September, were founded, and properly so.
One may wonder when this legislation is going to come into effect, whether before or after the election. There is a provision which states it is to come into effect on September 1. I dislike having to take a different view from that expressed by the commentator Mr. Charles Lynch, who has keyhole opportunities to make prophetic utterances. The other day, when the Prime Minister was talking to some youngsters at a collegiate, Mr. Lynch was quite certain the election would take place on October 4. I do not believe that. Some 1,050,000 Canadian families will go off family allowance, so do you think, Mr. Speaker, that this government is going to bring in legislation that is made effective before the election so that those people realize that they are out?


Mr. Bell;: They are not that stupid.
Family Income Security Plan


John George Diefenbaker: On the other l and, by getting the legislation through-and I am always one who believes what the government says, to an extent-they will be able to go to two million people and say to them: "Look at the tremendous amount you are going to receive". Less attention will be paid in the Liberal literature to the 1,050,000 Canadians who are going to get nothing than to the tremendous magnificence that will have to wait only for the election result.
In connection with the so-called, misnamed, two price system, the cheques will be going out within the next three weeks, and they will be just like manna from heaven. Therefore, my prediction-and the Prime Minister has not even let his backbenchers or cabinet know when the date is going to be-is that this bill is convincing evidence that the election will not be postponed until fall, despite the fact that I am told that Liberal members from some parts of Canada, even including British Columbia, would like the election in the fall. Those from the province of Quebec would like it earlier, though the Ontario Liberal members would not really like it at all. I am not going to go into particulars of the legislation because, as I say, that has been covered well by the hon. member for Simcoe North and other hon. members who have spoken. I do ask one thing: Why the fixing of the ceiling at an income of $10,000?
Mention was' made by the last hon. gentleman who spoke of the intricacies of the wording of this bill. I have never seen so many words chasing one idea in such a way that nobody knows what the idea is. William Jennings Bryan was one of those who used a multiplicity of words. When somebody said he was going to be defeated in the election, instead of saying do not count your chickens before they are hatched he said, "Do not compute the totality of your poultry population until all of the manifestations of incubation have been entirely completed". That is an example of the way this legislation is worded.
I believe that with the tremendous increase in the cost of living, and the prophesy made the other day by the Governor of the Bank of Canada that we are apparently just starting up the wall of inflation, in a matter of two or three years $10,000 will be a basic level; indeed, it will be approaching the poverty line. I think the amount is entirely inadequate as a ceiling and it should be raised, otherwise many needy people across Canada, on the basis of the expected tremendous cost of inflation, will be denied a fair deal.
What is behind the wording in the bill? I took it on myself to read the correspondence in connection therewith tabled the other day by the Prime Minister. A letter from the Prime Minister was sent to the Premier of Quebec and other premiers. I have not the time to go into lengthy detail, but parts of the letter are worthy of being read. It provides for a new system of family allowances for Quebec and those provinces which accept it. It proposes to bring about tremendous changes in what has been constitutionally feasible up to the present time. Page 7 of the letter reads:

March 28, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
Sir:
As you will appreciate, what is contemplated here is a major adjustment in the federal approach to an important income security measure established by parliament more than twenty-five years ago.
This bill, the letter reads, would -introduce a degree of flexibility in relation to provincial conditions that has been hitherto unknown. It would permit provinces that so wished to move toward an integrated system of family allowances within their boundaries, while still maintaining certain general standards for payments to poorer families. I think the plan would meet the basic requirements necessary for the government of Quebec to establish the integrated system of family allowances that it wishes to introduce. I realize that such arrangements would be as temporary as any statute. But if a constitutional guarantee were needed, this could be contemplated as indicated in the next paragraph.
While the immediate federal proposal relates to the family allowance program, the principles involved are clearly capable of extension to other income support programs.
What has happened and why the change in the wording of parts of this bill since last fall? What has taken place that brought about so important a change in such a short period of time? I can only believe it is because Premier Bourassa said he would not have anything to do with the Victoria Charter unless the government capitulated on the subject of family allowances and other social security measures. The government first said it would not do that. Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand why many of the provincial premiers accepted the Victoria Charter. I suggest that the Premier of Quebec was justified in preventing the implementation of that charter, even though he did so on grounds I would not necessarily support.
What would happen under this charter had it come into effect? I ask this because of the statement made today by the Prime Minister in answer to a question relative to the position being taken by the province of Quebec in abolishing the oath of allegiance to the Queen. From now on, apparently anything can be done to the constitution today. It can be emasculated, even castrated as long as whatever is done will bring about votes in the opinion of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Where is the constitution today? I took strong objection to the language bill, not because of its terms but because it represented a constitutional amendment brought in by the back door through a statute of parliament. The government realized it could not secure passage of a constitutional amendment through which would require the agreement of all the provinces of Canada, therefore the language bill was introduced. I have no apology to make for opposing that bill on that ground, and events since have shown that the one argument I advanced, that nobody could challenge it in the courts, was true. The then Minister of Justice, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said it could be done, but I said it could not. As soon as there was a challenge by the former Mr. Justice Thorson the government of Canada argued that a private person had no status to take action and succeeded in the courts. That constitutional amendment brought in by statute put an end to the British North America Act and its amendment constitutionally for all time to come. Now, we have the fruit of that family tree.
The FLQ and the Parti Quebecois did take strong objection to the oath of allegiance, and joined with the Liberal
(Mr. Diefenbaker.]
government of that province to abolish the constitutional right and the duty that is provided for in the constitution, Section 128 of the British North America Act. This is part of the picture epitomized in this legislation and the changes which have been made in the last few months. This section reads:
Every Member of the Senate or Houses of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance-
That is the provision in that constitution and it cannot be tinkered with by any province, even though the government of Canada under the present Prime Minister has cut through the constitution as though it did not exist. When I asked him today whether or not this action, which is a complete denial of Section 128 and the whole principle of confederation as embodied in the British North America Act, was wrong and whether he would instruct or advise the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Quebec, the Queen's representative of that province, to withhold royal consent pending consideration by the Governor in Council, he gave an answer of sorts. I cannot describe it, but with that nonchalance which used to be regarded as wisdom contended that disallowance is not being used any more. He claimed that it is as dead as the right of veto of the Imperial Parliament over the Parliament of Canada. Is it?
In respect of the Lieutenant-Governor's discretionary powers and the executive process of the Crown I will read from the comments of J. R. Mallory. The government of Canada asked the Lieutenant-Governor of the province of Alberta to withhold Royal Assent to legislation such as the Bank Act and other things of the time. Mr. Mallory summarizes as follows:
The revival of the power in Alberta in 1937 caused general surprise. It had become widely believed that the power had become constitutionally obsolete in the same way that the position of the governor general as an imperial officer had disappeared as a result of the achievement of Canadian autonomy. So general was the uncertainty that the federal government referred the whole question of the scope and validity of the powers of disallowance, reservation, and withholding assent to the Supreme Court in the autumn of 1937.
The Supreme Court had no difficulty in finding that these powers continued to subsist, unaffected by changes in constitutional conventions, and the powers were equally valid, whether the legislation was intra vires the provincial legislature or not, and that the only limitations on the discretion of the lieutenant-governor were instructions from the governor general.
Now, we see the present constitutional picture being unveiled. Today is a dark day in the history of Canada's constitution when the Prime Minister, the Queen's first minister, says we will let the provinces do whatever they want to do whether or not it is constitutional and will not ask for reservation being made because to do so is obsolete. The Victoria Charter was turned down as a result of Premier Bourassa's opposition. I am glad he did so. His objection to that charter is proved in the present change in the bill as introduced last September.
March 28, 1972

The Victoria Charter would have hamstrung Canada's future for generations to come. The Bill of Rights would have been reduced to virtual innocuity. The Supreme Court of Canada would have been a body in which judges would be expected to decide cases on the basis of geographical location rather than on the law. There would be no chance for the provinces of Manitoba or Saskatchewan to ever have anything to do with the amendments because they would have to have 50 per cent of the population of the four western provinces in order to have the right to object to or advance constitutional amendments. We will never, in those provinces, have 50 per cent of the population with the populations of Alberta and British Columbia increasing as they are. This is what is happening to our constitution. Finally the protection of the English language under the British North America Act would have been removed. This legislation shows a fine Machiavellian hand. I shall not say an Italian hand. We have the answer given by the Prime Minister of Canada today that this government does not intend to do anything about it and that from now on the provinces of Canada will be free to make any changes they desire in the constitution. This day represents one that will be looked back on in the years ahead as the natural culmination of a disunited Canada with the monarchy being undermined. The constitution will not be in existence. Every Father of Confederation, including the French Canadian representative, recommended or demanded the preservation of the monarchy.
The second fruit of the family tree is the changes in this bill. In order to obtain this agreement in respect of the Victoria Charter which I say would destroy the hope of one Canada, one nation, the erosion of this constitution is continued with the approval of the Prime Minister. This legislation is introduced in order to provide an excuse to secure the support of a province which took a firm, honourable and reasonable stand. Over the years I have been here I have never known the constitution to be trampled on in the way in which it is being trampled on today. Shades of Mackenzie King and St. Laurent! Where do we go?
Mr. Steven Otto (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to listen to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The thrust of his speech ws very impressive. However, as the right hon. gentleman spoke, I wondered whether that part of the constitution was so important that it must override the benefits which are to be provided for children. Do we deny benefits to children in order to preserve a constitution which is changing? The right hon. member knows it is changing. To sit here and say that the constitution will never change just does not make any sense because of the changing relationships with the provinces. The provinces are assuming certain jurisdictions with the federal government just as the federal government is also assuming certain provincial jurisdictions. I think this House should accept that fact. The right hon. gentleman nods his head. He knows I agree with him on the value of a constitution but it must be a new one. There is no sense in putting up our back and saying we will keep it the way it is, because there will have to be a new one.
Family Income Security Plan
What we want is a constitution which is relevant to our times. If I correctly understand some of the speeches made on this bill, I believe the opposition is really based on the fact that the universality of the old law disappears in the selectivity that this bill now brings about. I could be more cautious politically at this time, if indeed we are to have an election, and say that everyone will get their little benefit. However, I believe we should be honest. I am the first to agree that some people will lose the benefits, while others will get more. The right hon. gentlemen from Prince Albert mentioned the preamble in the 1944 bill to the effect that family allowances were meant to assist in the education, the clothing and the welfare of children. In 1944, our economy had not yet reached a stage which would give us perfect security in growth. We anticipated a large increase in the population of children. We knew what the situation was. The Liberal government then introduced a measure which would be of assistance to children. It was assumed that the money received by the mother would be laid on the table in the form of food, or else used to provide clothing. Education was also an important factor because the cost of education was going up, and after the depression not everybody had the necessary money.
Let us look at the position today. How many mothers think that this is money for the children? How many of them think it is a reward to them for having borne children, pin money that they don't have to get from their husbands? We have had a change in emphasis. Now, we provide substantial aid for education, at the federal, provincial and municipal level. We also have provided assistance for housing and many people no longer have to worry about housing. We have welfare plans and widows' allowances. All of these things have been substituted for the dread, the panic and the anxiety that was with us in 1944.
Hon. members opposite say we should continue the scheme. I ask continue what? Should we continue taking money out of one pocket of the taxpayer, and putting it back in another pocket, charging him a few pennies for administrative costs in between? We said we were going to be a reform party, a reform government. We said we would make changes. The real change here is that universality will no longer apply. We have to give more to those people who are in need, and we must discontinue paying those who are really not in need.
From the evidence that I have gathered over the past four or five years, I know that in the lower income bracket the family allowance is used as part of the general household budget. In the higher income brackets it may be used to build an education fund for the children, but the majority of mothers in this group tend to consider it as their own, as largesse from the government to use for their own purposes, for hairdo's and all sorts of things. The government is not some kind of deity that gives out money. This money comes from the taxpayers' own pockets. If we increased the amount of family allowances under the old scheme, the taxpayers would have to pay out more money. Again, Mr. Speaker, the taxpayer is beginning to resist the constant and increasing drain on his pocketbook.

March 28, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
It is not true to say that this bill will not hurt some people. But I do not mind telling people in the higher income brackets that they will not continue to get family allowances. Increasing the tax burden by taking money out of one pocket and putting it back into another just does not make sense, and that would be the only alternative.
For the NDP to regret the disappearance of universality is a reversal of their former stand. I point out that it was not the present government that wanted this change. Since 1963 and 1964 there has been a constant demand in the press. At meetings everywhere people were saying that we had to change the family allowance scheme. We are changing it now, Mr. Speaker. But a law cannot be changed in a way that will affect only somebody else. A lot of people over the $10,000 salary level will be affected. I have no qualms at all about saying that I am proud of this bill. It is something that had to come.
Those people who say we don't dare bring this measure forward because an election is coming are advocating a return to the old Tammany Hall style politics, when politicians always warned, "Don't do anything before an election. Keep nice and quiet. After the election is over, then you can throw the book at the people." I think people now want to know what the situation is, and what it will be. Despite my great respect for the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, I do not think that the date this legislation comes into force has had, or will have, any bearing on the Prime Minister's decision to call an election. I do not think he is that kind of Prime Minister. As a matter of fact, the people of Canada know he is not that kind of politician.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Come on, Steve. You had better take a drink of water or you will have a tough time swallowing that one.


Mr. Otto:: I think what irritates members opposite now, especially those people who have been members for a long time, is the fact that I tend to call them old-time politicians. This applies not only to those on the other side, but to those on this side as well.
But, Mr. Speaker, I have found that the new Canadian, the present-day Canadian is more educated, more sophisticated. He wants to be told exactly what you are going to do. He wants to discuss it. Of course, he may complain. Any number of people will complain. Nobody likes change thrown at them all of a sudden. But on reflection, people will admit today that this bill is the only way to deal with this matter. By and large most Canadians will agree that universality no longer applies to such programs as old age pensions, supplementary allowances, family allowances or youth allowances. They know that to continue universality makes no sense. I think that today they will accept the idea of selectivity. They will accept the fact that there are children in Canada who do need more help.
If they, themselves, can do without this help they are pleased that they have the means, that they have the security, to do without it. Despite all the surface complaints, I have a deep conviction that Canadians will not object to this measure. I have confidence in them. I believe that when they see the courage of the government in putting this bill forward, they will not take away their
(Mr. Otto.]
support but show their own confidence in honesty and truth.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak at this particular stage in the debate and to follow the hon. member who has just spoken. I have to disagree with just about everything he said. I cannot think of a more opportune moment to enter a debate such as this, because what the hon. member is endeavouring to say in a philosophical way is that the government can continue to tax the middle income group to an ever-increasing degree and anticipate that they are going to produce the revenues needed to look after everybody else in the nation. In other words, the harder you work and the more you earn, the greater the degree of discrimination practised against you by this government. If the hon. member thinks that people will continue to put up with this sort of government philosophy he is in for a shock when the election comes, whether it be this spring, this summer, this fall or next year.
I think it is a crying shame that the principle of universality in the family allowance measure is being destroyed. I think it is a crying shame that once again the middle income group has found that the government's legislation, as was the case with the so-called tax reform measure, is going to discriminate against them and make them pay the fiddler without allowing them to dance. I think the time has come in this parliament when members should speak out and try to stop those people who are making this country what it is today. If we are moving ahead, if things are getting better, by and large it is the result of the efforts of the people who are discriminated against by this sort of legislation.
Unfortunately, for too long these people have felt that the government is like a bloodsucker, a real leech. Every time it is looking for funds for the various programs that it feels may have some political value, it lands on them and draws more blood. What this government does not appear to realize is that it also draws more incentive out of these people. The more it draws out, the less is left in the nation and, basically, this is the reason we have over 600,000 unemployed in this country. People are getting sick and tired of working so that they can turn over most of their earnings to the government to help out those who, for one reason or another, are not able to look after themselves.
I believe we have gone well beyond the limit in taxing the middle income group. I believe we are destroying the incentive of this nation by this type of legislation, and I believe the end to this type of philosophy had better come in a big hurry or we will find ourselves in an even worse mess than we are today. God knows, it is difficult to imagine how we could be in a worse mess.


Mr. Perrault:: Oh!


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the other thing that bothers me a lot is that once again the government of Canada is involving itself in a form of means test. There is a philosophy in Canada that abhors the means test or the needs test or whatever you want to call it because it is distaste-
March 28, 1972

ful. We can go back to the 1930's if we so desire-and this government has taken us there in many ways, certainly as far as unemployment is concerned. We can recall how the dignity of the individual was destroyed when there was no work and he was subjected to the investigative procedures of municipal, provincial and federal governments in order to get enough bread on his table for his family.
This type of legislation is taking us back to that philosophy. When the Canada Assistance Plan was before the House I spoke up because it embodied the same type of philosophy, the investigation of the individual to determine whether he should get what he requires to keep himself alive. Once that principle is adopted, there is a proliferation of bureaucracy. In the end, as you destroy universality by saying there are some people receiving benefits who do not require them without adding the rider that they are entitled to them because the tax they pay gives them that right, you do two other things. First of all you destroy a person's dignity and, secondly, you take away his liberty. Every time a bureaucrat walks into a home and wants to know this and that, the individual has lost certain inalienable rights. I oppose this, Mr. Speaker, as strongly as I can but this is what is happening in Canada over and over again as a result of legislation of the type proposed.
In a couple of years after this plan comes into effect, after we have eliminated over a million people from the family allowance rolls, after we do all that and make an assessment of how much it costs, we will probably discover that it is costing more to be selective than it would have cost to give it to everybody.


Philip Bernard Rynard: That is true of welfare right now.


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) says this is true of welfare right now, and I agree with him. This is the most damnable thing about this type of legislation, the minute you bring in selectivity and eliminate universality you interfere with the rights of people and bring in bureaucrats by the hundreds of thousands who go around investigating people and building up files to which other people may have access. These people are subjected to all kinds of investigative procedures which are very destructive.
The hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) says you delay the procedure and that is correct. You delay people from securing immediately what they have a right to while bureaucrats determine whether they should approve or disapprove. Members of parliament will not vote against family allowances, even though under this bill the government will wipe out family allowances for over one million people. They will not vote against the bill because through it the government will provide greater benefits for many millions of people. No member of parliament wants to prevent people securing additional benefits at a time when living costs seem to be almost out of control. However, Mr. Speaker, that should not prevent a member of parliament from saying that the legislation before the House should be much better than that being proposed by the government.
Family Income Security Flan
I say, Sir, that since November 30 we have been considering some type of family income security plan. Despite all the time spent in thinking about the legislation, Canadians in general will be given legislation that is less beneficial than that presently existing. A great many Canadians will get nothing except an additional bill to pay. When asked to pay the bill they will be told that they are not to derive any benefits from their additional payments. This situation is something like the one involving the postal service of Canada. It costs twice as much to send a letter that will take twice as long getting to its destination, as compared with previous days. Producing that kind of legislation for the people of Canada seems to be almost inbred in this government's approach to legislative priorities.
So far as I am concerned, this particular piece of legislation will not have any significant anti-poverty effect in this nation. Even in the Atlantic region, which probably will benefit to a greater extent than any other part of Canada, the impact of this legislation on poverty will not be all that significant. The number of people who face poverty the day before the new payments are sent out will not be substantially different from the number who face poverty the day after the new cheques are sent out. What would help us would be legislation that would produce jobs. This is the subject we ought to be debating. At present, even though we are debating the bill before us, we do not know when the new cheques are to be sent out.
Last September constituents of mine telephoned me to ask why their family allowance cheques were the same as before. In July or August, the government had announced that new family allowances at higher rates would be available in September. I had to tell those people that, according to what I had learned in the House of Commons, the September date had been changed to May 1, 1972. Now I must tell those same people that instead of being implemented in May, this bill is to be implemented some day but I do not know when. The government is not telling me, and it is not telling them. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough, and the people of Canada will not think it is good enough. If the hon. member who spoke just before I entered this debate thinks that is good enough, that is just dandy. His attitude is probably a very good indication that he will be replaced in the next general election, whenever that comes.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) was right in suggesting that for the Liberal members representing Ontario constituencies there is no satisfactory date for a general election. Neither 1972 nor 1973 is satisfactory so far as those Liberal members of parliament are concerned. If the philosophy of the hon. member who spoke just before I did is an example of the philosophy of federal Liberal members representing Ontario constituencies, they are in trouble. Any day will be a bad day, so far as they are concerned, for a general election, no matter whether it comes in spring, summer or fall.
When we return after the Easter recess, I hope the government will introduce legislation that will help all families which are to receive family allowances as well as families which need help through forms of income security that do not involve any package being considered by

March 28, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) or any other minister of this government. I hope such legislation will produce employment for the more than 600,000 people who find themselves without work and want to work. I do not know how much longer this government can expect the people of this country to put up with its relaxed and nonchalant approach to the serious problem of poverty facing so many in this nation.
I repeat, the middle income earner of this country has been the goat for far too long. It is time we put a stop to legislation of the type now before the House. Under it, the middle income earner is to be penalized, because he is industrious and trying to make a contribution to building a better Canada. He is making his contribution and assisting his fellow man by working and earning. We must put a stop to legislation of this kind. Every middle income earner in this country has as much right to family allowances, if he has children, as any other person in Canada. Unfortunately for him, because of the government's philosophy, he has been cut off at the pass. He is being made to foot the bill, and he will receive no benefits. He has been asked to do this time and again. I am fed up with this treatment, and I am sure he is; I am sure the government will discover just how fed up he is when it calls the election.


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in this debate, especially after having heard the speech of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). Never have I seen a better example of a man who wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He has been making statements during the past 15 or 20 minutes which tend to indicate to the middle income man in his riding that he is all for him, he is his hope and this government is completely against the middle income man. At the same time, out of the other side of his mouth he speaks about the poverty situation in Canada, the poor and how this government is lackadaisical about doing anything for the poor. I cannot put the two statements together so that they make any kind of sense.


An hon. Member:: That is the problem with you fellows over there.


Charles Terrence Murphy: It may be, but you do not have the answer, either. You are talking about the abominable tax on the middle income group. I agree that the middle income group in Canada may be carrying more than its share of the tax. However, that system has been accepted as the proper system in Canada for decades. The aim of that system has been to improve the lot of the poor people by moving them into the middle income group. Where are we to get the money to help the poor? Is it the proposition of the Conservative party that we should tax the corporations to a greater degree? I thought the proposition of that party was to allow the corporations free-wheeling rights so they could invest their profits and create jobs rather than take more tax from them. I thought their proposition was that taxes should be reduced in that area.
What should we do? Should we tax the poor to a higher degree? The money that is paid out in the form of family allowances or family income security, and the people of

Canada know this, does not grow on trees. It comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers. What group forms the biggest tax-paying base in Canada? It happens to be the middle income group. I am glad to subscribe to the philosophy enunciated by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). He said that the people in this group are prepared to face up to their responsibilities and do something for the less fortunate in the country. They are not acting like dogs in a manger by saying "I've got mine; now, Charlie, you try to get yours". They are prepared to take part in this exercise. I am prepared to accept his philosophy in that regard.
The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North deplored the loss of universality. I agree that in many ways universality is a fine concept. However, as a member of parliament, assuming I only have one child and that I draw a salary of $18,000 a year, I find it difficult to understand why I should get a cheque in the same amount as a working man with one child who only earns $4,000 a year. I do not buy that. The time for universality in Canada has ended.
Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) mentioned that universality worked because you put money into the hands of all individuals and then get it back from those who do not meet it through taxes. This system works in the case of old age pensions where $75 or $80 a month is paid out, is counted as income and those in the higher income groups repay most or all of it to the government in taxes. I remind hon. members that that principle does not apply to family allowances. The money goes into the family, but it is not counted as income. Therefore, the principle of universality does not work in the same way when applied to family income security, baby bonus or whatever you want to call it, as it does when applied to old age pensions. The time for universality, in the sense that it was being used for purposes of family allowances, is gone.
There are many poor people in Canada who need additional assistance. The pie is just so big. It should be distributed among the people who are hungry, not among those who are well off. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North referred to the government as a bloodsucker sucking funds from the middle class group for its own benefit. I suggest the hon. member does not have the respect that I do for the intelligence of the voters of Canada. The voters of Canada know that the government is not coining money in the Mint or printing it in the basement and handing it out to people. They know that the money that is paid out to various groups in Canada comes from the people of Canada.
To suggest that this government would think that by increasing family allowances to a certain number of the population would result in an increase in its popularity is an insult to the intelligence of the voters of Canada. However, I believe the hon. member indicated that. While he deplored the fact that the government was proceeding in this way, he spoke vociferously about the business of ridding ourselves of the concept of universality and criticized as strongly as he could what he called the re-introduction of the means test. In his next breath, he said "but I won't vote against it". Why will he not vote against it? The reason is that a number of people in Canada, particu-
March 28, 1972

larly in the hon. member's constituency, are going to receive increased benefits as a result of this change. He would not want to deprive them of those increased benefits. despite the fact this measure goes against his highest principles, because those people have a vote in the next election.
The hon. member deplored the introduction of some kind of means test, and mentioned how the introduction of this method of distributing money would result in a proliferation of bureaucrats. To quote him, one result would be the employment of bureaucrats by the hundreds of thousands. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the distribution of these new family allowances is based on income tax returns which are already being made by all of the taxpaying citizens of Canada. It is on the basis of those returns that this family income security money will be distributed. There is no question about the introduction of additional hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats. I suggest that, like many of his colleagues, he is thinking of 30 or 40 years ago, when the means test was a mean and miserable way of dealing out dole as it were.
I heard some of the examples cited yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). I agree with her wholeheartedly. When we reached the stage at which parents, to prove their children were unable to support them, had to bring the children into court in order to qualify for assistance, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. lady that we had got ourselves into a deplorable position. Surely, though, the plan we are talking about today is not that type of plan. It is a plan geared to returns which are already being made by taxpayers. It no longer implies a demeaning inquisition by government bureaucrats or the services of the numbers of government bureaucrats who were involved in the system in the late twenties and thirties. Fortunately, the present government, and governments before it in Canada, have recognized the folly of their ways. They have made changes and brought the system up to date to the point at which it is now a reasonable and practical proposition on the basis of which we can make the best possible use of the resources available to us.
One of the hon. members opposite who spoke this afternoon said: Retain the universality principle but raise the allowances for everybody. I agree with him in a sense. That would be absolutely great, provided we had the money. I should like to drive a Cadillac. I can only afford to drive a Volkswagen. I wish the hon. member would keep this in mind when dealing with the facts of the situation in Canada-the amount of funds and resources available to 22 million Canadians to take care of the poor and the elderly. Let us keep an eye, after all, on the resources which are available to us.
I cannot end without commenting on the speech made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), for whom I have the highest respect. I must say I only heard the latter part of his remarks, that dealing with the constitution. The right hon. member has a great appreciation of the constitution which was written ifl>1867. So has everyone. But today is 1972. Canada is not the same today as it was in 1867 and a constitution written in 1867 is not necessarily the best constitution for Canada in
Family Income Security Plan
1972. I gather from the right hon. gentleman's comments that change is alien to his nature. I hope he will reconsider and realize that constitutional change is an absolute necessity if we are to continue as one united Canada.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to a number of speeches this afternoon. They were not at all similar, but in my opinion they were well made. I was particularly interested to hear the last speaker refer to the desirability of establishing uniform legislation which would take into account the situations of those who are poor and those who are rich and distribute wealth on a selected basis providing more for those at the low end than for those at the high end. I wonder why the hon. member has not sat down with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), who is involved in many pieces of legislation concerned with establishing minimum incomes, in an attempt to arrive at some way of arranging for a guaranteed annual income so that we might move away from what the hon. member obviously acknowledges to be the deficiencies of the legislation before us.
I am prepared to put on record the difficulties arising from the relationship between family allowances as contemplated in Bill C-170 and the income tax structure set out in Bill C-169. We reach a position under that tax structure which would allow a fairly large payment at the low end of the income scale, but also a very large deduction from tax at the other end. In effect, this is really making provision of a high amount for children at the low end, through family allowances, and at the top as a substantial deduction in respect of children whose parents enjoy very high incomes-I am talking about income as high as $100,000 a year.
One of the objections to the proposition before us is that we are abandoning what we really set out to achieve in the beginning, that is to say, the provision of something special for the children regardless of their parents ability to earn.
It has been said that the middle class is paying the shot-that the middle class does not need this money. This is not really my experience. I believe we are now confronted with a totally new poverty level in Canada, and this poverty level is not necessarily below $10,000. For instance, I know many teachers who are earning between $10,000 and $14,000 and who are not getting enough money to meet their needs. This is because their standard of living has increased considerably and they are finding great difficulty in maintaining this level. Now, when these people are experiencing great financial difficulty, exactly the same thing happens with respect to children in those families as to any other children. The two cars in the garage cost so much a month to maintain. The $40,000 house costs so much to maintain. There are bills for heating, medical expenses and so on. There is only a certain amount of money to be spent on these things, and if it is not enough, what happens? There is a shortage of food and the children are eating hamburgers. So we are not going far enough if we simply take a certain level and say it is a reasonable level of income.
I read a story the other day in a Toronto newspaper which maintained that a family consisting of parents and two children, who own their own house and car, were

March 28, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
living at poverty level although the family earnings amounted to $11,000. The two children were attending university. I suppose it depends entirely on the way in which a family distributes its income, or on the type of society in which we live. Members of parliament are familiar with this situation. Since I have been here our wages have been increased on three occasions. I find that no matter how high my wages are I can find some way of spending them all. There is always some way of distributing the money. I suppose this is true of everyone in every category.
I heard of a case the other day involving a family which was very worried about two things. These people live in a house which is worth, I suppose, about $300. Their income, I presume, would be less than $1,000 a year. I am quite sure they were not receiving welfare or any kind of assistance at all. Two of the children go to high school. The mother says: "I don't know what my daughters do with their stockings." I continually have to buy nylon stockings. She also pointed out that she was obliged to pay $4 to buy a book. The sum of $4 is an immense amount of money for that family, but they were willing to pay it. I imagine the reason they were willing to pay it was that they got the money in the form of a family allowance, as a right, and it was used for the purpose for which it was intended.
In many cases this is also true in families of higher income. For example, take the family that drinks too much, or which has drug problems or monetary problems. The fact that there is a large income coming into the house does not necessarily mean that the children get any of the benefits. They may, or they may not. But in many cases a universal payment given to them as children as a right has been of exceeding advantage to those children.
I am of the opinion that one of the reasons the government is now moving away from universality is that it is considering a guaranteed income for Canadians. If that is so, then I am fully in support of it. But if it is so, then let the government be brave and introduce such a proposal now instead of playing around with it. If we pass this piece of legislation as it is, no one, but no one, will know how it operates. Let me just read one small paragraph and ask the minister for a quick explanation of it. This is a complete sentence:
Where at any time during the first eleven months of a benefit year, other than the fourth month, or during the eight-month period next before that benefit year a parent-
And so on it goes. Another example:
(b) where the parents of the child were not resident in Canada for the complete base calendar year, unless a statement of the estimated income of the child's family for the first calendar year thereafter in which the parents reasonably expect to be resident in Canada has been submitted by the parents, in which case the income of the child's family for that calendar year shall be deemed to be the income of the family for the base calendar year.
There are many clauses of the bill like that which do not make sense. I would advise the minister to look at them closely, because he is doing in this bill exactly what we did with the unemployment insurance legislation

putting in an "and" or a "this" or a "that", and giving alternatives.

As far as the unemployment insurance legislation is concerned, by doing this we literally created chaos. The calculations that will have to be made in this legislation will require use of a computer. First of all, you will have to compute your income for the previous year, or people will have the alternative of establishing a base year, whether the previous year or a projected base year, at one's discretion. This information will be fed into the computer along with other facts and figures, such as age of the child, number of children in the family and so on. Each will be separately calculated. Then, during the year you will have to decide, either at the end of the fourth month or the eighth month period before the end of the benefit year, whether you ceased to be employed, and so on. You will be faced with many choices for the computer.
This will mean the minister will have to engage the services of inspectors. Just to give the House an example of what this means, an inspector for the Unemployment Insurance Commission visited a man in my area the other day. The man was not home, but the reason the inspector called was that this man had reported some part time earnings the previous week and the inspector was checking whether he was making more money than he claimed. The inspector telephoned this man's wife at her work and asked where her husband was. She replied he was in southern Ontario. He asked for his telephone number, but his wife replied that he was looking for work and that he telephoned her every night. The inspector reported this man was unavailable for work since they were unable to telephone him.
This is the kind of inspector who will be appointed under this act. These inspectors will have to find out what money people made previously. There will be inspectors to find out what people are making now. If a wife works for two months, this will alter the annual budget information that is fed into the computer and the information will have to be refed to the computer. If the wife receives unemployment insurance benefits, she will have to calculate the wage that she has received which is added to family income. Thousands of calculations will have to be made during the lifetime of a family. In other words, bureaucracy will grow to an immense size.
I see nothing wrong in this country with establishing an income tax structure which will absorb any payment made universally for which there is no need. One would know at the end of the year whether or not one had received too much money. If one had, this amount could be paid back through the income tax structure. If not, the money is kept by the recipient. I fully realize we have been through the Income Tax Act a number of times. I understand that one major company hired six or seven lawyers and sent them away to a quiet area to study the recent act. Having looked at it, they came back and said they could not come to any conclusions which they felt would be helpful to the company because they really did not understand what the act was all about. I sympathize with them because I think that is true of nearly everybody. I think there will be much cause for amusement in this country, in addition to television, when people try to complete their income tax forms for the first time under the new act in 1973. I suppose it will be the national pastime for several months.
March 28, 1972

A number of other factors relate to the changes made by the government in the payment of family allowances and I think they should receive consideration. One of the major influences was the desire of the province of Quebec to handle family allowances. Under the family structure in Quebec, people have been incensed that cheques are in the names of wives rather than husbands. The government has now corrected that. May I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might be permitted to read the proceedings for the adjournment period this evening. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)-immigration; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs Maclnnis)-public service; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-finance.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills, notices of motions.


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day there were some discussions about the conduct of business during this hour. There are two items that hon. members on all sides of the House have expressed interest in proceeding with this afternoon, and if the House continues in this amicable mood it might be that we will be able to get through all stages of two measures in the list of private members' public bills. The first is Bill C-78, in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Mcllraith) concerning use of the term "Parliament Hill"; the second is Bill C-172, in the name of the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Gendron) concerning the change of name of his constituency. If it meets with the approval of the House we might proceed with those two bills.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as everyone is in an amiable and friendly mood perhaps we might consider in addition to the two items mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, as our third item, another matter, probably as important if not more important than those two, namely Bill C-180 standing in the name of my colleague the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), relating to earnings under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Perhaps we could make the order encompassing those three items as the ones for consideration.


James Alexander Jerome: Your Honour, the difficulty I am faced with in this regard is that there has been no forewarning. Certainly, had there been any suggestion in advance we would have been prepared to accept the idea of asking for unanimous consent in that way. I did endeavour to contact the House leaders of all parties to see whether there was a disposition to deal with bills outstanding. There was one item in the name of Mr. MacDonald (Egmont) concerning the abolishment of corporal punishment to which we had given consideration. Unfortunately, he is not able
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
to be here this afternoon and that is as far as our consideration can go on that matter. We then had some discussion earlier in the day, but I cannot commit myself further than I have in respect of these two bills.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, let me say with respect to the parliamentary secretary that we are dealing with one bill concerning the name "Parliament Hill", and Bill C-172. When those are completed, I suggest we consider the bill standing in the name of my colleague, namely Bill C-180. It does not take much consideration to agree to this suggestion. The government agrees that the subject-matter of my hon. friend's bill needs debate, discussion and airing here, and requires some solution, perhaps even more so than does the subject of the name "Parliament Hill".


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the consideration of the bill referred to by the hon. member after the conclusion of all stages of the two items to which I have referred. Perhaps we can proceed to the consideration of that matter at that time.


Frank Howard: If we are to proceed with the two bills, namely C-78 and C-172 in that order, and then proceed to the consideration of public bills the House has no recourse but to proceed to the consideration of Item No. 1, namely C-9, because that is the order of business. What I am submitting is that we are pretty well obliged to follow that course, but that following the consideration of the two bills mentioned we should agree to consider the bill I mentioned as the third item, otherwise we will have to proceed with the first item.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems clear to the Chair that the question is whether there is unanimous consent to follow the procedure suggested by the parliamentary secretary. If there is not, I will call the first item of business in the normal fashion.


Frank Howard: Perhaps I did not appreciate what you said, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that the parliamentary secretary refuses to consider the subject-matter of unemployment insurance today?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems that the matter is quite simple, and we should not take any more time on the point of order. I will put the proposition again, as I understand it. The parliamentary secretary has made a certain suggestion and I feel that hon. members understood what he said. This requires unanimous consent. If there is not that consent we will proceed in the normal fashion.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those present I should like to clarify my position on the matter. I am not about to withhold my consent to the suggestion that we consider the item referred to by the hon. member. We have agreement to consider the two items I mentioned, and I would be perfectly prepared to have the Chair call the bill mentioned as the third item after we have concluded all stages of those two items.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the first item referred to by the parliamentary secretary be called, followed by the second item, and, if there is

March 28, 1972
Use of Words "Parliament Hill"
time, to then deal with the bill referred to by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa Centre) moved: that Bill C-78, respecting the use of the expression "Parliament Hill", be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps at the outset I should thank hon. members for agreeing to have this bill brought forward for consideration today. I appreciate that courtesy and I want hon. members to know that I do.
The bill itself is quite simple. It is an attempt to prevent the commercial use of the words "Parliament Hill" to designate any property or place, or to identify any articles for sale or to otherwise identify any commercial enterprise for commercial use. It is very simple in its form and I think it is clear from its language.
The reason for the bill is the usage of the term "Parliament Hill" to designate a very fine new hotel in Ottawa. I might add that it is a much needed and very good new hotel. In November of last year the hotel, in a large advertisement in one of the Ottawa newspapers, indicated that the hotel was on Parliament Hill, which it is not, and the intention to use the designation "Parliament Hill" to identify that hotel as one of a number of hotels in a chain. This error was immediately drawn to the attention of the hotel and I thought the matter had then been concluded. In February of this year it became clear, when the hotel was about to open, that the name had not been changed. This matter was again drawn to their attention and notice of this bill was filed at that time. The hotel immediately took steps within its organization to change the designation of that hotel to a more appropriate one. I want to acknowledge and thank the hotel for its courtesy and action, or its maturity, however one wishes to express it. In any event I want to express appreciation for their action when the matter was brought to their attention.
As best I can ascertain, there has been no attempt to use this designation by any other enterprise in the first 102 years of confederation. Last year a farm near Ottawa chose this designation and applied it to certain livestock records in respect of cattle. There is also a small sports clothing or sports goods shop which has started to use the name. These are very recent cases and so far as I know there are no others. It seems to me this is a most inappropriate designation as applied to anything other than this immediate area and grounds on which the Parliament Buildings are situated, and the name should be reserved for that purpose.

I tried to make the bill very simple, providing that the words "Parliament Hill" should not be used for the three purposes set out in Clause 1 (a), (b), (c), that is to designate a property or location, to identify any goods, merchandise, wares or articles for commercial use or sale, or in association with a commercial service rendering establishment.
There is in addition a simple provision that a breach of these provisions is an offence punishable on summary conviction. Then, there is a clause which makes it clear that the bill in no way limits or interferes with the powers, privileges, rights and immunities of both Houses of Parliament and their members. That provision was put in because there had been some academic discussion concerning whether the use of the term would in fact constitute technically a breach of the privileges of parliament. That is not an argument or a reason which I assert for bringing forward this bill. However, that argument has been made and I thought it wise and appropriate to include a provision in the bill making it clear that the bill in no way limits the powers, privileges, rights and immunities of both Houses of Parliament and their members.
There is one other matter I should draw to the attention of hon. gentlemen. If it is agreeable to the House I should like to ask permission to change the wording of the motion so that instead of providing that the bill be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, it read that the bill be read a second time and referred to the committee of the whole. Then, we could proceed today to the committee of the whole stage and third reading if that is agreeable to hon. members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I think it is appropriate that the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill should do so because I know he has always had the interest, the rights and dignity of parliament, as well as the facilities which are provided for parliament, at heart. I agree wholeheartedly with the motivation behind this bill and indeed with the bill itself. I think it is a fitting topping-off of his parliamentary career that this bill should be promptly passed so that it would have the effect the hon. gentleman has in mind. However, there are a couple of things I should like to say in passing. Perhaps this would be more appropriate at the committee stage, but if I may have some latitude at the moment this would remove the necessity of saying anything at the committee stage.
Not being a lawyer, I should like to be assured that a sub-paragraph here is not wider than the hon. member intends in respect of identifying any goods, merchandise and so on. I would like to believe this would not include the use of such familiar names as "Parliament Cigarettes" and "HP Sauce", which of course stands for House of Parliament, and things of that sort. There is one slight query I have. It has to do with the designation of the bounds of Parliament Hill. As the hon. member knows
March 28, 1972

there has been some discussion about the possibility of bringing the Confederation Building into use for members' offices. I am not sure at what stage this is now, but I would presume if that is done this bill would have to be amended to include that area in Parliament Hill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I, too, shall be very brief. I should like to commend the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Mcllraith) for introducing this bill. I express to him my appreciation of the privilege of being named as the seconder of the bill. I am sure we all agree that the term "Parliament Hill" has a certain meaning in this country and that we do not want to see it commercialized. Accordingly this bill is a good one and we are happy to give it our support.
The other reason I thought I should like to get to my feet at this stage is to say that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, who shortly plans to leave this place,-and we do not yet know to what place he may go-has already a distinguished career and many accomplishments to his credit. This was demonstrated at a public gathering in this city a few days ago. What is now happening is that he is achieving a new pinnacle. He is achieving an accomplishment which has been reached by few private members of the House of Commons. He is about to have a private member's bill passed in private members' hour. This really is a climax to an outstanding career and we extend to the hon. member our warm congratulations.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I should like to extend my congratulations to the member for introducing and, as indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), for having passed through this House a private member's bill. Under the bill it is, of course, to be unlawful to describe or designate a property, place, site or location by the use of the term "Parliament Hill". I should also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that there has been a commercial shown on national television, the CBC, depicting a helicopter landing in the area and picking up, there is no question of doubt, what is supposed to be a member of the House of Commons. In the event that I do not have an opportunity to refer to this again, when the bill comes before committee of the whole I would hope that consideration would be given to making it unlawful to depict Parliament Hill in any commercial.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the Chair.
On Clause 1-Use of expression "Parliament Hill".
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to ask a brief question and indicate my interest in and approval of the legislation. Did the hon. member have an opportunity to examine any other jurisdictions relative to this over-all subject? For example, what do they do in London and Washington? They may have similar problems and I can see in the future the misuse of other words as well as "Parliament Hill". There might be a bar, for instance, down on Rideau
Use of Words "Parliament Hill"
Street called the "Centre Block" or something of that nature. I am wondering whether these other jurisdictions have been able to cope with such things without having separate legislation. However, I support the bill and have no argument with it.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, referring to the point just raised by the hon. gentleman, I did not check out the larger question with other jurisdictions, for example, with Capitol Hill, to see what measures they had taken. I thought it better to deal with the immediate problem that had arisen. I have no doubt in my mind but that it may be necessary to enlarge the legislation on this general subject, but this bill is confined to the circumstances that have come to public attention.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond raised a point about a television program. I have not seen or heard of it, and I must say I am not clear about it from his description of the incident. However, it may well be covered by clause 1(c). If not, it raises a question that may have to be dealt with later.
The words dealt with here are "Parliament Hill" in combination. That is the answer to the first point raised by the hon. member for Malpeque in his rather generous remarks. I think that should remove any question that there may be in his mind.
As to the second point raised about other buildings being used to house members of parliament in the course of their duties, and the example given of the Confederation Building, which is outside the area described in the bill, I did give this a good deal of attention and thought. It appeared to me that it was better to refer in this legislation at this time to the area clearly and commonly defined as Parliament Hill. If and when arrangements are made to house members of parliament in an area off Parliament Hill, there will be other questions to be settled affecting their privileges, so that the privileges they have, and have always had traditionally, will be clearly protected at that stage. Then, the definition of the area may have to be changed when dealing with those other matters. I came to the conclusion that it was best not to try to anticipate any such change, and contented myself with a description that was soundly based, that should have support in law, and the support of hon. members as a reasonable approach.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I want to clear up any confusion that I may have introduced. If I referred to a CBC program I wish to say I meant to refer to a CBC commercial which left the impression that a certain member of the House was being picked up from the lawn by a helicopter. I think this would trespass on the area covered by the bill. Certainly it is commercializing the Hill and House itself.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
March 28, 1972
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act [Translation]


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Temiscouata) moved: that Bill C-172, an Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated on first reading, the purpose of this bill is to add the name "Riviere-du-Loup" to the constituency of Temiscouata so that we may again use the well known name of "Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata".
The present constituency is made up mainly of the provincial counties of Riviere-du-Loup and Temiscouata together with part of the county of Rimouski.
My predecessor, Mr. Frechette, a progressive conservative member from 1958 to 1962, had introduced a similar measure which was passed by this House. When the electoral map was readjusted, compound names of constituencies were eliminated, although the majority of people upheld the usual designation, that is Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata, because it better reflected the demographic and geographic reality and it also prevented any mix-up with the provincial county of Temiscouata.
I hope that hon. members will be prepared to meet this popular request and help clarify this situation, for which I thank them on behalf of my constituency.
Mr. Speaker, may I have the consent of this House that this bill be referred to the committee of the whole for third reading?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Is it the pleasure of the House to allow the hon. member for Temiscouata to amend the motion so that the bill can be referred to the committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In accordance with a special order, the House will now go into committee for the examination of Bill C-172.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: The committee will now proceed with Bill C-172.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall the bill be reported?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT. 1971 AMENDMENT TO EXCLUDE HOLIDAY AND SEVERANCE PAY FROM DEFINITION OF EARNINGS

William Arnold Peters: that Bill C-180, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (holiday pay), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity, through the generous consideration of the House and my seatmate the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), to speak on this bill. Its purpose is very simple and I hope it will be treated in the same way as the other bills we have considered in this hour. I hope we can deal with the bill in committee this afternoon and make progress toward its passage. As hon. members know, the question of holiday pay is under the jurisdiction of provincial governments. Most governments that have passed legislation on vacation pay have deducted at least 2 per cent of a worker's earnings and set this amount aside for his regular annual holiday.
In the province of Ontario, where I am familiar with the operation of the vacation pay act, the purpose was that a person could take one week's holiday and receive for that period the amount which he would normally earn. The desire to implement holiday pay in Ontario stemmed both from the advantages that flow to the employee, which were fairly obvious, and to the employer. It was the feeling that if the employee were to get one week's holiday with pay in the summer he would be apt to produce more efficiently when he returned to work. Most unions have negotiated an additional week's holiday and there are in some cases arrangements which provide for up to five weeks' holiday after 20 years of service.
One of the things the Ontario government did in their legislation was to ensure that vacation pay was not available to an employee until July 2. This was because we live in the northern hemisphere and have a relatively short period of sunshine. In the mines and in the factories we have not been able to provide the kind of lighting that would give enough vitamin C, so it was thought that if the worker took vacation pay after July 2 he could take his family to the beach or elsewhere to get the sun. Obviously, if he could take the vacation pay at a time of his own choosing, he might take it when he needs extra money. It was therefore decided that it would not be available to him until July 2.
Other benefits have been negotiated by unions over the years. One that has become very important in the last ten years is severance pay. This is negotiated by unions with companies against the day when the company will no longer be able to employ as many workers, particularly in fields where technological change is a real possibility and retraining will be necessary. There has been set aside a sum of money which can be used by the employee in addition to other moneys that he might have in order to make the transition between jobs. This government has agreed that in some cases where a worker has to move from one area to another it will make enough money available to the Department of Manpower and Immigra-
March 28, 1972

tion to move the family and furniture to the new location. However, everyone who has moved his home knows that while this may cover the actual moving cost it does not cover the upheaval that takes place when a person travels from one area to another to find a job.
As our technology improves and specialization in industry involves more and more retraining of workers, severance pay becomes a very important part of the protection provided to the worker. When the Unemployment Insurance Commission began calculating benefits they took into consideration a number of items they called "other moneys". These include, of course, insurance against loss of wages which one can take out, training allowances and "other moneys" which their handbook defines as follows:
Other moneys: You must declare all moneys you have received or will receive for the period for which you are reporting, even if you did not work. This includes vacation pay, temporary workmen's compensation payments, bonuses, gratuities, severance pay, etc. Be sure to give a brief explanation of the moneys received in the space provided on your report form.
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that other hon. members will agree that there were many reasons for establishing benefits such as vacation pay, severance pay and workmen's compensation, and that these should not be included as moneys earned by an employee while unemployed. It is for this reason I have introduced this bill and I strongly urge those members who believe in severance pay and vacation pay to support it.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the measure before us this afternoon concerning vacation with pay has caused a degree of unhappiness to people who become unemployed, particularly those engaged in seasonal work, who have seen legislation introduced that did not exist under the old Unemployment Insurance Act.


An hon. Member:: That is putting it very mildly.


Mr. Caccia:: It is a regulation that was introduced in the new act and to some extent it has detracted from the general quality of the Unemployment Insurance Act passed last summer by this parliament. Another effect of this regulation, Mr. Speaker, is that it has caused an anomaly which works in favour of those who become unemployed and who are members of a union or an organization which has agreed with the employer upon a system of so-called vacation with pay to be payable at a certain date.
As a result of this vacation with pay fund agreed upon with the employer, it is possible for people who become unemployed and nave the benefit of this arrangement to withdraw money from the fund as payment for vacation only on a date specified usually in the agreement with the union. If you become unemployed at any other time of year you will not receive this vacation with pay sum and, therefore, since the money is not available it is not calculated against your claim and is not deducted from the benefits you hope to receive.
As a result, people who become unemployed and fall into the category I have mentioned enjoy a benefit that is usually not enjoyed by the vast majority of workers who become unemployed and do not belong to a union that has
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
negotiated such an arrangement with the employer. Therefore, there is dual treatment of unemployed people. Those who have entered into this kind of arrangement with the employer can look forward to a higher level of payment for a greater number of weeks, whereas for those who do not enjoy the benefit of this arrangement their vacation with pay moneys are included in the calculation of unemployment insurance entitlement. Thus, they pay the consequence of not having been able to organize themselves as well as other workers and for not being able to work out with their employers a vacation with pay agreement that others have entered into.
This situation, Mr. Speaker, was brought to the minister's attention several months ago and has caused considerable unhappiness particularly in the construction industry where the level of employment fluctuates from season to season. Of course, when workers are thrown out of work or become unemployed and are not covered by a specific vacation with pay agreement with the employer, their vacation with pay entitlement becomes part and parcel of the total calculation respecting unemployment insurance benefits.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) also made the point that the vacation with pay payment to a great extent represents 2 per cent of the salary that a man has earned and saved while employed, and it stands to reason that this form of saving ought to be made available to the man when he becomes unemployed. It should not be deducted from the payment he looks forward to receiving under unemployment insurance.
These two matters, Mr. Speaker, have probably been brought forward for consideration because the new approach to this question is one based on cessation of income. So long as we call the present scheme unemployment insurance it will be considered by the men concerned as a form of insurance payable when they become unemployed. If vacation with pay benefits are due to people as a result of their work and earnings, those payments represent an additional resource on which they can count in time of need to meet expenses which may be unpredictable. The vacation with pay payment should not be confused with entitlement to unemployment insurance.


William Arnold Peters: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: In this sense, the hon. member for Timiskaming has rendered a great service to a vast number of people across the nation who are now struggling, as they have been for the past few months, with unemployment insurance regulations. They have suffered as a result of a calculation which it is felt, and rightly so, should not have been made.
It is distressing to see what has happened to a piece of legislation passed by parliament. In the practical application of that legislation, in day to day dealings with people affected one finds that the concept in the minds of the legislators who originally approved this very fine piece of legislation has been greatly distorted. Parliament intended to increase benefits and to make them available to people who had contributed to the fund for a shorter period than previously was necessary. At the same time, parliament wanted our people to enjoy a standard of living that would not be reduced to the level where a man

March 28, 1972
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
would need to be truly concerned as to whether he could meet his day to day commitments for the upkeep of his household and the maintenance of his family. Vacation with pay is the type of extra that in this day and age, when living costs are increasing, is essential if a family is to survive the tragedy of sudden unemployment.
I do not share the view expressed a few moments ago by the hon, member for Timiskaming that perhaps a man would need this payment in order to move to a job in another region. Such costs are supposed to be taken care of by the manpower mobility program. Certainly, vacation with pay payments will be utilized by the people affected in a manner that is not extravagant. Such payments will help to meet the basic, substantial needs of a breadwinner who suddenly, for reasons beyond his control, loses his job.
It seemed to me, therefore, that I ought to take this opportunity to speak in support of this measure and express the thoughts expressed to me over the last few months by a number of people. People are dissatisfied with the measure which was introduced by means of regulation and which is causing hardship that is unwarranted. Such regulations need to be removed.


William Arnold Peters: Question.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a simple point of order. According to my assessment-and I have talked to hon. members, although not having spoken with the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) I cannot speak for him-there is no disagreement about this bill. There is agreement: hon. members agree that the situation with which the bill deals needs to be corrected. I wonder if the hon. member for Ottawa West, as a courtesy to members of this House and to unemployment insurance claimants who are experiencing difficulty, would agree to confine his remarks so that we can vote on the bill before six o'clock.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a point of order. I want to make some observations on the bill, if the hon. member for Skeena will let me proceed.


Frank Howard: I made a suggestion which obviously the hon. member will reject.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member who spoke in support of the bill is entitled to his opinion. As a member of the House, I have an equal right to express my observations and to raise some questions which have occurred to me about the bill.


Frank Howard: The hon. member agrees with its concept, does he not?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Some hon. members opposite are quick to prejudge things. That is a rather dangerous way to exercise one's mind. I want to direct a question to the hon. member who introduced the bill. Perhaps he can enlighten me on this matter. What will be the effect, if this bill is

adopted, on benefit periods? I hope the hon. member will listen to me. I have the same right to make observations as any- other member in this House. If the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would restrain themselves, I could say my piece.
I want to raise a question. What is the effect on the benefit period of adopting this proposed amendment? I pose that question at the beginning of my remarks. I hope the hon. member will restrain himself a little. Does this measure mean these payments will, or will not be counted as earnings when it is a matter of determining whether a claimant is unemployed? As I read it, the effect would be to have them disregarded as earnings. This means that once a claimant becomes unemployed, he or she would have a bunching of income at that point and would more quickly exhaust his or her benefit period.
The effect of the act as it has been interpreted is to regard such payments on a contribution basis. This would have the effect of extending the benefit period because it would not be deemed to have commended until such time as the benefit had been received. Unfortunately, unemployment in Canada is seasonal. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) smiling. I am sure he will have some observations to make on this point. It is a matter of concern to all of us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was smiling all right, but I was' smiling at what my friends behind me were saying. If the hon. member would like me to tell him what they were saying, I should be glad to do so.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I have the highest regard for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I know of his concern in social welfare matters. I wish to pose a question to him. The way in which the act is now interpreted means there is an extended period of benefit. If this amendment were adopted it would put the claimant in the position of receiving a bunching of income at the commencement of unemployment when there is least need for it. It would terminate the benefit period that much sooner. I raise this question. There may be particular circumstances in which it is to the benefit of the claimant, but would the adoption of this type of amendment really be in the interest of all claimants who would be affected by it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't you believe in holidays?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I believe in holidays as much as anybody else, but I do not believe in paying benefits such as holiday pay, severance pay or unemployment insurance and thereby terminating unemployment insurance benefits that much sooner.


William Arnold Peters: There is no relationship at all.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: There is a relationship. I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not given to the kind of remark being made by his colleagues behind him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?
March 28, 1972


Mr. Skoberg:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member accept a question? Is he aware that in 1954 an umpire ruled that neither severance pay nor holiday pay could be computed as earnings of people claiming unemployment insurance? There has already been a ruling on this question.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am aware there have been a series of rulings. However, a substantial amendment to the act was passed in 1971, which changed many things. I am sure that when the hon. member thinks about it he will realize that amendments of consequence can even change the decisions of umpires. I do not know what has happened in respect of recent decisions in this area. The amendment before us reads in part:
-earnings received as bonus, gratuities, severance pay, retirement payments, retirement leave credits or payments in lieu thereof, wages in lieu of notice-
It is expressly designed to cope with, among other things, the particular items mentioned by the hon. member who just spoke. If that is the intention of the mover of the amendment, I come back to the question which I raised. Is it in the interest of an unemployed person to receive the maximum amount at the beginning of a period of unemployment and to have it disregarded in calculating eligibility for unemployment benefits, thereby having an earlier termination of the period in which unemployment insurance can be claimed?
I know the hon. member will want to think about this question. He will be as concerned as I am about the quick passage of a bill which has not been printed or distributed in the usual way by leave of this House. It has been given accelerated treatment.


William Arnold Peters: You are reflecting on the actions of Mr. Speaker.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: That is not correct. I think it is useful to debate this matter. It serves a useful purpose. I again raise the question, is it in the interest of claimants to do what the amendment before us proposes?


John Leroy Skoberg: Ask the unemployed.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I have asked many unemployed persons. It is desirable to have the maximum amount of money as soon as you can get it, but the wives, children and families are often more concerned about the security inherent in being guaranteed unemployment insurance payments for a longer period of time than would be the case if this amendment were adopted.
I raise this valid question again. I believe it is necessary for all of us in this House to weigh such matters and give them careful consideration. I am not saying this concept is wrong. I believe there are circumstances in which it is conceivable that some of these items should be disregarded, but there should not be a blanket disregarding of all the items not only in the calculation of the earning space but in the calculation of eligibility for benefits. I believe it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


James Alexander Jerome: I do not know whether Your Honour intends to call it six o'clock. I know other hon. members have much to say on this issue, but if it is six o'clock-
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It can be called six o'clock only by unanimous consent.


Frank Howard: The parliamentary secretary has suggested there are other hon. members who wish to speak. This is an important question that needs to be resolved. Could I ask for the unanimous consent of the House that this item stand in its position of precedence at the top of the list so that on another day we can deal with it again?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that would be a fair undertaking in respect of those who have bills ahead of this one. We have had some discussion on the subject matter of the bill of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) being referred to committee. There are other bills of that nature which have to be attended to in the proper order.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps the House would consent to continuing with this important subject for another hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is there unanimous consent to any of the requests made?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being six o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before private members' hour I was drawing attention to the difficulties which are bound to arise as a result of adopting a selective rather than a universal type of plan as the basis for family allowances.
Universality has many great advantages. The women of this country have developed a great respect for family allowances, partly because payment is made directly to

March 28, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
them. As a result, even in households where there is very little money available, there is always extra cash which the mother can use to buy necessities for the children, whether in the form of additional clothing or a little extra food on the table.
It is true this method of distribution has given rise to some misgivings in the province of Quebec. There was a measure of resentment, on social grounds, that the money has not been made available to the husband rather than to the wife. I note that the bill before us does not specify who shall receive the money. The various provinces, in operating their plans, presumably will be able to make this decision for themselves.
In support of the legislation which became effective on July 1, 1945, it was argued that the system then adopted would ensure a greater measure of equality of opportunity for all children. It was argued, also, that it would help ensure an adequate income for large families in receipt of social insurance and social assistance payments while avoiding grants which might diminish the incentive to work. Advocates of the bill argued, too, that it would assist in maintaining higher levels of income and employment during the post-war period.
Over the years the government has not seen fit to keep up to date the standards initially set in 1944. At that time children up to six years old received $5, from six to nine years $6, from 10 to 12 years $7, and from 13 to 15 years $8. These rates were changed in 1957 and children up to the age of 10 received $6, and from 10 to 15 $8. In relations to many of the basic costs of both clothing and extras that children require for school, this payment represented considerable assistance to a family yet, as I say, over the years the government has not seen fit to keep the program up to date. The province of Quebec had a similar program to this which was in the form of a school allowance. This resulted in our adding youth allowances to the family benefit program and included children who were attending school and had not yet reached the age of 21.
The white paper indicated there was to be a reduction in family allowance according to the income of the parents. This has been followed to a certain extent by computing the benefits that will now flow to a young person. This has to be considered with the new tax provisions recently passed in Bill C-169. For the low-income families this will be a definite advantage. For the higher income families the advantage will not be so great.
In this regard, when you consider tax accrual you find the following interesting situation. I should like to refer to a study undertaken with regard to bringing into line the deductions that increase as income rises, the benefits that flow from the present scheme and the new proposal in Bill C-170. For example, a family with two children under the age of 10 years whose total income is $3,000 presently receives a family allowance benefit of $96. Under the new act the family will receive a further $120, bringing the total allowance up to $216. No deduction from that sum would be made under Bill C-169, the tax bill, so the whole of the $216 is a benefit to that family.
At the $10,000 level the same family would continue to receive the $96 allowance but there would be a tax deduction of $50.07, which means they get a total net benefit of about $46. At the $25,000 level they would still receive the $96 allowance, and under the new scheme they will receive a total of $328.82, more than $100 over the benefit received by the family earning $3,000. So it is quite true that a family which receives benefits under this act receives more if its total income is low, and the family earning $10,000 will suffer a reduction of $100 more than at present.
Another factor to take into consideration is the cost of operating the plan. Under the present plan a person sent in an application for benefits when a child was born and the following month the benefits commenced. When making an application under the new act for family allowance you have to include a statement of estimated or actual income. Clause 8 provides:
(1)	Where an application for a benefit in respect of a child is made in respect of a current benefit year, the application shall not be approved
(a)	where the parents of the child were resident in Canada for the complete base calendar year, unless a statement of the income of the child's family for that year has been submitted by the parents; or
(b)	where the parents of the child were not resident in Canada for the complete base calendar year, unless a statement of the estimated income of the child's family for the first calendar year thereafter in which the parents reasonably expect to be resident in Canada has been submitted by the parents, in which case the income of the child's family for that calendar year shall be deemed to be the income of the family for the base calendar year.
(2)	Where at any time during the base calendar year or during the fourth month of a current benefit year a parent
(a)	ceases to hold an office or employment previously held by him or ceases to carry on a business previously carried on by him, or
(b)	for any other reason suffers a loss or reduction of income,
as a result of which event or occurrence it is reasonable to expect that the income of the family for the calendar year next following the calendar year in which the event or occurrence took place will be substantially reduced, the parents may, in such manner and within such time as are prescribed, file a statement of the estimated income of the family for that next following calendar year, in which case the income of the family for that calendar year shall be deemed to be the income of the family for the base calendar year.
That is very clear up to that point, but subclause (3) provides:
(3)	Where at any time during the first eleven months of a benefit year, other than the fourth month, or during the eight-month period next before that benefit year a parent
(a)	ceases to hold an office or employment previously held by him or ceases to carry on a business previously carried on by him, or
(b)	for any other reason suffers a loss or reduction of income,
as a result of which event or occurrence-
And so on it goes, Mr. Speaker. The whole of this provision relates to the filing of an application for family allowance. If someone who is called upon to read this act cannot reduce it to plain English, then obviously the poor woman who leaves hospital and wants to make an application on behalf of her newborn child will have considerable difficulty.

March 28, 1972

I think this illustrates the complexity of the legislation and the difficulty involved in trying to sort out those who will and those who will not be eligible for the family allowance. Of course, every time we produce legislation that is confusing it means there will be a great deal of cost in the administration of the program. It is interesting to note that in the years 1969 and 1970 the administrative cost for family and youth allowances amounted to $11.6 million, or only 1.8 per cent of the total payments. It is estimated the administrative cost will rise sharply, not only because of the complicated provisions in the bill but because of the possibility of several provinces introducing their own allowance scales.
In relation to any legislation I believe there is violent reaction by the general public to having to fill out forms and provide a vast duplication of information to government agencies. Then there is the fact that on occasion this information is a question of interpretation which is subject to change. If a member of a family should obtain employment for a time there would be a change in the family income. If the breadwinner should be sick there would be a change in the family income. Each change, of course, would involve either an overpayment or additional payment which would have to be made in light of the family allowance payment.
Obviously, the administration will be 100 times more complicated than it is in a program involving the payment of a straight grant operated on the basis of age of the child. In my opinion it will be a great deal more expensive to arrive at a calculation as to what the family benefits should be, either under a projected or a base-year income program, than the saving involved in respect of those who really do not need this kind of assistance. I believe it is interesting to note that in some areas the working poor are at a much lower income level than even welfare recipients. The minimum wage in most areas is below what is considered to be the poverty line.
The minimum wage is on an almost uniform basis in the provinces and the welfare structure is based on need, which takes into consideration the size of the family and the type of accommodation it occupies. In many cases the welfare level is much higher than the minimum wage. By looking at a person's income one is really not in a position to make a decision as to whether or not that person is in a better position than someone else to maintain children and pay for their necessities.
I find this situation in respect of the student loans legislation where such a criterion is used. I am thinking particularly of a small store which also has a restaurant in a very small community in my area. The daughter of the people who own this store and restaurant attended university for several years. When she applied for a student loan it was immediately rejected on the basis that the father and mother operated a store. I think it is safe to say-certainly experience has proven this-that in relation to the net income derived from that business the family is living very close to the poverty line as indicated by the welfare structure in the area. This girl eventually was able to obtain a student loan. Originally, however, it was automatically turned down on the basis that her
Family Income Security Plan
mother and father operated a small store and restaurant, which placed them in a certain category.
It seems to me this will be the situation of many young couples who have children and are living considerably beyond their means. It may well be that this government will soon get around this regulation. We certainly have many tables. We have them in respect of income tax and unemployment insurance and now are to have them in respect of family allowances. We will probably have them in respect of most of our health legislation. So, shortly we will have an indication of what the family income should produce in terms of housing. Probably we will be telling people, as we tell them now in the low-income field if they are receiving the old age pension and are living in a rental unit, that they should pay $36 in rent. If the federal government is making a payment through the supplementary benefit program, then obviously the rent would be increased to the maximum of, I believe, $80 and the federal government would pay it. In any case, the decision concerning what type of housing a person will have is made according to his income.
I believe the public is becoming fed up with the government asking how it is spending its money and whether or not it is able to get along with the special benefits. I am sure every member has spoken to old age pensioners who are under this kind of structure asking for supplementary benefits and the government, on examining their total finances, sometimes finds they have over the years purchased war bonds or something of that nature which they have put away for old age, burial or whatever it may be. So long as they have this money they are unable to obtain a reasonable amount of assistance.
I believe we should be working toward less of this type of automated control based on income and should be providing benefits to all those in need. Members of parliament have been receiving a reasonable salary and I am sure most of us have been able to assist our children to attend university. I do not believe we are opposed, although our children may be, to paying for their university education while someone not in our salary category is receiving a government grant or loan of perhaps more money than parents like us who may be considered affluent have made available to our children.
I think the same situation may exist in respect of the family allowance program. There may be young people, and certainly there will be children who will be deprived of some of the benefits we intended them to have when in 1944 we first talked about instituting the family allowance program. Many of our young people have less of an advantage under the new system than they have under the present one.
I hope that after the next election there will be sufficient change so that the government will react to the needs of the people, so that we will make an attempt to get rid of the huge bureaucracy with which the individual must deal and will not pass this type of legislation which provides that assistance is to be given to those who are poor, with no assistance going to those who are rich. This type of legislation means that we establish people in those categories and we enact legislation to keep them there.
1232

March 28, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
I hope we will enact legislation providing that when the individual reaches a certain age he is entitled to a certain benefit, legislation providing that when you are born you are entitled to family allowance, not calculated on your parents' ability to pay their way but provided as a right of a newly arrived citizen of Canada.
When members of parliament go out on the hustings and talk to the people of this country I am sure they will find that one of the major complaints is with respect to the morass of detail and information that people have to provide to government. The criteria governing this information are both degrading and divisive.
I believe that this legislation has accomplished in the years of its existence much that we wanted it to accomplish I am sure it has given the opportunity to many poor families to provide a better education for their children. An opportunity has been provided by the family allowance program to buy clothes for children in order to make them acceptable in our society. The family allowance payments have also been spent on medicine and on additional food for poor families. The only disadvantage that has occurred has been not with respect to the form of the demogrant or the tax structure but the fact that the government knows children do not vote. If children had the franchise, then every time we had an election during the last 15 years there would have been an increase in family allowances to match the increases in old age pensions.
Old age pensioners had the vote and governments remembered them. However, after the 1968 election the government had such a huge majority that no increase was given to old age pensioners but a scheme was introduced to assist those in dire need, a totally new program providing a guaranteed income supplement. I suggest that if children were able to vote, Mr. Speaker, we would not have this kind of silly, selectivity-based program.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say what I think of family allowances in our modern society; to my mind, this is the most important problem in Canadian history because it is the very basis of our society.
Mr. Speaker, the structures and institutions of peoples are undergoing deep transformations these days and our country cannot escape them. These transformations accompany cultural, economic and social evolution, which profoundly influence the political life of our society, especially with regard to the rights and duties of the individual in the exercise of civil liberties and the pursuit of the common good and with regard to the structure of relations between citizens and between the citizen and public powers.
Awareness of human dignity has grown more acute. Efforts must be made to set up a political-judicial order in which the rights of the individual in public life are better protected, while being closely related to present economic and social progress. There is more co-operation and this is likely to guarantee to each and everyone, not only to a privileged few, the true enjoyment of the rights that attach to the human being.
Mr. Speaker, the adoption of a truly human policy implies, above all else, the development of an intimate

sense of justice reinforced by fundamental convictions on the true nature of the political community as an end, the sound exercise and the limits of public authority. Obviously, the political community and public authority find their basis in human nature and therefore stem from an order established by God, although the choice of political regimes and the appointment of its leaders are left to the free will of the citizens.
As for our present concern, Mr. Speaker, what Canadians are asking is a guaranteed minimum income, not a selective plan such as proposed under Bill C-170.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot get over seeing how much they like to take trouble, to complicate things, to multiply problems, to invent new formulas so that people grow increasingly confused about their relationships with their leaders.
Only family allowances were still readily understood by the working population and received every month with no other complication than the proof of existence off citizens. Bill C-170 will now eliminate this worthy feature of family allowances and leave every family wondering and fending with the perennial increases and decreases in benefits they will get from this government as a result of accounting complications, undecipherable for the non-university graduates.
So, Mr. Speaker, instead of speaking of universal or selective programs, why not just call them national, instead of using the big word "universal" which I suggest has no logical meaning here in Canada.
If the allowances plan were called national, applying to the whole territory of Canada, it would definitely be known that it extends to Canadians of all the provinces and territories of our country. But what does "universal" mean, actually? And what about "selective"? Another lovely gem, which only further complicates concertation involving the guaranteed family income.
So, when reading the comments of the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) as they appear on page 1131 of Hansard for March 24, 1972, I feel humiliated in my pride as a Canadian citizen and ask that this House, seeing to what extent this study of family allowances and security of family income is linked with concern over lack of money for the family, the children, the human person in need and the population in general, take some action.
Mr. Speaker, when it is a matter of doubling, tripling the income of corporations, banks and big institutions, there is no limit to our ambitions, skills and possibilities. Crown corporations are easily created with stock amounting to $2 billion. A bill is merely brought forward in the House of Commons and everything runs smoothly. But when it is a matter of the children of the country, the Minister of National Health-why not universal health-and Welfare had this to say, which I quote from the second column of page 1131 of Hansard for March 24:
Payments per child of $72 to $120 a year, in essence the level of payments which our present family allowance program provides, cannot come near the annual cost of maintaining a child.
March 28, 1972

I keep quoting:
One must take into account that current coverage involves almost 7 million children-
We see the tremendous expenditures involved when we start to double the rates and benefits under the present family allowances if we just double them and make them universal.
And so, Mr. Speaker, the whole speech of the hon. minister on family allowances reveals his fear of running short of money to give a decent life to Canadian children out of the incalculable resources that Providence has bestowed upon this country.
Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating over again that this approach to family income security and personal and family allowances is terribly depressing and even ridiculous on the part of our most intelligent people in parliament, who are merely trying to summarize the Canadian government's policy expressed in the now famous white paper, published a year ago following exhaustive university, administrative and legislative research by our national and provincial elite. The results are really depressing, ridiculous and discouraging. To all who are good at arithmetic, I am tempted to give a little lesson.
I am going to quote this other sentence of the Minister of Health and Welfare, which is also on page 1133 of Hansard:
By this measure the government will be committing $820 million to the FISP proposals, a sizeable increase over the amount now expended on family allowances . . . roughly $650 million.
How about that? One hundred and seventy million more. This-$170 million more for seven million children up to 17 years of age inclusively, which is, a third of the population-is a crushing burden for Canada, whose national product-not universal, mind, but national-was from $92 billion to $95 billion in 1971 and 1972, and will be over $100 billion in 1972-73.
Can you imagine? To have been afraid to increase allowances in respect of children, of students under 18 years of age, by $170 million when the national product is going to increase by over $8 billion in the coming year. I will, therefore, urge the minister to make the calculation and stop making a fool of himself on behalf of all learned Canadians.
Does the minister not understand that an increase of $170 million on an extra production of $8 billion in Canada for next year is only a peanut in a wheat field? Where does he get his proportions and percentages?
An amount of $820 million out of $100 billion, that is not even one per cent. We should stop making fools of ourselves, stop mocking the people who are beginning to see through this play on figures, because the game is the same with millions as it is with dollars and cents. The percentages, the proportions are the same whether you figure out millions or billions, cents or dollars.
So, the minister will finally understand without need for further comments. He himself said, as reported on page 1131 of Hansard for March 24, 1972, and I quote:
-family allowances have lost their effectiveness over the years, as benefits have remained almost unchanged since their inception despite sharp increases in the cost of living.
I say to the minister that this sentence would have more strength and informative value if we made a calculation
Family Income Security Plan
of percentages and proportions from the beginning, or from 1945.
However, the national production amounted to only $12 billion in 1944-45. In 1971, it was $92 billion and it will increase to $100 billion in 1972.
In 1944, the basic salary for MP's was $4,000; it is now $26,000 which is seven times more. However, family allowances have remained the same. We are the ones to decide, according to our judgment and our knowledge.
The income for MP's, judges, ministers, university graduates, accountants and economists is based on the cost of living, proportionately to the national production, whereas for children who make up one third of the population, we are still maintaining the rates in effect in 194445 whence Canada's production was $12 billion, that is seven or eight times less than today.
We are now in 1972. Mr. Speaker, I could quote a dozen tables which show quite clearly the lack of responsibility or understanding of our governing and thinking elite concerning proportions, percentages, the sharing of income and the purchasing power at the various levels of population.
I have no intention of needlessly annoying hon. members by striking a discordant note. I would rather at any time play a harmonious tune which has to do with the economic balance that ought to prevail in Canada under the auspices of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian wishes and heartily strives for understanding, economic balance in the country at every level of the population. Nobody wants to see the disharmony and the lack of balance which prevail today because of inflation, unemployment and poverty.
However, this correction must be made in our national economy. No other authority but the one at the national level, the Parliament of Canada, is in a position to administer our national economy.
What does this parliament consist of? The 264 members elected by the people on June 25, 1968, among whom we notice thirty-odd ministers and as many parliamentary secretaries, all the Liberals responsible for legislation with the support of members of the various opposition parties also elected by the Canadian people, as well as 102 senators.
It does seem therefore that on such an important issue as the security of family income, all members and ministers elected by the people of Canada, all equally interested in the well-being of nearly 23 million Canadians, should get together regarding this matter, the most important economic question, that is the security of family and personal income, which should be granted to citizens from the enormous national and natural resources that we own, with the co-operation of capital and labour of adult citizens and producers.
If only we could at long last become aware of the importance of the life of the citizens, as opposed to that of capital and the work of those who contribute to national production, we would at least have taken an initial and direct step towards economic harmony, towards balance between the various segments of our national economy.

March 28, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
We could at long last hope to see an end to inflation, unemployment, poverty.
But all that requires recognition of the prime objective of all government and parliament activity-guaranteeing the survival and the income of every citizen. The life of the human being, that is the first objective of all government administration. Human life must take precedence over the primacy of capital or labour because, without human life, where would capital or labour be?
If we have provided to such an extent for the protection of capital, guaranteed income or labour, why should we not afford as much or even more protection to human life, even that of the unemployed or the penniless? Such is the main object of any administration or any efficient legislation of this parliament or this government of Canada. This is the question which should be the main concern of the ministers and elected representatives of Canadians who are now close to 23 million and who are entitled to live before being entitled to employment or capital.
If capital does exist apart from the human being, if labour does exist as an expression of the human being, life is the very basis of that human being and the basis of his labour or capital. Without life there cannot be any capital nor labour for any citizen.
Therefore that life must be our first goal when we administer the economy of our country in the same way as that life is the first expression of the existence of every living citizen, even before he is able to work, even before he is able to own some capital. Life comes first, labour and capital follow suit. Is it really that order we follow in our administrative priorities? It is not surprising that the economy is out of balance, that capital is at grips with inflation, that labour suffers from all kinds of unemployment and that the life of the citizen is threatened by the harassing existence of shameful and depressing poverty.
Mr. Speaker, at long last here is that famous Bill C-170 on family income security. Are we going to deal with it in the same way as with all other major economic bills, including the Bank Act, the tax reform and the Unemployment Insurance Act, when all our efforts only resulted in providing greater sources of guaranteed income for capital, in triggering at the same time and as a consequence the increase in prices, taxes, all things that increase the cost of living, even for all the citizens who have no work and no capital, no source of guaranteed personal income, neither through work nor through capital?
This is why, the more we step forward, the more we go backward in dealing with inflation, unemployment and poverty. It is very simple. We take the wrong approach. We see things upside down. We seek to protect capital and work before protecting the life of the people of this country. Everything is mixed up in our minds. We think we are going up when in fact we are going down.
This is why capital becomes more and more important at the expense of work which is given less and less value, at the expense of personal incomes which are taxed more than ever, at the expense of the life of those out of work, without capital who are becoming poorer and poorer because the cost of living is going up, even for those who

are too young, too old or too sick or unable to eke out a livelihood through their work or their capital.
Are we forgetting that life is the prime source of personal income, that before working or owning capital, each and every living citizen, whether he is a child, a student, an adult or an older person, has a right to live from the first moment of his existence to the last beat of his heart?
Nevertheless, the tremendous research work done by this government since it gained power has made us conscious of the economic situation in our country, Canadian companies, families and each and every citizen of this country.
Mr. Speaker, the individuals, the families and the companies, whether private or public, are what is being administered in Canada under the unique leadership of the government which is comprised of 264 members of parliament elected by over 22 million Canadians. In 1972, national output will reach $100 bil'ion, more than $4,500 per person on the average, which represents $22,500 for a family of five. We are rich and we live poorly. All this can be corrected through a minor readjustment in guaranteed personal income, in the right to essential things for each family of this country according to the decision we can take, we the members of parliament elected by the people for a term of five years legally ending in mid-July 1973.
That decision rests upon us. No other Canadian citizen can be held responsible for that decision. Each and every one had the opportunity of expressing his opinion thanks to the many inquiries held by royal commissions over the past ten years, and to studies of task forces and debates on white papers. Time has come for action, legislation, administration, the new economic order we want to establish and which is the responsibility of all of us, ministers and members.
The president of the Royal Bank of Canada, the chairmen of many companies with assets of more than $40 billion, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Donald MacDonald, with his two million union members, bishops, cardinals and the Pope, none of them can vote for or against family income security. Here, in Parliament, not even bishops, cardinals or the Queen of England could vote for or against guaranteed personal income. Therefore, it is our duty and our exclusive and complete privilege to make a decision on that urgent matter.
In order to finish its task and to establish a just society in a unique and united Canada, to create a permanent guaranteed family income for every one and for each Canadian family, for every home, apartment, residence or slum dweller in Canada, within our present monetary, economic and political and capitalist framework in our better understood free enterprise system, the present majority government has one full year left. It is entirely responsible for its decisions once opposition members have been allowed to express their personal opinions on this all important subject for the future of Canada.
If capital is treated fairly in corporations of all kinds, if work is respected by unions, big or small, the fact remains that the rights of each citizen must be considered and protected unconditionally and very closely through Bill C-170 on which we cannot vote without due reflection.
March 28, 1972

For the 22 million Canadians, there must be 22 million guaranteed incomes whether through capital or work or the basic personal rights of citizens who have no work nor money.
Mr. Speaker, since personal capital earns a guaranteed interest set by contract, since personal labour deserve a guaranteed salary established through contracts, therefore each dependent citizen deserves a guaranteed minimum by contract. This is what we should accomplish through Bill C-170.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, out of a national product of $100 billion which, on the average, amounts to $4,500 for each person or $22,500 for each family of five, there is nothing preventing us from legislating on a personal guaranteed minimum as follows: family allowances for all children up to age 10 for those aged 10 to 17, for all adults between 18 and 59 and for all pensioners aged 60 or more.
This table shows the amounts paid to each citizen in every family where the breadwinner earns an income through his work or his capital. For those families or single persons who do not earn any income through work or capital, an additional premium for motherhood, for guidance or for loneliness will be automatically added to the guaranteed personal income. As regards contributions, the program is selective and national. It is a national program in that it does not neglect anyone. It is an easily assessable national program calculated on the basis of $1 a day, or $30 a month, which is within the understanding of most Canadian families, whatever their level of education. Once the principles are recognized, the logical means must also be accepted.
Let us take time to ponder this table which is quite easy to grasp and think of all the citizens who have a right to live proportionately to our national production, year after year, before individuals and prosperous corporations can accumulate large amounts of capital for the years to come. Before capitalizing too much there must be enough consumption, Mr. Speaker.
I am well aware that it is impossible to express one's ideas in a few sentences, but this is enough to stimulate the curiosity of each one of us. I can give you more details, if you wish.
As regards production, Mr. Speaker, we should add an additional $12 to 16 billion for the guaranteed security of each citizen. It is very simple: we could draw from production itself an amount of $12 to 15 billion to be added to insufficient consumption; this amount would be levied on extravagant and inflationary capitalization, and would bring about increased purchasing power and, at the same time, lower prices and taxes; it would also stem inflation while maintaining the availability of $24 to 30 billion for capitalization, development and progress in Canada. This still gives an average-


An hon. Member:: Read some more.


Henry P. Latulippe: -of $1,000 or $1,300 for every citizen- man, woman, and child-for the future.
By taking those billions of dollars from the capitalization of corporations during the current year, you do not
Family Income Security Plan
reduce in any way the share capitalized by productive and prosperous Canadians. Private and public corporations will still enjoy magnificent capitalization, quite enough for the most daring projects.


An hon. Member:: It is very well read.


Henry P. Latulippe: Those billions injected in the consumption of goods and services would help give production a new start in all sectors in Canada, in all municipalities, regions, provinces, and territories, thus reducing unemployment and increasing buying power.
Let us keep in mind that the return in a proportion of 75 and 25 in the division of production into consumption and capitalization, instead of a proportion of 60 and 40, will be effected on an estimated national production of $100 billion, which gives even more latitude than in the computation of taxes and personal and corporate income tax.
You cannot say it all in a few paragraphs, or answer in advance all the objections which are a cause of anxiety to Canadians who may feel affected by this correction of our national economy, but let us think right now of the wellbeing which could be brought to every Canadian home and to every sector of the economy by this injection of several billions of dollars distributed at the rate of $1 a day per child, about $60 a month for students, and around $90 or $150 for unemployed adults with no capital.
Besides, only members of parliament in Canada have the necessary legislative responsibility and authority to so restore the national economic balance, to eliminate inflation, unemployment and poverty in the normal framework of our monetary, economic and political system.
Mr. Speaker, there are many things we could say. I should like to quote from a speech published in the October 8, 1971 edition of Le Devoir.
Having spoken about the Belgian family allowances system, which is a progressive allowance system, Mr. Vermeire expressed concern about the new family allowances schemes proposed by Canada and the province of Quebec. He said: "It seems they wish to grant them only below a definite income ceiling, a definite standard of living. It is the opposite of what it should be. Family allowances are not social welfare but a question of horizontal justice.
We could quote hundreds of similar texts stating that the plan now proposed by the government is unacceptable in such a wealthy country as ours, a country where we have only resources to distribute. Instead of doing so, we are doling this money out, to those who really need it, those who are the real consumers in our society. The family is society's greatest consumer and we need such consumers in Canada. Why then should we deprive our families? They represent the most important consumers in Canada.
The family today has all kinds of needs, unsatisfied needs. And to meet them, our production, which is abundant, is there to serve, to meet to satisfy, the needs of Canadians.
It is therefore up to us to so organize our economy that this abundance be distributed to those who need it, to those who are now deprived in our country, who could consume much more than they do now.

March 28, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
It is up to us to supply them with economic means, give them economic security, the surplus we have in Canada and see that this surplus meets every need. Every human being has his needs and they should all be met in a truly just administration, truly healthy and truly loyal.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, once more I will say to the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) that in my opinion, we do not suffer at this time from a lack of consumption. If we study statistics we realize that the province of Quebec, far from witnessing an increase in population, has to cope with a falling birth rate.
It is rather in the rest of the country that we see larger families. I wonder whether the whole policy of the hon. member does not appear concentrated on the province of Quebec rather than on western Canada.


Henry P. Latulippe: I speak for all Canadians.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do not question the sincerity of my hon. friend, who is an honest man besides being one of my good friends, but when it comes to his economic philosophy!
Having said that, I will now deal with another matter. [English]
Mr. Speaker, the minister the other day almost popped his buttons, in a literal fashion, with pride at what this government has done in connection with what he claims to be an improvement of the income security program. First, he claims in the sector of old age security a guaranteed income supplement. Then, somehow, as a denial of the principle of the words "unemployment insurance", the minister claims that in this field there is a guarantee of security of income. Also, we are told that Bill C-170 represents the third element of this over-all income security plan. But only a fortnight ago we were told that the provinces would have the right to introduce their own schemes and that they would be allocated the resources for so doing. What income security is there in that?
This is relevant to the remarks made by my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefepbaker) this afternoon as to why the Victoria charter is brought in. There is a quid pro quo being brought into the picture. Under this FISP proposal, some of the provinces, may elect to move in their own direction, and this choice has been offered to them seemingly in exchange for acceptance of the Victoria charter by Quebec. At least it is public opinion that this was a quid pro quo arrangement, and we certainly heard many trumpetings of joy from the Prime Minister of Quebec. He said this was a great victory over Ottawa.
I find it strange indeed that it should lie in the mouth of any political leader in this country to say there is a victory by some Canadians over other Canadians. The whole principle of this argument is illogical and untrue. There can be no victory of Quebeckers over Albertans; there can be no victory of Ontarians over Quebeckers or other Canadians. No one can say that a province is a victor over the rest of the country. To say that a province is a victor over the rest of the country is dishonest, in my book.


An hon. Member:: You said that once before.
[Mr Latulippe.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will repeat it, because today we have a report of another speech which we will also need to watch very carefully. It is the speech of the Premier of the province of Alberta. We shall see what the reaction of that province will be with regard to this and any similar proposals. It may be he is overstating his case. I have not read the speech; I have only read news reports of it. It may be an overstatement of the case by the Premier of Alberta if only to point out the absurdities that have been created in other cases. So I shall look at this legislative proposal in that context.
First of all, I agree that universality of an income transfer scheme of this kind is patently wrong. A man earning $25,000 a year and whose wife receives, under the Family Allowances Act, say $35 a month or $420 a year, should not be placed in a more fortunate position than the man who has the same number of children but earns only $5,000 a year.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If it is universal it will not matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member will have the right to make his own speech. If it is felt that there has to be some change, I would have thought it far simpler and in fact far more equitable to bring any family allowance scheme within taxable income so that any family allowance payment received would be taxed at the marginal rate applicable to that particular taxpayer.
Under this bill we are going to have a different arrangement, and what a bureaucratic nightmare it is! Family allowance will be based on family income for the first time. There are many provisions in the Income Tax Act that deny family income; family income has to be kept separate. But for the purposes of this bill the income is joined. That is the first point.
In addition, during the first year income will be estimated during the base revenue year, which is the previous year, and may bear no relationship to the income in the year in question. Take the case, for example, of a married woman who is working, who becomes pregnant, has her child and ceases to work during the year that follows while the child is still small. She has to base her claim for family allowance for her child on the revenue of herself and her husband for the previous year when she was working. In other words, her family allowance payment will be less than it should be because of the required overstatement of her earnings.
Then, take the case of the husband who is overpaid during a given year because his actual earnings are greater than his estimated earnings. Who is going to make the recovery? Who is going to audit that return? There are provisions in the bill regarding repayments and adjustments, but all of these items call for paperwork on the part of the individual recipient of family allowance as well as on the part of the control branch of the government. Again, it would have been far simpler to take it in as part of income and tax it according to that person's income.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Make it universal.
March 28, 1972


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Another point is this. Under the Income Tax Act which we passed late last year there is provision for the payment of child-care allowance before determination of taxable income. The expense of caring for a child has now been introduced into the concept of earning an income. That was accepted in the case of working parents or single parents. There have been some difficulties with the scheme but basically the principle is acceptable. But, strangely enough, under this bill, unless the definition of "income" is to be changed by the regulations, which we have not seen, there is no provision for child-care allowance.
In other words, disqualification for family allowance is based on gross income. Why is there no provision in this bill that deductions from the gross amount payable shall be on the basis of taxable income? I think that would be far better. It would certainly be far better for persons with lower incomes because they would also receive the benefit of the working allowance. That is not provided for in this case.
So, Mr. Speaker, I find that the formula adopted for paying larger amounts to poor families with a large number of children will be horribly complicated, far more complicated than it should be. I do not understand why the government did not use the income tax structure. Why not bring the family allowance program into the income tax collection system operated by the Department of National Revenue?
I heard some members on the government side arguing that in this day and age the principle of universality, without any compensation for old age security, is a wrong principle; that old age security should be added to income, as it is, and taxed. That serves as an adjustment and determines as best we can the transfer of income from those who have large income to those who have less.
The scheme devised in this bill, while I think acceptable in principle as a laudable objective, is being used in the wrong way. In this regard I can ask further questions. In the bill there is no definition of the word "custody" as such, but the bill provides that payment shall be made to the person who has custody of the child. Does this mean that the act as it now stands will in general be followed and that the mother will be regarded as having custody except for a few exceptional cases?
Let me warn the minister that a whole generation, perhaps a generation and a half, of Canadian mothers have become accustomed to receiving a family allowance cheque. Under this bill the cheque is to be made payable to the husband and the minister will be responsible for the beginning of the biggest outbreak, shall I say, of domestic warfare that it would be our misfortune to suffer. So I hope that if only for purposes of domestic felicity-


Mr. Kaplan:: Be serious.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would ask the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) to read this statute and understand it. The act provides generally for payment to either parent without any difficulty at all. We are being asked here to improve the act, and I would suggest to the minister that he continue the practice of making the
Family Income Security Plan
payment to the mother but with sufficient flexibility that in exceptional cases the payment could be made to other than the mother.


Mr. Munro:: That is what is intended by the wording.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I suggest the emphasis may have gone too far. In any event, I think the minister sees very well the point I am attempting to make. Computation of income becomes very important because it is on the basis of family income that the amount of family allowance will be determined. The formula is very complicated. Remember, this is to be subject also to further regulations which will lay down the most minute determination concerning what is income.
One can imagine, when looking at the matter of family income, what it will be deemed to be. Things like board and room may be involved. In order to arrive at the total, is the value of services a man receives to be considered? What about the ma and pa operation? Again, what will be deemed to be family income? Under the Income Tax Act it was very clear.
Then we might look at the definition of "child" as contained in clause 2(l)(c) at the top of page 2 where it reads:
in such circumstances as are prescribed-
That is by regulation.
-a person who has been admitted to Canada as a non-immigrant-
What, at the present time, is the entitlement? It is very simple. In the case of a landed immigrant there is a short waiting period and then the filing of an application, just as in the case of anybody else. These statutes are supposed to be for the benefit of, not the befuddlement of people.
I trust the hon. member to my left and to the rear will read the bill-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am merely trying to be helpful.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -so that he may be able to assist his colleague from Winnipeg South Centre who also is mystified.


An hon. Member:: Winnipeg "North" Centre.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), yes. I apologize to the hon. member. He will admit to being mystified and the other hon. member will not. If we look at clause 7 subclauses (2) and (3) we will see there is a situation where the level of allowances payable may be varied by order in council depending upon change in the cost of living. The order in council will not be effective until it is brought before this House.
Strangely enough, this is another place wherein I find some disagreement. This act is a statute of the parliament of Canada. The provision of the levels of payment under it will be approved by the Parliament of Canada. The changes will be those proposed under an order in council which will be subject only to an affirmative resolution of this House. I would suggest to the minister that this is wrong and beyond the legislative power, because this is a statute of parliament. Why should a statute of parliament

March 28, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
be reviewed only under resolution of the House? According to the rules of this House, the resolution shall be passed after seven hours of debate. There has not been one iota, one jot or tittle of suggestion of rule changes in the House in respect for affirmative or negative resolutions.
We now have the statutory instruments committee. But will the minister be able to tell us when his colleague will introduce proposals in respect of changes in the rules to provide for this, because the motion must come under government initiative? There is nothing to implement this resolution because the House is impotent to deal with it. There is nothing to define how the resolution will be handled in this House. I suggest attention must be given immediately by the government to introducing a special rule to deal with these affirmative resolutions which appear in the Statutory Instruments Act and which now appear, lo and behold, in this bill. I think the minister will see the point.
Then I wonder what will be the composition of the appeal tribunal. There may be an appeal tribunal under clause 12 on the question of whether any benefit is payable. A person, department, agency or institution may appeal against the decision to a tribunal to be conducted in accordance with the regulations. Is this to be another job for the boys? Are we to have a tribunal going around the country hearing arguments between departmental officials and mothers and fathers? I wonder how much more bureaucracy we will have to set up.
With respect to income and the grounds for appeal we find this provision:
Where, on an appeal under this act, it is a ground of the appeal that a decision or determination made as to the income of a person was incorrectly made, the appeal on that ground shall in accordance with the regulations be referred for decision to the Tax Review Board-
Now it finally comes within the field of income tax and the Tax Review Board. This would never have arisen in the first place if the definition had referred to taxable income. As I said before, if the family allowance to be paid to all persons making application were taken into income and the level set so that you could achieve the same sort of result as may be obtained from the proposal in this bill, it would be easier to administer.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that what we have here is a very cumbersome proposal to achieve an end which I would agree has merit but it will require a fantastic amount of adjustment by the recipients of family allowances. It will require a tremendous bureaucracy to administer. It will be an endless bone of contention. There will be all sorts of difficulty. Why do we need such a complicated scheme?
Further, Mr. Speaker, it is possible that some of the provinces may decide that they want none of it. They may decide to maintain only certain minimum levels. Certainly, I do not think there are more than one or two provinces, or possibly three, which could support entirely from their own resources the level of family allowances indicated in this bill. What will be achieved by this bill? What will

be the gain? These are questions which must be weighed when dealing with the bill.
Will all the administrative changes, all the upsetting of people be worth a candle if the end result from a social point of view is very little better than the present scheme, and may be even worse? I hope that when the bill goes to committee the minister will come up with a lot of explanations and accept worth-while amendments which might make the legislation much more effective and less objectionable.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certainly.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since I am having difficulty about this bill, I ask the hon. member whether he is or is not in favour of universality?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think the hon. member is confused about what is meant by universality. If what is meant by universality is that all persons having children can make application and receive a payment, yes I am in favour of that. But I do not agree that there should be uniformity of payment universally on a non-taxable basis. In other words, I insist that you achieve the right result, in fact a better result, by taking the family allowance into taxable income and using your tax system, that which governs all your other income, as a method of recovering moneys to transfer them to the lower income groups from the middle and higher income groups, groups which under this bill will be deprived of payments.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if I needed any convincing that this was a good bill, and I certainly did not, the arguments that have been put forward by the opposition parties have convinced me that I was right and that it is good legislation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It creates a Frankenstein.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The only Frankenstein was the hon. member's attempt to explain what he means by universality. It took him five minutes to answer a 30-second question. Fortunately, he did not have the job of drafting this bill.
The opposition parties have reached out to the point where in some cases their arguments have been ludicrous. We have heard them talk about the difficulty concerning the payments going to the husband or the wife and upsetting domestic tranquility. Then we heard the usual scare tactics. I am sure that one hon. member who spoke this afternoon, when preparing his speech wrote that thousands more bureaucrats would be required. I can just imagine him saying then, "No, that won't have enough impact," so he promptly turned it into "hundreds of thousands more bureaucrats." I am surprised that he would attempt to mislead the House without endeavouring in any way to back up his statement.


Mr. Alexander:: As you said last night, this is another lousy speech.
March 28, 1972


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I tried crossing swords with the hon. member last night and came out second best because I was not on my feet, but if he wants to tangle with me tonight I will give him his answer. This afternoon we heard the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Die-fenbaker). I doubt if he touched on the subject matter of the bill. I do not know how long he spoke, but it was probably for the full 40 minutes allowed. Possibly he dealt with the bill for about three minutes. The rest of the time he spoke about oaths of allegiance to the Queen, about how the constitution was being destroyed and how this was a black day for the House. Mr. Speaker, I think he has been saying that every day since he came into the House 30 years ago except during the time when he was prime minister, and then all the doom and gloom he spoke about came true. As a matter of fact, I wonder if he deserves the title of right honourable. I think he is more often wrong than right and more often mischievous than honourable.
I support this bill, Mr. Speaker. I think the government has been courageous. What have members of the opposition said? They have said the bill will be difficult to administer and to interpret. It is the sort of thing that scares them from coming forward in the House and telling us what they really think. We do not know whether they are for universality or against it. One of their members said, "It is a poor bill. This is wrong, that is wrong; but I am going to vote for it." What kind of position is that to take?
Then of all things we have an NDP member getting up and almost deifying Mackenzie King for the wonderful decision he made in 1944, forgetting that in the old days the predecessor of that party used to vilify the Right Hon. Mackenzie King. In fact, listening to the hon. member almost made me think that Mackenzie King was in the House last night. Maybe they are hearing voices from up above; but if they are hearing the voice of Mackenzie King they should pay more attention to it, because it would make a lot more sense than some of their speeches.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) was one of those who attacked this bill. Mr. Speaker, I never thought of him as a lobbiest for millionaires, but he gets up and says that the fellow who is making $50,000 a year and has a couple of children should get this money even though we have to tax the fellow earning $5,000 a year, who has three or four children, in order to pay the first man. That is his idea of universality. Members of the NDP say we should give money to everybody and more to those in the lower income bracket. Who could disagree with that? But it must be remembered that they do not have the responsibility of raising the money from the taxpayers, in particular from those in the middle income bracket.
There comes a time when you have to decide that you do not have that kind of money to spend. We do what every government should be doing-we endeavour to help those who need help. We are not giving this money to the $50,000 a year man. We find the people who need help, and help them. What is the other argument of the opposition parties? It is that this bill is complicated. We heard that argument all through the tax bill.
Family Income Security Plan


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We were right on that.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The reason bills are complicated is to protect the people who will derive benefit under the legislation. The 90 per cent or 98 per cent of the people who will benefit will do so in a routine way; they will get their cheque every month. However, there will be cases where differences will crop up and I suppose this is where the hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats that we heard about this afternoon will have to be put to work. Mr. Speaker, we know that is just not true.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It will work just like unemployment insurance-perfectly!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: As a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, I remember that we used to be called upon from time to time to talk on wills and estates. One of the happiest things to happen to a lawyer when he spoke to a group on these subjects was the Ontario succession duty act which was drafted by the Conservatives. The relevant section was almost a page long, without a comma, a period or a question mark. It made comical reading, but it was an example of poor draftmanship. It could have been made very simple. We recognize that governments have to draft legislation to cover every alternative, not so that people will be excluded but so they will be included. They can only be included when they come within the four corners of the act. Anybody can get up and read off a section quickly and make it sound complicated and confusing. What kind of criticism is that? What this bill is trying to do is help people by giving benefits to those on low-income.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I think the New Democratic Party is misleading the general public. They seem to think that the man earning $4,000 a year who has four or five children will be upset because he has to apply for this benefit or because he will now get two or three times as much money for each child. I do not think that will disturb him at all. The people who will be disturbed are those who were in the income bracket that I was at one time, about $18,000 a year, with two or three children.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You were making more than that. Be honest.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I was talking about when I was a young law student working my way through college.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, those people will be disturbed with the old political platitude that we hear from the Conservative party-when you give something to the Canadian public you cannot take it away from them. If the $12,000 a year or $16,000 a year man is told that he is going to get this, it is political heresy to suggest that it might have been a mistake and perhaps we should be giving the $6 or $12 a month to the people in the $4,000 a year bracket. They are the people who should be getting it and who can use it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
1240

March 28, 1972
Family Income Security Plan


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: People are going to be upset, particularly the wives of good friends of mine who will no longer be receiving the family allowance, or mothers allowance as it has come to be called. But, Mr. Speaker, I think that any politician could go on a platform, debate that question with anybody and point out that the person in the low-income bracket needs this money much more than the person in the $12,000 a year bracket. I would be happy to debate that question on any platform, except with my wife who will no longer be receiving it, at least until the next election.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What does she say about it?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because it is one more example of the courageous stand that the government is prepared to take with legislation that is difficult. Putting through the Criminal Code omnibus bill was a long and difficult procedure, but how right it was. Notwithstanding the fact it would be difficult to put through the House, this government amended it and put it through. Then there was the tax reform bill.
Here we have a bill that I think the public of Canada is prepared to accept. I do not fear the bureaucracy of Canada, Mr. Speaker. I hear this condemnation from the opposition parties: The rotten old bureaucracy; they are always trying to build their empires. We have the best civil service of any country in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Occasionally there is a rotten apple in the barrel, but that is bound to happen with the thousands of civil servants we have. I suggest that by and large the people who administer these laws are doing the best they can to make them easy to understand and to help people who need assistance. These people come before our committees and we speak to them individually, yet we come here and hear the general condemnation that they are bureaucrats. Mr. Speaker, these bureaucrats are doing Canada a great service. Most of the time they are civil and most of the time they recognize that they are the servants of the people. I do not think we want them to be subservient.
We tend to forget that sometimes the person making an application for money is wrong, not the bureaucrat. But the bureaucrat has to tell him that he does not qualify under the act, and that makes him a bad bureaucrat in the eyes of many people. Mr. Speaker, I shall not take any more time because I see we are reaching the closing hour.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Go ahead. Praise the government some more.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I do not think this government needs any more praise. We find that our popularity is going up and Conservative popularity is going down, although it is hard to go down when you are at the bottom of the pile. This bill does not need a lot of shouting or support. It is doing what governments are elected to do, namely, to see the need and to fill it. I am proud to support this bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?
[Mr. Cullen.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member knows that he can ask a question only if the hon. member who has just resumed his seat accepts it. Is the hon. member willing to accept a question?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I ask the hon. member whether he is for or against universality?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am against universality when it does the kind of thing that the old bill did, that is, give money to people who do not need it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would the hon. member be kind enough to allow another question? If he is against universality, would he apply this principle to farmers who receive acreage payments, or any other category of Canadians who receive large payments?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is ten o'clock and I am not going to fall into that trap.


An hon. Member:: That was a good way out.


Thomas Miller Bell: I wondered who was going to call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the acting House leader or the parliamentary secretary would confirm what business the government intends to place before Parliament tomorrow.


Mr. Deachman:: Perhaps I could answer, Mr. Speaker. I am advised that we will take up the Canada Labour Code, Bill C-183. If we complete that we would return to Bill C-170, family allowances. If we glide smoothly through that we would return to Bill C-4 respecting the CNR, after that explosives and hijacking and then dissolve the House.


John Angus MacLean: Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House what he expects the government to place before us immediately after that, some time in June?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, once the House is dissolved how can anything be placed before us?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has many immigrants. In this century Canada has admitted approximately three million immigrants to its shores.
March 28, 1972

These people from various countries who have settled here have contributed significantly to our growth and to our development in every field.
In March, 1967, the government introduced the Immigration Appeal Board Act. It was passed by Parliament and was intended to remove ministerial discretion in the great majority of deportation cases and allow a court set up under the statute to deal with appeals from deportation. Since the new immigration regulations of September, 1967, which instituted an assessment system and removed geographical limitations and other discriminatory factors, an unexpected and unprecedented number of applications by people wishing to settle in Canada has been received by Canadian immigration authorities.
These potential immigrants saw Canada, with its freedom, its beauty, richness and great potential, as the best place in the world in which to live. Consequently, immigration offices both at home and abroad have been flooded with many applications. Unfortunately, since many visitors to Canada have decided to stay and ask for landed immigrant status the processing of these applications in Canada has become very complex and long. When rejected by immigration officials applicants have the right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board. Today I learned that there is a backlog of about 7,000 cases involving appeals from deportation orders. These cases are awaiting decisions by the Immigration Appeal Board.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are all going to lose, too.


Stanley Haidasz: Apart from these people there are in this country many so-called deserters, draft-dodgers and others who have drifted to Canada from the United States. They have compounded the problem. I have received many representations from my constituents and have also been in contact with people concerned, especially in Toronto, about this matter. These people tell me that waiting two or three years to be heard involves great hardship for them. That is why I think the Immigration Appeal Board Act should be amended to provide for at least double the number of Immigration Appeal Board officials who could hear this great backlog of cases.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Notice who is on the board now: they are ex-members of the Liberal party.


Stanley Haidasz: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty has been compounded by fugitives or people wanted by the police. People like that have come to this country and have created problems for our police forces and the police forces of other countries who are seeking them. The Toronto police department, especially, has complained about problems in this regard. They want amendments made to the act and procedures in immigration offices, especially in Toronto, improved in order that they can deal with these cases swiftly and justly. Tonight, I hope that I will be given a reassuring answer by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, (Mr. Perrault) as to whether there is in the making any policy which will help solve this complex problem.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, we have investigated the circumstances of the issue raised by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) with respect to general immigration policy and charges made by a member of the Toronto police department to the effect that recourse to extradition proceedings has to be made in removing from Canada unwanted criminals, rather than deportation proceedings, because of what was quoted as ineptitude and delays on the department's part in carrying out its responsibilities. In our view this is a completely unfair and unfounded charge.
As all hon. members know, while there are delays in the holding of certain immigration inquiries for people not able to comply with our laws, this is not the case in so far as persons arrested under the provisions of the Immigration Act, who are known and wanted fugitives from justice, are concerned. The Immigration Act is very explicit in indicating that such proceedings under the Immigration Act must be taken immediately, and this is being done. Persons so arrested and ordered deported do, however, have the right of appeal against their deportation to the independent Immigration Appeal Board.
It is also a known fact that this independent board is faced with a substantial backlog which is resulting in delays in the hearing of appeals. Indeed, the former minister of manpower and immigration tabled a report to the government by an eminent legal authority, Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, some time ago on this situation and subsequently indicated on several occasions in this House that measures were being examined to attempt to reduce the total time lapse between the ordering of deportation and its implementation. Just as soon as it is possible to accomplish this, I assure the House that it will be done. In the meantime, police authorities are of course free to choose the alternate extradition method if they consider it more expeditious.



PUBLIC SERVICE-REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING STAFF RELATIONS ACT AND TABLING OF BRYDEN REPORT

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on March 7, in response to my question about the Bryden report, the President of the Privy Council Mr. MacEachen), informed me that it was not his intention to table this report or to take legislative action on it at this session of Parliament. Today, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), he reiterated this stand.
This fresh questioning was undoubtedly triggered by the fact that both the executive director of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and the president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada recently have written strong letters to the government demanding publication of the Bryden report. It took several months to prepare this document at the taxpayers' expense a year ago. Time and care went into its preparation. All staff associations submitted extensive briefs which were made public.
However, the brief submitted by Treasury Board has been kept secret. Why? What does it contain that the
25104-20?

March 28, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
government fears to release at this time? What does the Bryden report include in the way of recommendations that the government is so anxious to keep from the light of day? Is the government afraid that if the report is released the public will demand that action be taken in this session of parliament, before an election? Why is the government determined not to trust either the public service or the public with the facts and recommendations coritained in the report?
This matter involves a quarter of a million federal public servants. With their families they number approximately a million Canadians, about one in twenty of the population. Why should all these people be kept up against a blank wall indefinitely? Changing conditions over the past few years have resulted in amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act which were not only desirable but vitally necessary. The field of subjects included in collective bargaining needs to be widened to include such matters as classification and superannuation.
The legislation as it stands actually favours strike action as a solution of deadlocks because so few matters can now be dealt with by arbitration. But even this procedure is very limited and needs amendment so as to make provision for the services of an independent adjudicator. These are only a few of the more urgent amendments required.
Before the Public Service Staff Relations Act was passed some years ago, the Heeney report was prepared and tabled in Parliament. Now that the act needs amendment, why cannot the Bryden report be tabled in its turn? The answer may lie in the different attitudes of government toward the public service then and now. It used to be considered unsporting for a minister publicly to attack a civil servant. Now we hear a minister publicly branding a member of his staff as stupid, without giving him any opportunity of defending himself.
It would be difficult to imagine Prime Minister Pearson, when asked about collective bargaining in the public service, replying that the staff associations and unions appeared to be suffering from "insufficiency of thought" in connection with the problems arising from public staff relations, and that they were not helping the government to find better solutions. But we hear this from our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whose government refuses to release a report which is vital to the processes of collective bargaining in the public service. What the government appears to suffer from as far as the Bryden report is concerned is insufficiency of action.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here's your chance.


James Alexander Jerome: I have had more chances than I am accustomed to in one day. No one questions the importance of the subject of collective bargaining in the public service or of the importance of collective bargaining generally. Certainly, we do not question the importance of the study in that regard or the importance in the minds of the
(Mrs. Maclnnis.]
Canadian people of the questions which have been raised by the hon. member. But nothing the hon. member has said changes the situation respecting the general picture as to the disposition of studies prepared for the confidential use of the government.
The time to decide about the release of these documents is when a study is being prepared, because the decision will affect the manner in which it is conducted and the way in which the report is compiled. It would not be good enough to tell the people who have conducted such a study, after it had been prepared, that one had changed one's mind on the question of releasing it. If a specific undertaking has been given, the people who have prepared the study are entitled to rely on consistency of thought in that regard.
Whether or not the hon. member agrees with what was done, the fact is that those were the terms under which the study was prepared and those are the terms in which the government views the situation at the present time. And, as has been already stated by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), this is a document intended for the confidential use of the government and will not be tabled. I can only confirm that legislative action on the basis of that study is not contemplated during the present session. Those are the only remarks I have to make on the subject at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 thought you believed in an open society.



FINANCE-POSSIBLE REDEMPTION OF THREE PER CENT PERPETUAL BONDS

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, on March 21 I put a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) with reference to the government's plans, if any, to redeem the so-called perpetual bond issue put out in 1936. To set the record straight, at that time, on a point of order, I suggested the minister had not answered my correspondence on two occasions. I want it to be clear that I was referring to only one letter of September 20 which concerned the matter of criminal law reform. It was only one letter that he did not answer with regard to the question I asked him on March 21.
The minister has since replied, though to my way of thinking in a most unsatisfactory manner. It seems obvious to me that a government which can devise such a cumbersome and complex tax reform bill as we saw recently could certainly devise a plan which would be equitable to those who in 1936 invested to the tune of $55 million in the future of this country and who have since seen their investment eroded to the point at which it is almost a joke.
I doubt very much if the 1936 perpetual bonds could be sold for more than $50 at the most, perhaps for only $40 per $100 of their par value. To me this is nothing less than a national disgrace. It is hardly creditable for a country such as Canada, which purports to be one of the world's leading financial nations, to put out an official government issue which compares with some of the Russian or Chinese bonds issued early in the nineteenth century.
March 28, 1972

It is strange to me that the Minister of Finance cannot recognize the hardship inflicted upon Canadians who have been holding these bonds which are now returning about 3.1 per cent in interest. Surely the Minister of Finance could devise some plan, based on random serial numbers or otherwise, which would alleviate the hardship which these investors have encountered since 1936. That is about the year in which I was born, Mr. Speaker. I realize I have depreciated a great deal since that time, but not as much as these bonds, I suggest.
This is a matter of concern. Surely a country's bonds are a measure of its integrity. As a Canadian and a member of parliament I am embarrassed to think that a bond issue involving some $50 million should have earned such an ill reputation on the bond market that it should have sunk to its present level. It seems to me, despite the minister's comments in page 2 of his letter to me, that he should recognize that redemption of these bonds has become a matter of national conscience.
It may well be said that to redeem these bonds would be to create a precedent which would suggest to anyone with an investment, government or otherwise, that something should be done to make certain that their investment is protected. This is not the case. When a government guarantees that bonds will be redeemable at par, a person has fair warning when they buy the bonds. Here we have a bond issue and there is no guarantee when they will be redeemed. As far as the people who are unfortunate enough to hold the bonds are concerned, they have something that is worth practically nothing. It is true that they could perhaps get $40 or $50 for these bonds, but there is no guarantee that they will get their money back at any particular time. The very stigma attached to these bonds should make them an embarrassment to a country such as Canada.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
It seems to me that all the minister has to do is accept the fact that these bonds are unique both in terms of their perpetual nature and their low yield. Does the minister not think that these bonds deserve special treatment, contrary to the observation in his letter to me? I suggest that they do, that this is an important enough issue for the Minister of Finance to address himself to it immediately and give very real thought to correcting what is a blot on the financial reputation and record of this or any government.
Mr. ]udd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the situation clarified regarding the two letters. We were able to locate only the one letter dealing with this subject, but I will be happy to check into the previous letter, which I gather dealt with another subject, and see just what the situation is.
As for the subject raised by the hon. member, the concern is that these perpetual bonds are marketable and that their price is determined in the bond market. In his letter the minister indicated that he was aware that a number of persons who were holders of these bonds could ill afford the capital loss that would be involved in selling at current market prices.
A good deal of consideration has been given to this problem, including, as suggested by the hon. member, recalling these bonds on the basis of random serial numbers. Unfortunately, all such proposals carried with them the implication of protecting investors in marketable securities from the vagaries of the market. To accept this principle, even in circumstances designed to alleviate hardship, would in the opinion of the minister lead, quite understandably, to demands for similar treatment by all other investors in government of Canada marketable securities selling below their issue price. In these circumstances it was felt that this is not an undertaking into which the government would like to launch itself.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.

Wednesday, March 29, 1972