1972-07-07

TRIBUTES TO MR. SPEAKER

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to do so I would like to make reference on this, the last day of the session and probably of this Parliament, to the services rendered to Parliament and to freedom itself by you, Mr. Speaker, as the presiding off'cer during this and the previous Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I do so as one who has served under several Speakers. What I am about to say represents, I think, the views of all members of the House who have been greatly impressed by the manner in which you have discharged your responsibilities.
I recall on one occasion a former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, saying in the House:
There are under British parliamentary institutions two symbols of authority-the Crown which speaks of the sovereignty of loyalty, the Speaker who speaks of the sovereignty of Parliament.
Much could be said, of you, Sir, all of which would be complimentary, but I can summarize what I have in mind by quoting from the translation of the Latin words on the throne that you occupy:
An impartial hand is an aroma
Mindful and faithful,
A mind conscious of rectitude.
You have discharged your duties with consummate ability. You have combined authority with compassion. The degree of impartiality you have displayed in the discharge of your duties has been such that you will always be looked back on by the present and future generations in this House as one who, in his person, epitomized the finest traditions of the Speakership.
I add one word respecting your wife who in the discharge of her duties has done so with a consideration and regard for the office you are holding and together you have honoured this institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I might begin by saying that, as with many of the words of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, his words today are very thoughtful, very well said, very appropriate. But as often happens I cannot necessarily see myself agreeing with the premise, that is to say, that this is the
last day of this Parliament. I concede that I have less experience than the right hon. gentleman in such forecasting games, and therefore I am-


Mr. Lewis:: You lost last week.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member says, I was not correct as to the date on which Parliament or this session might end. But because I have great confidence in the right hon. member's political acumen, I am at least prepared to concede the possibility of his premise-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and therefore find it appropriate to say on behalf of all members of our caucus that we have had constant admiration and respect for your authority, Mr. Speaker.
ITranslation]
More particularly, although your talents as an orator are still unknown to most of us, your talents as Speaker are eminently visible. We have also been in a position, every day of this session, to see that we had good reason to respect your authority which was founded on a great deal of patience, much wisdom, an outstanding knowledge of parliamentary procedure and finally, on a sense of humour which always made us welcome your rulings even when they went against our wishes.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the very long experience in Parliament that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has but I have had a little longer than the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), although not very much. May I put it to you this way, Sir, that in my several years in Parliament I have often come to the conclusion that the sign of the real greatness of a Speaker is when the only people who occasionally become annoyed with him are ministers of the Crown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be gilding the lily and uncomfortable and embarrassing to you if I went on at length. I say to you, Sir, that every one of my colleagues has had the greatest admiration not only for the manner in which you have carried out your duties but for the fairness and impartiality which you have always shown, for the dignity you have exhibited throughout, a dignity that, to your great distress, you were not able to get from the members of the House on occasion.
I also join the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert in expressing my admiration of Madame Lamoureux and her companionship to you in your duties.

July 7, 1972
Tribute to Mr. Speaker
Some of us in my party at least, and I believe in other parties, had hoped that the admiration in which you have been held as Speaker would have persuaded everybody in the House to create a situation whereby you could continue as Speaker without having to fight elections on a partisan basis. I regret that this has not been done. I hope it may still be done, whether or not this is the last day of Parliament.
When we adjourn today, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that all of us will return to our constituencies with a feeling of admiration, respect and, what is perhaps more important, very deep affection for you as a person and as Speaker of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Creditiste colleagues, I join the spokesmen of the other parties in expressing our admiration and thanking you for all that you have done for us in the past. I want to praise you not only for your fairness but also for your fine performance. May I thank you on behalf of the Canadian people, especially my constituents. I wholeheartedly agree with the kind words said about you and while voicing again our admiration, I wish you a long life and hope that you will again be with us at the next session.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would permit me, as your seatmate and as deputy leader of the independent group that sits in this corner of the House, to associate myself with the words that have been spoken by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the leaders of the other parties.
As a person who has had the pleasure of sitting in this House for many years I have come to respect and appreciate the wonderful contribution that you have made to this House and to the traditions that it embodies. It is not an easy task that you have filled so very well. It is a lonely position. Yet you have managed somehow to be kind but at the same time to be fair, to be gentle but at the same time to be just. This is a great tribute to you.
May I join in this expression of appreciation to you and to Madame Lamoureux who has stood by your side and who in her own right has made a very great contribution to the affairs of this country. May we wish you well, and health and happiness in the knowledge that you hold our respect and affection for the contribution you have made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will have noted that today I have not complained of the length of speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Actually, I held back a little wondering whether there would be more contributors to the debate. If there are none, I will deliver a ruling. It will be a very simple one.
The words of praise that have just been spoken leave me speechless, which is obviously a very proper attitude

for the Speaker. I will, therefore, simply say from the bottom of my heart a very sincere thank you to hon. members. I want to assure them of my appreciation not only for the much too generous words that have just been spoken but also for the extraordinary co-operation they have extended to me during my term of office as Speaker of the House of Commons.
We all know, of course, that the Speaker cannot discharge his responsibilities in this House without the complete co-operation of hon. members, without their understanding, tolerance and charity. This has been given to me in large measure. For this I am extremely grateful to hon. members.

I thank you, dear colleagues, for your unfailing generosity to me and I wish you all good luck.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion for concurrence in the third report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: As there appears to be agreement, the hon. member will be recognized for the purpose of presenting that motion.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane):
That the third report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on Monday, June 26, 1972, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing importance. My motion is as follows:
That this House urges the Prime Minister to rise now, on motions, and outline to the House and to the country the four part
July 7, 1972

supplementary work program which the government had ready for presentation in early June, but has put off the announcement until early September, comprising-
1.	A Canada Manpower Opportunities Program, to cost between $70 and $80 million in the first year, and to be operated by the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
2.	An Opportunities for Citizens Program, to cost $120 million the first year, and to be operated by the Department of the Secretary of State.


Mr. Peters:: What is the hon. member reading, a throne speech?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I continue:
3.	Operation Retrieval-An operation aimed at reversing the brain drain to other countries, designed to appeal to youth, and to be operated by the Department of the Secretary of State.
4.	New Horizons for the Aged, to be operated by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The total cost of these programs to be between one quarter and one half billion dollars in the first year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate at this point to suggest to the hon. member that he should indicate as briefly as possible what the motion is to be. I am not sure, actually, whether he is now presenting the motion to the House or whether this is a preliminary statement. If it is a preliminary statement I would hope he has reached the point where the motion could be indicated.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have just about reached the punch line.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is the "punch" motion that the hon. member ought to read.


George Harris Hees: I continue. This program should be
announced now so that the people of Canada may be advised of its nature and scope. The purpose of withholding its announcement until September is to maximize its usefulness for the election, and is blatantly political.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You botched that one, George.


Mr. Speaker:: Without commenting on the procedural aspects of the matter, I may say that hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.

This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard, as I have, that there is not unanimous consent.
Federal Contributions to Medical Care [Translation]



INDUSTRY


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 41(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, copies of the press release and a report on an investigation concerning acrylic threads.
* *
*



STATEMENT RESPECTING CONTINUANCE OF FEDERAL FISCAL CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER MEDICAL CARE ACT

Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement to the House with regard to the medical care program. Its purpose is simply to give notice, as required, under the statute.
Section 8 of the Medical Care Act obliges the government of Canada, at least six months before March 31, 1973, to review the amount and manner of payment of the federal fiscal contributions made under section 3 of the Act with a view to formulating proposals for any changes that may appear to be necessary or desirable with respect to the amount and manner of payment. This review has been conducted in the context of discussions with the provinces of the federal government's proposals in respect of health care financing.
I wish to state that the government does not propose any change at this time in the amount or manner of payment of the federal contributions referred to in section 3 of the Medical Care Act outside of the context of these discussions. The proposals under consideration, if implemented, would replace the existing formulae under both the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services and Medical Care Acts.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I
am aware we had no notice that the minister was going to make this statement. That being the case, there will be no comment at the moment.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not given us very much information but what he has given us causes me a good deal of concern. What the minister is really saying is that he is notifying the provinces that, while there may be no changes at the present time, the government does intend to discontinue the present financial arrangement and negotiate some new arrangement.
Certainly the discussions that have been going on with the provinces indicate that the federal government intends to reduce the basis of its contributions. They also indicate that the federal government, instead of paying roughly 50 per cent of the cost, would prefer some new formula which would place a larger share of the cost of health insurance upon the provinces. While some provinces of Canada might be able to carry a larger share,

July 7, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
there are parts of the country where an additional burden placed upon the provinces will mean that hospital insurance and medicare, as we understand them, will no longer be within the financial capacity of the provinces to carry.
I hope that before very long the minister will make a much more definitive statement as to the federal government's intentions with regard to its contribution to these health insurance programs.



EFFECT OF USE OF UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM BY AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. The motion arises out of the recent revelation that the Chrysler Corporation in the United States, in addition to the Ford Motor Company, is exporting cars into Canada under DISC in clear violation of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement. Similar action could well be taken by General Motors with the production of 1973 models later this summer.
The government is permitting a complete undermining of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement, thus jeopardizing the future job security of thousands of Canadians and facilitating a complete turnabout in the multimillion dollar Canada-U.S. automotive trade. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House condemns the government for its complete failure to take action which will ensure that violations of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement cease.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It arises out of the visit of the British Columbia Indians and their meeting with the Prime Minister of one day ago. Does the Prime Minister recognize the principle of the claim of the British Columbia Indians to title to British Columbia land and, therefore, to compensation for loss of benefit from that land since there are no treaties covering that area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat to the hon. member and the House the comments I made to the Indian bands and their chiefs yesterday, that they had presented the government with a long, documented brief, and it would take some time before the government, assisted by the Minister of Justice who was present during the presentation yesterday, would be in a position to respond to that brief.


Paul Yewchuk: Bearing in mind this presentation by the Indians of British Columbia of a claim based on title, can the Prime Minister tell us whether a new body will be set up to deal with it or whether the present claims commissioner, Dr. Barber, will be asked to deal with the problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Commissioner Barber would not, I
believe, be the one to deal with this type of presentation. It was not made to him; the brief itself, I believe, largely ignores the existence of Dr. Barber. This was a presentation made to the government, and it is the government itself which will have to study the brief and respond to it.


Paul Yewchuk: Can the Prime Minister state whether he would favour a settlement of the British Columbia claim similar to the one which was made in Alaska by the United States government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This was also mentioned in the brief; indeed, it was elaborated upon in a large section of the brief. As for the rest of the brief, I would have to study the arguments which were made before I could respond.



INQUIRY AS TO EXTENSION OF TERMS OF REFERENCE OF CLAIMS COMMISSIONER

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the terms of reference under which Lloyd Barber, the Indian Claims Commissioner, is working have been extended by the government since his appointment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the terms of reference of Dr. Barber. However, some correspondence has been exchanged between Dr. Barber and myself. He was asking whether under his present terms of reference he could hear the Indian people make a certain manner of presentation. My answer was that I did not see that this would contravene the terms of reference as laid down in the Order in Council.


David Orlikow: Is the Prime Minister aware that all the Indian organizations have taken the view that until the government gives some indication that it is prepared to consider their aboriginal claims there is no point in making submissions to Dr. Barber? Would the Prime Minister consider making an early statement with regard to this question so that Dr. Barber's mission may not be completely aborted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The letter I wrote to Dr. Barber is one which I have authorized him to make public. I believe the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has
July 7, 1972

also made it public. In my opinion this met a large part of the problem. Not only have presentations been made before Dr. Barber but some awards, some recommendations, have been made by Dr. Barber. I should like to refer all parties in the House to the support they gave to the government's policy when it was brought in in 1969. I would remind them they all said that it was a very good policy except that it came a bit too late.



MANPOWER


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to announce, and, if so, when it intends to announce, the various programs to which reference was made earlier today, such as the manpower opportunities program, the opportunities for senior citizens program and the opportunities for citizens program? Has the government discussed these programs? Does it intend to announce them, and when does it intend to announce them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Some of these programs or, at least, programs under the names which were just recited, have been discussed. Others of them I do not recognize; perhaps they exist in projects under different names. We have discussed these matters and work is proceeding on them. As the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said yesterday, when we have reached a stage at which we can announce them, we shall announce them.


David Lewis: Is it the intention to announce these programs before the winter so as to help municipalities or provinces as well as the people of Canada to deal with the unemployment which may occur during that part of the year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Some of these programs are intended to deal not with the general problem of unemployment but with certain very particular aspects of it. I can assure the hon. member, and also the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, that the reason some of them have not been announced as yet is that a fair amount of consultation with the provinces on some of their aspects had to take place. This is why some delay has occurred. In other words, had we received word from the provinces earlier we might have announced certain of these programs, but we have not.


David Lewis: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that the federal government has already engaged in consultation with the provinces about these programs and that the provinces are responsible for the delay? I should like to know whether that is exactly what the Prime Minister is saying, because it is not so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister telling the House that the provinces have all been consulted in the preparation of these programs aimed at alleviating unemployment ?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the leader of the New Democratic Party has just said, Mr. Speaker, that is not so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: It is certainly not so. The provinces have not been consulted. How many people does the government expect will be taken off the unemployment rolls when the programs I mentioned this morning are implemented early this fall?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can only say that with or without these programs the hon. member will soon be added to the unemployment rolls.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Did the Prime Minister not learn on Tuesday that these smart, snide wisecracks do not pay off?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



NATIONAL REVENUE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. On Wednesday I put a question to him regarding the use of information in income tax returns, particularly its use in court in connection with other matters by other government departments. Is the minister now in a position to make a statement on this whole subject in light of arguments which are now being advanced that information contained in income tax returns may be used by any other government department for purposes of administration, or in courts of justice?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: I do not
think I can give an answer which relates to any matter presently pending before the courts, but I can say that the policy of the Department of National Revenue is to do only what is permitted under section 241 of the Income Tax Act and section 23 of the Statistics Act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Has the Minister of National Revenue consulted with his colleague the Minister of Justice concerning the contention by the Department of Justice on behalf of the government that the Department of Justice may use such information as it sees fit for the purpose of public administration?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Not as yet, but I intend to do so as soon as possible.

July 7, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry PENITENTIARIES



REQUEST FOR RETURN TO CUSTODY OF FOUR FEMALE MEMBERS OF SONS OF FREEDOM DOUKHOBORS- REASONS FOR RELEASE

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. What response has been made to the request of the Attorney General of British Columbia that four female members of the Sons of Freedom sect of the Doukhobors be returned to federal custody, and for what reasons were they released by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries?


Hon. lean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, these people were granted temporary leave on medical grounds as three of them had been on a hunger strike since September 1970 and two others since August 1971. According to medical officers of the department and others who were consulted, their physical condition was very poor. It was a matter of life or death because they were fed forcibly through tubes.
We consulted the Department of Justice. Evidently, we had the right to force these people to eat, but not only in extreme cases where lives were jeopardized. On consulting Mr. Peterson, the Attorney General for British Columbia, we were told there was no objection although he did not want to be responsible for the final decision. We tried persuasion and we thought of commuting penalties, but we did not want to establish precedents. We consulted the Parole Board; they were not willing to grant leave. The only possibility left then, according to the law, was to grant temporary leave for medical reasons.
The decision was made public at the time and conveyed to the Attorney General of British Columbia who did not oppose it.
Four of those persons now face accusations before the courts. Another one is behaving very well indeed and Mr. Peterson has no objection to her continuing to enjoy her freedom. With regard to the other four, we are studying the possibilities open to us to ensure that they do not disturb society.



INQUIRY AS TO PUBLICATION OF STUDIES OF PROPOSED NORTHERN OIL AND GAS PIPELINES

Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the government intend to publish soon the studies prepared by and for it relating to the financing and operation and the economic and environmental impact of the proposed northern gas and oil pipelines? If so, can the minister tell us approximately when he anticipates that these studies will be published?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the

hon. member for giving me notice of his question. As I have indicated to the House several times previously, it would obviously be desirable to publish the studies on environmental questions. However, I would remind him that many of the programs and studies-there are approximately 30 studies mentioned in the documents tabled in the House-are still under way this summer and therefore none will be published before this summer work has been completed. However, I hope they will be toward the end of the year.
With regard to the studies relating to financing and actual operation of a line, these are not so well advanced and several agencies of government are responsible for them. Again I agree it would be desirable to have this information made public as soon as possible, subject only, of course, to the fact that internal or confidential documents probably should not be made public.



PROPOSED NORTHERN OIL AND GAS PIPELINES- REQUEST THAT NO DECISION BE TAKEN UNTIL STUDIES AVAILABLE

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that these studies have not been published and some are not far enough advanced for publication, would the minister assure the House that no decision will be taken on construction of a pipeline until these studies are available for examination and debate by the public?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I have made it clear many times that the National Energy Board and the other agencies of government responsible will obviously not be in a position to make any decision until the end of this year. However, I would be glad to repeat what I said for the hon. member. I think it would be desirable that there should be the fullest public information, and this is why as soon as the work is completed, particularly when the field work is completed this summer, we will make the studies available.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence which is somewhat related to the question asked about lay-offs at Camp Bouchard. Can the minister indicate to the House what steps the department and other government departments are taking to offset the very real difficulties that will be caused when over 200 people are laid off at La Macaza in September?


Hon. E. I. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my department does try to move civilian personnel from one base to another. When a base is closing we do our utmost to do this if there are vacancies. Of course,
July 7, 1972

the manpower department contributes its services in order to try to find positions for people who unfortunately are laid off when a base has to be closed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Can the minister indicate whether or not the government is making any attempt to find an alternative use for this base which might offer employment to these men?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to find an alternative use for the base. Several approaches have been made. There has been consideration of an alternative use within the government. In addition, people outside the government have indicated interest. We will not be vacating the base, as my hon. friend knows, until September, but we do hope to find a new use for the base.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether to direct my question to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but perhaps the minister responsible would reply. Is the government seeking a formal agreement on scientific cooperation between Canada's National Research Council and its United States counterpart, similar to the agreement signed with the Soviet Academy of Sciences, for shared knowledge in the field of atomic energy? If so, what progress is being made for scientific exchanges with the United States?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it has not been customary to have these kinds of formal agreements between the United States and Canada because such exchanges occur in any event. We have the utmost co-operation with the United States in a vast field of scientific, cultural and other matters. The United States and Canada have never felt that it would improve the atmosphere or the number of exchanges to have the sort of formal agreement which is customary with eastern European countries.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Agriculture. What steps have been taken to cope with the drought situation in northwestern Saskatchewan, as many farmers are having difficulty finding pasture for their livestock or hay to put up for winter feeding?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of that question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: To avoid these farmers being forced to put their breeding stock on the market, will assistance be given for the transportation of feed from other areas where they have had sufficient rain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of programs along these lines that come into play when very serious situations exist. The purpose of my taking notice of the question is to determine the extent to which the department has at this stage analysed the situation and the need, and therefore what programs will in fact apply.



RAPESEED-STEPS TO MEET THREATENED INFESTATION BY BERTHA BUG

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask in connection with rapeseed production. I direct it to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the apparent danger of infestation caused by the Bertha bug or army worm which, according to agricultural representative Harry Lang, is more serious than last year since there are more moths than there were at the same time a year ago. What is being done in cooperation with the provincial Department of Agriculture to accelerate the campaign so that when the bugs eventually start to destroy the government will be in a position to meet the threat?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the federal Department of Agriculture research operations together with the provincial Department of Agriculture are monitoring the situation using traps and similar devices to determine the extent of the infestation. They are also trying to keep the farmers alerted to the situation because a great deal will depend on individual farmers checking their fields for infestation. Lanate is available and, of course, farmers are being urged to use it at the first sign that its use is appropriate with the hatching of the worms.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether or not a radio program is being carried on to the end that farmers become aware of what they ought to be doing at this time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a certain amount of use is being made of the media. I will certainly re-examine the question of whether this is adequate or needs to be intensified.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Would the minister consider placing before the House later this day, on the understanding that it be passed without debate, a motion referring to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs the question of the basic rates of veterans pensions and allowances so that the matter could be considered by that committee during the recess?

July 7, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would satisfy the hon. member if I told him we had a meeting yesterday with the president of the Royal Canadian Legion and a number of his executives. We are exchanging letters on Monday by which our officials with his officials will work on such a committee doing the preliminary and factual work during the summertime.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While we appreciate the audience given to Mr. Smellie and his colleagues, would the minister not agree that my suggestion is one that would make it possible for the committee to meet if the minister found that was desirable?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I would expect that this matter will be referred to the standing committee in the fall of the year, and I would expect that the preliminary work which is going to be done by the officials of the Royal Canadian Legion and our own officials would be a very necessary preliminary to any reference to the standing committee.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Mr. Smellie, the president of the Dominion Command, expressed quite intensely on television last night that there is great concern across the country on the part of veterans with regard to the basic rates of pensions and as it is doubtful that we will be meeting in the fall, would the minister take the initiative in the co-operative manner he has shown in the past and induce the House leader to meet with all parties so that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs could meet during the summer to take up this problem?


Arthur Laing: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot contemplate this place being empty until Christmas.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State who is responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We thought he might have been in the House today. However, I shall address my question to the Prime Minister. Are he and the Secretary of State in agreement with the report presented to Parliament on June 30 by the Public Accounts Committee? If so, has the CBC been requested to collect immediately from the 17 CBC employees involved the $135,000 paid on their behalf for personal income tax while they were employed in the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would be delighted to take notice of the question, Mr. Speaker.



AIR CANADA


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. As it is reported that Air Canada has cancelled its option to purchase the Concorde supersonic transport aircraft, can the minister say whether Air Canada has yet decided on alternative equipment purchase plans or whether this decision represents a reduction in future planned capacity?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: No,
Mr. Speaker, it does not represent a reduction. At the time this new aircraft was in the conceptual stage Air Canada, like all other airlines, took an option in order to get a delivery position should it choose that airplane. It has simply decided now against that particular design. In so far as its fleet re-equipping is concerned, the main new aircraft to be added are, of course, Lockheed 1011s, the first of which will be delivered in December.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say whether the acquisition of the Tri-Star jets is being restored to an acceptable program and what the effect is on the aircraft industry in Canada insofar as supply of components is concerned?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This was a very important consideration at the time the decision was made. I could provide in writing to the hon. member the degree of component construction and related work being done in Canada as a result of the Lockheed contract. It is very substantial.



SHIPPING


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The minister's ruddy seafaring complexion leads me to ask about the long-awaited marine policy within his department. Can the minister give us a progress report on the Darling recommendations on shipping and on the Ripley investigation thereof?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have had by now, I guess, 15 or 20 separate sets of consultations. I think the hon. member is as aware as anyone in the House that there is absolutely no unanimity or consensus emerging. Quite honestly, I have not reached the point where I am able to make any what I might describe as comprehensive recommendations to my colleagues or to the House. The exploratory discussions will have to continue.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not think it would bolster his image in the Maritimes if he could show some progress on a marine policy in the next few weeks?
July 7, 1972


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is in fact within the Mari-times that the largest amount of disagreement actually exists.



ALLEGED LOSS OF CARGO BUSINESS FROM PORT OF VANCOUVER TO SEATTLE

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport having in mind the recent representations of the longshoremen in the Vancouver area concerning the loss of cargo and business from that port to the port of Seattle allegedly due to the lack of sufficient modern facilities at the port. Can the minister say at what stage the consideration which I believe he is giving to that problem is? Does he have the matter under advisement and is there any hope for action on it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have received these representations and discussed them with some people in Vancouver on Tuesday. The National Harbours Board and the Fraser River Harbour Commission have both submitted proposals within recent days with regard to the establishment of container activities in and around Vancouver.
I have asked the heads of both these organizations to get together to see if their plans coincide, that is, if they are both logical. Just as soon as I hear from them I am prepared to give a favourable response to this container activity. I might say, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, that the irony of the situation is that I had a visit two weeks ago from the head of the United States Maritime Commission complaining that we were stealing far too much American cargo from them.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should remind hon. members at this point that we are running short of time for the question period. I would invite the co-operation of hon. members to make sure that between now and the end of the question period we try to limit the length of questions, the length of answers and the number of supplementaries.



MANPOWER


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not it is coincidental, but your warning came just before you recognized me. Be that as it may, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, because of the absence of the Secretary of State notwithstanding the roster system-that political prodigal son of the cabinet is still absent-a question concerning something the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings raised earlier about the particular program called Opportunities for Citizens. Is this an extension of the Opportunities for Youth program which the Secretary of State is administering or is it to be a separate program involving $120 million-odd on a full-year basis.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the hon. member acknowledge the existence of the roster system. I should point out to him that the Secretary of State is not due in the House today.


An hon. Member:: He has not been here all week.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know he has not been here all week, but I see only three members on the opposition front bench-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the question itself, Mr. Speaker, I do not know.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the commotion, Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister deal with the question and give it any type of answer? Since the Prime Minister is the one who provoked the situation about the continued absence, may I say I was quite aware, and prefaced my remarks by saying "notwithstanding the roster system", of the fact that the Secretary of State has been absent all week. I would like to know whether the Prime Minister is considering the resignation of the Secretary of State.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MEDICARE AND HOSPITAL INSURANCE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT GOVERNMENT WILL CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE 50 PER CENT OF COST

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of the announcement he made on motions with respect to the notice that is being given to the provinces concerning the Medical Care Act. Can the minister assure the House that, irrespective of what negotiations may go on regarding certain formulas, the government will be providing to the provinces no less than the roughly 50 per cent it is now contributing to both the medicare program and the hospital insurance program after expiry of the six months period?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, in essence, yes. The concept under hospitalization and medicare remains the same. We are just suggesting a different formula for making the same payments we are making now. What the formula is really all about is the control of escalation in the future. I think the hon. member would agree that this is a useful exercise.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not agree, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister now whether this means that the government is abandoning the position it has been taking, namely, that escalation shall be limited to the increase in the gross national product? In view of the fact that there is no relationship between illness and the growth of the gross national product, will the government continue to pay

July 7, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
roughly 50 per cent of the cost of providing these services to the people of Canada?


John Carr Munro: That is the aim and objective, inasmuch as this whole formula is being worked out with the provinces so we can agree on it jointly. It is not designed in any way to reduce the effectiveness of health care for those who are ill. However, what it does do, I believe, is to cut out a lot of waste and inefficiencies that have been pointed out in various studies.



MEDICARE-POSSIBILITY OF WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM SCHEME

Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister could indicate whether the government has any intention of withdrawing from the federal-provincial agreement on medicare within the next five years or so?


John Carr Munro: No consideration has been given to that by the government, Mr. Speaker. If some government at some future time wants to consider it, that is their option.



MEDICARE-INCREASE IN SERVICES COVERED

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether there will be a reduction or an increase in the services that are covered by the scheme under the new formula?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, one of the elements of the formula was to add the cost of optometric services that we would be prepared to share and which is over and above what we do now.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Finance and it relates to the announcement this morning of a further increase in the cost of living. Does the government have any new plans to curtail inflation and to stop the further erosion of the Canadian dollar?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the cost of living for June rose by 0.1 per cent, bringing the index to 4.1 per cent above the June, 1971, level. My information indicates that consumer prices did not rise as much this year as the normal May-June increase which, historically, is the period of one of the largest monthly increases in the year. The increase this year was very low indeed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister aware that with the present trend in wage settlements, and in view of the productivity rates in the country, within 12 years the total benefit from the Family Income Security Plan will be wiped out for the

poorest Canadians and much sooner than that for everyone else.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MANPOWER


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister concerning a statement made by an official government spokesman yesterday to the effect that the Canada manpower centres and the Unemployment Insurance Commission will mesh their activities across Canada. Is this being done because the government anticipates a greater increase in unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know that some measures have been taken to co-ordinate the services of these offices in order to help better those who are unemployed or who are looking for other jobs or retraining.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the statement a few weeks ago that Identseal, an American company, had announced plans to introduce a thumb printing system in food chain stores in Ontario and Quebec-the service is already operating in Alberta-and that the information derived from it will be stored in a Texas computer, can the minister say whether he has investigated the legality of such a practice since it would seem to be a violation of people's privacy? Is he considering prohibiting the introduction of the practice?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the practice referred to is a voluntary one. I have not investigated the legality of it. The government generally is examining the whole question of information which may be involved in computer operations, but that is a fringe subject so far as the question the hon. member is raising is concerned.



COMMUNICATIONS


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Communications whether he has
July 7, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT
investigated the matter, and can he tell us when the government policy on data banks will be announced?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice and the Department of Communications are working on a joint study of computers and privacy. I hope it will be completed during the summer and will be available for public discussion.



TRANSPORT


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I want to revert to the important province of Newfoundland and ask the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact there is evidence of delay in supplying support facilities to the important linerboard industry, the minister would indicate to the House, since this contract should be fulfilled by the end of July, if he would look into the matter, or has he ascertained whether we can provide the dredging facility so that the mill can go into production on schedule?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into the matter and I have instructed that the work be done as rapidly as possible. I should point out to the hon. member, however, that we received this request only about a month ago, and also that the company involved was cautioned not to bring a ship of the current size to that area as early as this because the dredging could not be completed in time.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Is the minister aware of concern caused to the National Research Council by persistent sniping in reports of parliamentary committees and other organizations and the resulting speculation about its future, and is he prepared to give an assurance that the important work of the council and its morale will not be detrimentally affected by these speculations?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I am aware and have been told of the concern of members of the National Research Council in respect of their future, based, I think, on their reading of reports and various suggestions from the Lamontagne Committee and from the recently retired chairman of the Science Council of Canada, as well as from NRC itself regarding various changes in their role. I should like to assure the hon. member that these suggestions are under study but that no decision has been made.



FREIGHT RATES-SUGGESTED REDUCTION TO ENABLE ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIES ON PRAIRIES TO PROCESS RAPESEED

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. With rapeseed today becoming a major element in the western economy, we find ourselves in a position where unfair freight rates against prairie processed finished products, such as oil and meal, make it virtually impossible for industries to be established on the Prairies. I would ask the minister whether, with the support of the Minister of Supply and Services, he would have a representative go before the Canadian Transport Commission to support the stand that western Canada deserves the opportunity to have these industries and that freight rates should be greatly reduced in order to aid the establishment of industries on the Prairies?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the right hon. gentleman that I share his sentiments and that I have on a number of occasions publicly indicated my wish to see reductions. However, I think he would also agree that it would be inappropriate, as the source of any appeal from a CTC decision, for me to take an active part in the case that is before the commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. Before calling orders of the day we might recognize a few hon. members for one or two quick questions.



POSSIBLE ENTRY OF UNITED STATES TEAMS INTO CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the government have any policy with regard to the possible entry of American teams into the Canadian Football League, as well as the possible invasion of other areas of Canadian football by American interests? Have he or his officials discussed related aspects of this matter with the Canadian Radio-Television Commission?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, we have not, to my knowledge, discussed it with the commission. There was some discussion some time ago with the CFL itself when its commissioner was concerned about the problem. I indicated that we would not like to see this development occur in Canada. It is not clear at this stage what we could do about it in a concrete way, if we decided to do anything.

July 7, 1972
3870	___________________________
Inquiries of the Ministry STATISTICS CANADA



REASON FOR ALLEGED DISCREPANCY IN UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS FOR CERTAIN REGIONS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who, I believe, is responsible for Statistics Canada. Information reveals that there is a discrepancy in unemployment statistics for the Atlantic region, the prairie region, and the British Columbia region. Can the minister tell the House why there is a discrepancy between the unemployment figures published by his department, the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if I knew that, I would be the head of Statistics Canada. I will look into the matter and write to the hon. member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, but hon. members must recognize that we have gone beyond the time allotted for the question period and the Chair will have to call orders of the day in a moment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I note that the minister will look into this matter and make a statement, but in order to clear away the confusion can the minister say now to which department should we look for the correct figures?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will add a footnote to my letter.



RETURNS FROM SMALL BUSINESSES-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT COURT ACTION WILL BE LAST RESORT

Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, my question also deals with Statistics Canada. In view of the fact that a very well known and respected feed grain and mill operator in my part of the country was fined $100 for not filling in and returning a Statistics Canada report, can the minister say if a concentrated drive is being undertaken by Statistics Canada to have all such forms completed and returned? If so, would the minister see that every possible chance is given to small businesses so that they will not be harassed and taken before the courts?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that this is done. It is only after numerous attempts have been made to secure the information and with extreme reluctance, the minister having tears in his eyes, that legal action is taken. As a matter of fact, whenever this is done it comes to the minister's attention and the minister makes sure that it is really an extreme case.


George Harris Hees: Does the minister not realize that this never happened under the previous government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has had the last word. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, July 6, 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 third time and do pass, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) (p. 3655).
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, last night before ten o'clock I was appealing to all hon. members to realize that while the bill contains many errors and inequities its objective is to provide increases in benefits to the hundreds of thousands of poverty stricken children in this country. Surely, it is time that we got the message. I am tired of repeating it here so often. With all our rich resources, both material and human, there is still one-fifth of our population living in poverty and we do not seem to be able to cope with the problem. Surely we ought to have the common sense to realize that if we do not direct our efforts towards helping the children in the poverty stricken category, we will continue to have these same problems that we discuss almost daily in the House of Commons because these children with grow up to be poverty stricken adults. This will result from the government's failure to deal with its problem. Over the years many speakers have pointed out the government's inability to cope with the problems of the nation. Will someone stop and realize that it is the people of Canada, whether they be affluent, middle class or poor, who will judge the government's capabilities, and decide whether or not this bill is acceptable?
When are we going to realize the importance of our youth? When are we going to show a little bit of statesmanship by living up to the promises we make and fulfilling our responsibilities to the people we represent instead of continuing the political debate that goes on here? I have not heard anyone say anything about the children who will benefit under the provisions of this bill. I urge hon. members to think for a few moments about this. After listening to the debate it has become evident to me that some hon. members do not have poverty in their constituencies. Evidently many Members of Parliament do not visit the poorer sections of their areas, and see the shameful existence of too great a proportion of our citizens.
It is interesting to sit here and listen to those Members of Parliament who seem to have all the answers, those who know everything about everything, those who talk about what should be done and how it should be done. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) give his advice on what should happen to make this country of ours a better place in which to live. He called the bill stupid, idiotic and incompetent. I agree that the bill has some terrible errors in it, but as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) said last night, there is still time to correct some of the errors. I remind the hon. member for Trinity that this bill, or various versions of it, has been hanging around since the
July 7, 1972

famous white paper on income security issued in 1970. Why did the hon. member for Trinity not speak up at that time rather than waiting until the report stage of the bill last Tuesday? He said that the bill filled his heart with despair. It fills my heart with despair when I get letters from constituents telling me they cannot afford to take their children to hospital, and that since they cannot pay school fees a school board will not allow their children in school.
The hon. member for Trinity called for guaranteed annual work instead of a guaranteed annual income. He and the leader of the NDP called for a reduction in the unemployment rate from 6 per cent to 3 per cent, and said if this were achieved there would be no need for welfare. I heartily agree with them, but how do we bring this about overnight? Surely, there are enough indications that the government has not been able to accomplish this objective. What are we going to do in the meantime? What are the thousands of poverty stricken children to do in the next number of years while waiting for the experts to provide a Shangri-la? The hon. member for Trinity also said that we should have a higher minimum wage-again I agree-and that our wealth should be distributed across the various regions. These are wise words and I agree with him, but I ask him when and how can we expect this to happen with this government? I ask him why this did not happen when he had some influence for some years in the cabinet? The member mentioned in his speech the other day the visits he made to garden parties, his talks on TV and interviews with many employees who said they would not work any extra overtime because they would lose all or most of it in taxes.
Well, I do not visit too many garden parties in my district, Mr. Speaker, and I do not appear on TV very often, but I can tell you I visit lots of homes in my district and I see first hand the conditions under which too many of our Canadian children are living. I talk to parents who wonder where the justice is, where all the employment is and where are all the hundreds of thousands of homes that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) tells us he is building for Canadians. I do not see any flurry of excitement in my district, Mr. Speaker, about building homes. Yes, Mr. Speaker, and while I am here in Ottawa I get hundreds of letters every week begging for help. These people do not have enough money to heat their homes, or money to buy food. I invite anyone here to come to my office and see these letters, Mr. Speaker. What am I to tell these people? Do I tell them to wait a few years more and we will reduce the rate of unemployment to 3 per cent, do I tell them to wait until we distribute our wealth in a more fair fashion? Do I tell them to wait until we find jobs for everyone?
I get very angry, too, when I hear that people on welfare do not want to work. I say that this is as irresponsible a comment as anyone can make. Again I say to anyone, come and look in my files and read with distress the number of letters I get from people who do not want to go on welfare and refuse to do so at great sacrifice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Family Income Security Plan


Jack Marshall: I get hundreds of letters from people on welfare begging for any kind of a job in order that they may provide a better start for their children. No, Mr. Speaker, it is time we forgot about statistics and reports and studies on poverty, and remembered that we should start to think about our responsibility to give some humane consideration to this problem. We should be ashamed to have to admit that in this supposedly wealthy country of ours, one fifth of our population is living in poverty. This is a situation that must be corrected. There are too many children in this country in this category of our population who will continue to live in poverty, undernourished, living in hovels, with little or no medical care. Unless we provide for them, they will grow up in continued poverty, without proper development and education. This will mean that they will continue in poverty as adults, and it will be our fault in view of all the lessons we should have learned.
It has become obvious throughout the many committee meetings and debates, that the children of this country who need help will have to wait until next summer. The amendment introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gives us the opportunity to show our concern and deal with some of the weaknesses of the bill at further committee meetings over the next couple of weeks without interfering with the ability of the minister's department to get the mechanics in motion and avoid further delays. Surely the minister would agree to this proposal, Mr. Speaker, and I say we should meet, even on Monday morning. At the same time, Mf. Speaker, the bill takes us part of the way towards reducing poverty and directing our efforts to the many people who will get benefits. In spite of the inequities in the bill, some of which will be a horrendous nightmare for the administrators as I pointed out last night, I hope we will vote for this bill because we are concerned for the poverty-stricken citizens of our country. The minister and the government evidently feel it is a good bill, but I am sure that many of their members do not agree.
If we, as Members of Parliament, and even the people of Canada who will not benefit from the bill, have any feelings within us to make a better Canadian nation, our efforts and our resources must be directed toward those who cannot provide for themselves. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for pointing out that there is a military lesson which I learned many years ago which indicates that no army can advance any faster than its slowest or its weakest elements. With our richness in material and human resources, our country cannot grow and progress while one-fifth of our population remains hindered by its inability to keep up with our progress. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is our duty and it must be our duty as a state, to provide for the weak and to support the measure before us today.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by complimenting the hon. member who just finished speaking for an excellent and compassionate speech on behalf of his constituents. I should like to point out, however, that many of us in this House, regardless of party, have people who find themselves at the poverty level and we, too, receive these letters setting out their problems. He gave an excellent outline of the bill, but with all due respect I disagree with his conclusion on how one should

July 7, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
vote on this legislation, particularly after all his criticism of it.
This has been an involved debate extending over several months, Mr. Speaker, and there have been a number of interesting developments since the bill was originally introduced by the minister. We find from his answers to questions in the House and his statements outside, that this is part of an over-all program to bring selectivity into programs dealing with the health and welfare of Canadians. The amendment moved by my colleague introduces the concept of such services as the family allowance being a social right for all Canadians. I suppose that is the core of the most important factor in this entire debate. In the debate, the question of the administration of the bill has been raised, as well as the question of whether it really helps the lower income people.
When speaking in Quebec, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) made a very interesting statement while attempting to defend his bill. The headline in the Montreal Star of June 21 reads: "Middle-Class Must Pay For Welfare Benefits" and the article reads in part:
He said there are not enough of the "super-rich" in Canada to pay for all welfare benefits, so most of the necessary money has to be paid by the middle-class-those who provide the overwhelming majority of the tax revenue.
Later, the article continued:
After his speech, Mr. Munro told reporters that increased taxes on the income of wealthy individuals and corporations would discourage incentive among individuals and harm the competitive position of Canadian industries in foreign markets.
Hurt what incentive, Mr. Speaker, private initiative? Every time there has been a concept of social legislation in this country as well as in Britain, we have consistently heard the cry that we heard on the old age pension scheme in 1926-it was going to hurt incentive. Now, the minister who is in charge of these programs for the whole country allows himself to get caught in that kind of discussion and debate. According to the last federal budget, in 1972-73 the corporations of Canada will contribute 15 per cent of the total federal revenues. At the same time the government will pay out 15 per cent of all federal expenditures to the corporations. This means that the contribution of the multinational corporation to the economy of Canada is zero, yet the minister has the audacity to say in Quebec that the middle-income group will have to carry the burden of all such programs. He ignored the fact of the revenue-


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Eloquent as the hon. member is, I am sure he wants to be accurate. I suggest that newspaper headlines are not speeches. I do not know whether he read the speech; judging from the hon. member's comments, I would say he has not.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I looked at the speech and at the newspaper report. I was not referring only to the headlines, being well aware from personal experience that headlines may be quite inaccurate. Allow me to read this paragraph, Mr. Speaker:

After his speech, Mr. Munro told reporters that increased taxes on the income of wealthy individuals and corporations would discourage incentive among individuals and harm the competitive position of Canadian industries in foreign markets.


John Carr Munro: That is an oversimplification.


William George Knight: The minister may claim that is oversimplified, but he is alleged to have made those remarks. Those remarks, even if oversimplified, are pertinent, since the Minister of National Health and Welfare is charged with the responsibility for social welfare programs, which include family allowances and medical care schemes, to which the provinces contribute in part.
Next, may I read what the Special Senate Committee on Poverty had to say on page 46 of its report entitled, "Poverty in Canada":
The popular notion that our tax system takes from the rich to give to the poor is a myth. Before the 1940s, during the Great Depression, there was some indication that an equalizing trend was taking place in the total amount of income shared before transfers. However, research done by the Royal Commission on Taxation (1966) demonstrates that, since the 1940s, our tax structure had surprisingly little effect on the profile of income distribution already described.
Governments rely on a regressive tax structure as a source of public revenue. (Regressive taxes are those which take away a higher proportion of income from the low-income groups than from the high-income groups.)
An examination of Table 18 shows that 56.5 per cent of the income of those earning less than $2,000 (before transfer payments) goes to paying taxes. If social-security contributions are included, this becomes 60 per cent of their income. By comparison, those with incomes over $10,000 pay only 37 to 38 per cent in taxes.
Let us remember that at one time individuals and corporations contributed about equal amounts in taxes. The trend in tax collection now is for corporations to contribute less than individuals. The corporate tax burden has been reduced by approximately 22 per cent, and the burden on the individual taxpayer correspondingly increased. With that in mind, I suggest the House ought to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) which, if accepted, would maintain the universality of this program.
May I point out that the minister, when making his speech in Quebec, was illogical in saying that the money for financing this program must come from the middle income group. After all, the government party and the official opposition are the captives of the corporate interests of this country and will carry out their policies. They will not introduce a tax system which will more justly raise revenue from all citizens of Canada, including those with corporate interests.
A professional person such as a school teacher with $10,000 per year in taxable income must pay $2,285 in taxes to the federal government. If somebody makes $10,000 in taxable income from a capital gain, that person will pay tax on only half that gain, the tax being $833. On the other hand, if a man receives $10,000 in taxable income from a Canadian registered corporation, he will pay on that $10,000 not $2,285, not $833, but a mere $193 or less. That is the kind of just society this government represents.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: And it will be worse.
July 7, 1972


William George Knight: As the hon. member says, it will be worse. The middle income groups, those families earning $7,000, $11,000 or $12,000, will lose, for the most part, the family allowances that were introduced by a previous Liberal government and paid as a social right. At the same time, some in the middle income groups have been forced to contribute to unemployment insurance, even though the Unemployment Insurance Commission will do little for them. Such contributions are restrictive in that they decrease peoples' incomes.
Let us not fool ourselves by assuming that it will be easy to draw the line under the new family allowances program and say one family is justified in getting benefits and another is not. Consider, for instance, the situation of the farmer, and compare it with that of the teacher or the industrial worker. There is a time in people's lives, mostly when they are between 20 and 35, when they are trying to get established. Some people, even though they make $7,500, $8,000, or $8,500, at one time in their lives incur the expense of raising children. That is when they need family allowances. This program, which is to be based on selectivity, will reduce the incomes of those individuals. The family allowance under the old legislation was paid as a social right, and for many it is to be curtailed. Allow me to point out some of the figures involved.
A family, with one child, earning $4,500 a year will get $20 under this program. A family, with one child, earning $6,000 a year would get $15.05. If we assume in all cases that the family has one child, at $7,000 it will get $11.75; if it earns $8,000, it will get $8.45; if it earns $9,000, it will get $5.15; and when it reaches $10,000, in theory it will get $1.85 which is not payable.
Let us now consider a family with two children under 12 years old, since that is where the maximum benefit would be available. With an income of $5,000, it would receive $30; with $6,000, it would get $23.40; with $7,000, $16.80; with $8,000, $10.20; and with $9,000, $3.20. It must be remembered that for every increase of $100 in income the basic family allowance decreases by 33 cents. That is an added complication. Also, every time a child reaches 12 and enters the higher age bracket, the department must be notified. The amount of family allowance receivable will be changed. All this involves administrative work. When a child is born, the parents must inform the department and every time the family's fortunes change notification must be sent to the Department of National Health and Welfare. When income falls, the family must notify the department in the hope of obtaining a greater benefit; and when income increases, it must also notify the department. This is all very complicated. I do not know who was involved in the drawing up of this program.


Mr. Benjamin:: Some nut.


William George Knight: Apparently, nobody considered the way business may fluctuate in rural areas. A farmer's income from one year to the next may vary by thousands of dollars. In one year, if grain is not moving and quotas are not opened, his income may fall to near the poverty level. In the next year, if grain moves and quotas are opened, his income, even though prices may be depressed, may be greater by several thousands of dollars. So, from one year to another there will be substantial fluctuations in eco-
Family Income Security Plan
nomic conditions in rural areas. These fluctuations will make the administration of the plan a nightmare. When this program comes into operation-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If it comes into operation.


William George Knight: -I dare say Members of Parliament will be swamped with letters from irate mothers complaining about the application of the program and the almost immeasurable difficulty in getting payments.
Several days ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated in this House that this plan would work as easily as the old age guaranteed income supplement. There are a number of points that ought to be made with regard to the guaranteed income supplement. By the time people reach the age at which they receive the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement, there is not the same fluctuation in their income as there is in that of young families between the ages of 20 and 35 or 40. The minister should not forget that.
In 1971, some of my constituents received so much a month for the basic old age pension plus the guaranteed income supplement. They received something like $115 or $117 a month. In April of this year, they found that $10 had been deducted. The same was done in May. No one told them the reason for this. They were not told that they were overpaid last year and that it was a mistake. It was not the fault of these people that they were overpaid, it was the fault of the administration. That is a minor problem in terms of the old age pension. It will be one of the major problems this legislation will create.
The unemployment rate in this country is 4.9 per cent. There are 512,000 people unemployed. We are aware of the job creating programs of this government. However, I do not see the need for developing a new bureaucracy in the Department of National Health and Welfare. Double the number of employees will be required to handle this inadequate and incomprehensible program. This program has been designed to bolster the poor of this country. The minister did not refer to any provision that would prevent the provincial governments making a readjustment under the Canada Assistance Plan so that if these payments increase, the poor people, those who rely on welfare, will have their payments reduced by the provincial governments under the Canada Assistance Plan. That is another inadequacy of this legislation.
The minister should consider the fact that his name and his record as Minister of National Health and Welfare will be connected with this piece of legislation. If and when it goes into operation on a selective basis, we on this side or on whatever side of the House we happen to be, will constantly remind him what he was told during this debate because we will have hundreds of letters on our desks setting out the problems involved in carrying out this legislation. I can assure the minister that I will be in his office quite often.
This country developed a social system, which is not by any means perfect, based on the concept of universality. It is based on the concept that family allowances are a social right. This allowance has been paid to the mothers of this country. In a sense, it represents an income and a respon-

July 7, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
sibility for them. To teach their children responsibility, the mothers often gave them the family allowance. In my family, the money was set aside for my university education. This was fundamental; it was very important and the money was very helpful.
With a program of selectivity, one million mothers in Canada will no longer receive family allowance payments. This is incomprehensible in the light of the manner in which the program was introduced. It is difficult to understand, considering the fact this government was elected in 1968 on the concept of a just society. Since this government has taken office, it has divided Canadians into the haves and have-nots. This government claimed it would hold this nation together. It has driven more wedges between the different sections and elements in this country than any government before it. This program, which is based on some kind of selectivity, could only be outlined by a technocrat sitting in an ivory tower deciding in a statistical manner how to deal with the people of Canada. Let us not forget that this government will be held responsible for this legislation.
It will be interesting to note how many thousands of dollars will be spent on publicizing this plan. A great deal of advertising was necessary this spring when the old age security plan was changed. In answer to a question which was placed on the order paper, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) was advised that hundreds of thousands of dollars had been spent on advertising and promoting that program. That will be a minor cost in comparison with what will be involved in trying to explain this program to the people of Canada. It will take a horde of Philadelphia or Toronto lawyers to figure this out. Even then, I am not sure they will be able to do it.
I would be interested in seeing the Minister of National Health and Welfare trying to explain and justify this piece of legislation to his constituents. After the very concrete criticisms and proposals which have been made by the New Democratic Party with regard to this legislation, I cannot conceive the logic or the reasoning of the minister in continuing with this program as it is now proposed. I hope he will see fit to support the amendment we have moved, a reasoned amendment based on universality and social right. The minister need not be concerned that should he accept this amendment we shall turn round and say: "We told you so". If he accepts the amendment I shall publicly praise him for his honesty and his strength. I want to tell the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) that if he will support our amendment I will do likewise. I believe this is a fundamental change in the restructuring of our social system. We are moving away from the concept that everyone has a right to receive such things as family allowances. We are dividing the people into the haves and the have-nots. We are putting labels on the haves and telling them they must bear the cost of bolstering the have-nots. It is a fundamental concept of ours that the vested interests of this country should carry their fair share of the tax burden.
I have outlined our reasons for opposing this bill and for supporting the proposal put forward in this amendment. I truly hope, as I have already stated a couple of

times, that the minister will give consideration to the proposition we have advanced.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) has eloquently outlined the reasons that I think are valid to all Canadians for objection to the selectivity being proposed by the government.
We are very much in favour of raising the family allowance. We have been in favour of this ever since I came here. I can remember having a meeting with union members in my area, a very strong element. They believed they should support any candidate who would endorse the programs in which they were interested, and even 15 years ago they were asking that family allowances be increased. I think I was able to get some of their support by agreeing that family allowances should be continued.
What really worries me is that the minister made a statement again today indicating that there would be a change in the amount the federal government is willing to put into some of the universal schemes which have been developed with the co-operation of the provinces. The government has also been making noises, not very coherent noises admittedly, about a guaranteed income which will get rid of much of the whole morass of government departments.
It was interesting to make a phone call yesterday to a provincial welfare administrator in my area asking him to intervene with a municipality over a temporary allowance to be given to a young fellow who unfortunately is in the Orillia School and has gone home. Unfortunately, he is over 21 and loses the advantage he had, which is provincial care while in that institution. While he is home for two months he cannot get a disability pension, although he is obviously disabled, because it takes six or eight weeks to get it from the provincial authorities so he will have to go to the municipality. That problem is duplicated in every office of every Member of Parliament almost every day.
There is a desire to get rid of this morass of detail, the slight difference between this program and how it interrelates with a fifth program, and so on. The government has been talking about doing something about this problem by the development of a guaranteed annual income. The Social Credit party said recently that it favoured the payment of an income to everyone in Canada based on a flat rate. I wish it were as simple as that. I should like to see an arrangement by which we could pay everybody a subsistence allowance. Then the tax structure would reclaim unneeded amounts. I suggest that if the government had thought about a guaranteed annual income, they would now be in a position that it could not be universal because I am sure there would be a needs test, a means test, an income test or a blood test which would be necessary before you could get that amount of money. That is what is wrong with the system.
We are really saying we cannot afford to give all the young people in Canada a reasonable amount of money for family allowance. This was to buy shoes, extra books and a little extra for the children themselves. The mother was to administer it and she was to have it. We are saying this is not possible now, we cannot do it for everybody. We can only do it for one class of the people. This is not good
July 7, 1972

enough. The rich are not going to agree with it. The poor are not going to agree with it and the middle class are not going to be willing to finance it.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member for Timiskaming.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I was urging, and continue to urge, the minister and members of the House to give consideration to the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) which, very simply, would provide the increase for all those in receipt of family allowances and would not eliminate a large portion of the people in this country who we believe are entitled to this increase. I think a government which does not consider increasing either pensions or benefits for any other segment of the social field is, in effect, downgrading its interest and participation in family allowances. It may be that the government wishes to get rid of the family allowance structure. If so, the government should say so. It has been interesting that in this debate not even some of the Conservatives went so far as to say we should get rid of this type of payment to children.
It has been argued very forcibly both here and elsewhere that this type of legislation leads to an increase in the population. In keeping with modern ideas, perhaps for those interested in population control there is some repugnance in the idea of family allowances which are really a recognition of an added financial responsibility for those people who have children. The government, however, has not really reached this conclusion. Of course, I believe it would be wrong to agree to any consideration of such a prospect.
It is interesting to look at the payments which have been made under family allowances. When we originally started these payments back in 1944, there was very great disparity between various areas and regions in Canada in terms of population expansion. The population expansion in the east was considerably greater than it was in other parts of Canada. One of the charges made in those days was that these allowances in respect of large-sized families had an effect on the population increase. I believe it is safe to say that, particularly in the province of Quebec, the birth rate was phenomenally high. It was phenomenally high for two reasons. I believe there was a religious reason and a rural reason, both of which tended to increase the population.
The fact that in 1944 many families in the province of Quebec received very large sums of money was considered by some to be an indication that this type of assistance was wrong and, therefore, should be discontinued. In looking over the situation in the years since 1944, it is
Family Income Security Plan
interesting to see that circumstances have changed. Although family allowances are still being paid, and while they are really a production bonus, this has really not affected the birth rate in that province. The birth rate in Quebec has been reduced to equal that of any region in Canada and is, in fact, one of the lowest birth rates in the civilized world. The argument that this type of production bonus has created an undesirable situation-and I say "undesirable" from the point of view of the environmentalist who looks at the global situation in terms of overproduction of homo sapiens-is not necessarily a good argument in respect of whether or not we should produce our own citizens or bring them in from somewhere else. I believe I would favour the home-grown population increase rather than an increase through immigration from abroad.
The fact is that the money we pay in respect of family allowances has not encouraged an increase in population. It has not done anything to advance the number of people who have been born. I think everyone, particularly those interested in the social side of the picture, will agree that family allowances in the main when introduced represented a considerable asset with regard to family development in many parts of the country. It meant mainly two things. First of all it established for the mother and the housewife an amount of money that she would have in her own right to distribute to her children as she observed their specific needs. It was not designated for clothing, milk or food, but was designated for the mother to distribute to her children in the best manner for the benefit of the family. I think it is safe to say that the amount paid in 1944 did bring about some change because personally I know of families which were able to buy books for their children so that they would be able to attend school. They were able to buy the necessities and clothing so that the children could attend school. It enabled these children to participate with other children with a degree of equity that they would not have been able to enjoy had it not been for this sum of money.
I think most members will agree that initially that was the use to which this money was put. It is a discredit to successive governments since 1944 that they have not meaningfully escalated the family allowance payment to bring it up to a level that would at least meet the present rise in the cost of living. Such an escalator clause has not been put in the bill. Other speakers have used figures and made comparisons to show that the cost of living has gone up two and a half times, therefore the family allowance should have gone up by the same amount. Since it did not, it has meant that a poor family has had far less spending power, and poor families are not all in the low income group. A poor family may be living in mortgage row in a very expensive house, have a very expensive car, and the mother and father may have expensive tastes, yet you may find in that family a desperate need for some of the essentials that is probably equal to that of a family in the low income group. It does seem to me that equality should be retained, and the government has not done that. It is my opinion that we would be much fairer in our treatment of young people if we were to retain the principle of universality which they have enjoyed over the years and which has enabled these young people to provide their families with the necessities.

July 7, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
It seems to me that family allowances should be provided to all at the maximum or minimum level proposed by the minister in this bill. I suggest that our standard of living and our productivity would indicate that the minister is not being generous at all; in fact, he is being niggardly in raising the amounts only to those levels proposed in the bill. Obviously, if the cost of living has gone up, if the gross national product has gone up and revenues have gone up, we should be able to supply as much money to children today in terms of today's dollar as we were able to provide to children in 1944 when this act was introduced. We are not doing that, we are reneging on one million mothers in Canada by creating selectivity in this bill, a principle which was not originally contemplated.
In terms of the social impact of this legislation, was it true that in 1944, very close to the end of the war, we did not have any poor, we did not have any rich and there were no people in between? In what category were these people, in what economic strata were they that we found it necessary to adopt universality in providing this type of care to all mothers on behalf of their children? What has changed? The minister says that he disagrees with the slogan which has been credited to him, probably erroneously, but it is a nice one. It is that you save the rich, soak the middle class and seduce the poor. Perhaps there is some truth in it. Perhaps we have a new class of people who like paying taxes, a new class of people who like receiving money and a new class of people who do not like to pay their share. If that is so, then my guess is that it has always been so; there has not been any change or any reduction in the need. Those who originally believed in 1944 that it was not fair in social terms to divide children into economic categories should be heard, because in my opinion they still constitute the majority in Canada and they are probably the most numerous group of people even in this Parliament.
I am sure that most of the Liberal members will be going to their ridings very shortly and will be awaiting the call for a federal election. Are they really going to tell the people in their constituencies that we have had to give up social equality in the family allowance structure so that we can pay the poor, that we are only interested in helping the welfare cases in this country? Will some of those Liberals not be saying that they believe that all children in Canada should have the benefit of family allowances because they are Canadians? I think there are many members in the House who will not be selling the government's policy, and I am sure they will have great difficulty in explaining the two or three other recent programs in which selectivity is incorporated. I may not be smart enough, and I am sure my party is not smart enough-in fact I am not sure if anybody is-to follow the reasoning of the government behind this change, but I am sure that the average person in Canada would like to get rid of all the divisive factors in our society and would like to provide equality wherever possible. I am sure we would not want to see a woman having to make the decision as to whether or not she should do a limited amount of work because that may mean her children will receive less assistance in family allowance if she does so. I am sure that the average Canadian wants equality.

I have heard very little argument in this country from any political source or from any of the social agencies against the idea of a universal guaranteed income. One of the reasons people are interested in adopting the universal guaranteed income is that it will apply to all people, it will do away with computerization in solving social problems and it will do away with the necessity of having inspectors coming into people's homes. This legislation will mean that decisions will be made by computers and inspectors will have to check these decisions. The average individual will have to make declarations of various kinds every time his income or his family situation is altered in any way. This will be applied to the information which will come from the Department of National Revenue. Officials in charge of this program will have to check the information regarding family allowances against the National Revenue figures. An inspector will come from both of these departments and will harass that family with things that they really do not understand. I am sure that the country does not want that.
The present government seems to think we are so bankrupt that we are unable to provide for Canadians, that we have to divide the rich from the poor, the haves from the have-nots. I am sure that Canadians would not want that. They will not agree with it, particularly since we went through a futile exercise a couple of weeks ago in one minor field of government expenditures. We found that almost $700,000 was being wasted on providing information which was really self-glorification of the government and its agencies. We suggested that it could be eliminated. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that there were a number of votes and the sitting went on until a late hour, but the exercise was futile in the first place.
There is not a member who cannot stand up and say, "I know where we could save $1 million or $1 billion." A couple of weeks ago we were talking about information supplied by departments and by Information Canada. At that time we were talking about something like $1 billion, a billion dollars to sell the Department of National Health and Welfare, a billion dollars to sell the Department of National Defence, a billion dollars to sell all the government departments. Why not put that money into a social program? If the minister were to say, "Let us get rid of family allowances and the guaranteed income supplement; let us get rid of some of these schemes and substitute one plan that would apply to all Canadians," it is possible that I would be in favour of it. But I am afraid that here we are talking about doing away with universality in our social service structure, and substituting a class structure.
At present, old people who are poor have to make application for additional assistance. Originally, old age assistance was given to everyone who reached a certain age. Now, a certain amount of pension is given to everyone on reaching that age, but it is just about half of what it costs to maintain body and soul, and a means test is applied to those who seek an additional amount. Now, we are doing with the universal family allowance. I strongly urge reconsideration of the idea of selectivity, of dividing people up into classes. I firmly believe that almost all mothers in Canada use whatever money they get for the
July 7, 1972

benefit of their children. I know it is said that many family allowance cheques are cashed in the beer parlour, or corner grocery store, but I believe the benefit of the money is applied to the children. No matter how poor people are, they try to take care of their children.
Aside from the argument of selectivity versus universality, I believe we have an obligation to provide for escalation of payments according to increases in the cost of living. Even bodies as heartless as the Canadian Pacific Railway and the directors of the Canadian National Railway have now applied an escalation factor to their workers' pensions. This is true even of as heartless an agency as the Workmen's Compensation Board of Ontario. But it is not done with respect to family allowances. It is calculated that a 1944 dollar will purchase only the equivalent of 40 cents in 1972. If that is so, a family allowance payment of $16 per child per month is needed in terms of our present standard of living.
I suggest to those Members of Parliament who will be going home shortly that they whould give serious consideration to supporting the amendment, which would provide every child in Canada with the benefit of escalation of allowances in relation to the cost of living and the increase in the cost of living over the last 18 years. If Liberal members cannot do this in good conscience, then it is an admission on their part that they fail, through their amended income tax structure, to get money back from those who do not need it. They know that if they give the baby bonus to the rich, the rich are not taxed at the same levels as others, and will get more benefit out of that bonus.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech delivered today by the hon. member for Humber-St. Georges-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). I have complete sympathy with respect to the problems of his constituents. I am just as concerned about the children of his constituency and of this country as is anyone else, but I still believe that this is a stupid law, and we will be sorry if we let it pass this afternoon. Frankly, I cannot understand why it was introduced in its present form in the first place. In my opinion, it represents the most inappropriate and, in the long run, ineffective solution to what is for many people in this country a very serious problem.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe asked why I did not speak sooner. I should like to point out to him that I have been speaking about the fundamentals involved for a long time. I have spoken both outside and inside the House about the alternatives and how they could be achieved. I have been talking about the positive alternatives which are more effective and more humane. I have been shouting it from the hilltops. I have been saying that there is a better way but few people have been listening. I wrote a book to explain, on the basis of the knowledge I have gained over many years in public and private life, how we got into this mess and how we might go about getting out of it. Not too many people have taken the trouble to read what I had to say.
Mr. Speaker, we have to make fundamental changes if we want to solve some of the problems I have been talking about. This persistence with band-aid treatment will
Family Income Security Plan
never do the job. By putting one band-aid on top of another all we do is exacerbate an already difficult situation. If we want to tackle the real problems in this country we have to do it by fundamental means. These fundamental means are jobs and wages. In the long run, there is no other way to achieve the goals that we want and that is the point of view I should like to discuss. We would have to introduce a system whereby for employables there would be ample opportunities to work for decent wages and, of course, for those who are unable to work due to enforced idleness or because they are incapable, an income sufficient for their requirements.
The amendment before the House offers an opportunity for reconsideration. I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) with great interest and she made a most impressive speech, one that was worth listening to and worth reading. She spoke eloquently of the needs of the poor people in this country and she spoke compassionately as she always does. I would like to see this House take seriously some of the things she said.
In so far as options are concerned, there are several, of course. The first option would be to refer this bill back to committee and to reconsider the advisability of the universal approach. The payments could be increased under that system of universality which was established in 1944. That would solve the problems, at least in the short run, which were raised by my hon. friend from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. Then, of course, if that were the solution we could use the present income tax laws, perhaps with some changes that would be appropriate, to make sure that the benefits of the increase went largely to those who need it, the people at the bottom end of the income scale. That is what the tax laws are for; that is the reason we have a graduated income tax which is very steep in its application. It is, in fact, a redistribution of income. There is no reason in the world why this same technique could not be used if we wished to stay with the universal approach.
The advantages of staying with the universal approach are that it is easy to administer-perhaps I should not say it is easy to administer but compared to this new bill it is easy to administer. The comparison would be the comparison between night and day. It does my heart good to hear the New Democratic Party complain about the increasing bureaucracy in this country. I think this is one of the most desirable and beneficial developments that I have noticed in a long time. Everyone is beginning to recognize that we must have a simpler solution. We cannot go on forever complicating things to the point where we have more and more people passing paper, more and more people on the payroll, fewer and fewer people producing the wealth whilst all of us spend more and more time answering questions, filling out forms and standing in line because of some regulation which may not apply adequately in some cases.
A symptom of this was expressed during the question period today when someone mentioned the experience of a small businessman who was fined $100 for not filling out one of those silly forms sent out by Statistics Canada. I have great sympathy with the small businessman. The bureaucrats of this country are driving him crazy and worse than that they are driving him out of business. In a

July 7, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
few years there will not be any small businessmen because they will not be able to survive. Ultimately, they are going to say "A pox on it, we will go to work for the government and go home at three minutes to four every day". What a sad reflection that would be on the traditions which we hold dear. I am not just thinking of traditions, Mr. Speaker, because tradition is only important if it has a continuing function, but of the relationship between businessmen and their customers which really only comes with small organizations and which will be nothing but a distant memory if we proceed much further in the direction we are going. As a result of having operated a small business, I know that now the entrepreneur spends most of his time filling out forms. I have talked to a number of small shopkeepers and businessmen this year, and I know that they take home less pay than any one who works for them. Who would expect them to survive for long under these circumstances? The principle applies to all of us and it is applying more and more to the very people we are trying to help.
What kind of form will we have to fill out in connection with this law? The minister has told us that it will not be any more complicated than the income tax form. I do not know whether other hon. members had the same reaction to that interjection as I, but I thought to myself that he just cannot be serious. The minister is making a case for his own bill and he says that the form will not be any more complicated than the income tax form so we do not need to worry about it. The thing that drives us crazy once a year now will be done four or five times a year by the poor. Perhaps they will learn to enjoy it because they will not have time to do anything else. Mr. Speaker, we can get used to anything. Certainly, the universal system would be less complicated than the one the government proposes. I must admit that I agree with my New Democratic Party friends that it would be socially more acceptable. I know the NDP do not like me to agree with them, and I shall try not to do it too often but I must admit that sometimes they say things with which I can agree.
Mr. Speaker, I do not like to see the country divided the way this bill will divide it. I think the bill is regressive, and I think it just introduces one more division in the country based upon social and economic standing in the community. I think it would be much more acceptable socially if we were to stay away from the introduction of one more means test, particularly one as complicated and hopeless in its application in ordinary circumstances as this one is destined to be.
The second option would be not to increase the levels of family allowances but to leave them at their present rates and try another approach to providing the extra purchasing power needed by the people in this country who are below the poverty line. I admit, frankly, that I prefer the second approach. There need not be poverty in Canada, and the fact that there is more poverty in Canada today, relatively, than there was a few years ago when the antipoverty campaign was begun is a reflection on the ineffectiveness of the band aid treatments which have been instituted.


An hon. Member:: That's what comes from free
enterprise.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think we need a little more enterprise; that would be the solution. I should like the hon. member to give due and just consideration to what I will say about this. In my opinion, there is no reason in the world, except bad management, for the 6 per cent unemployment rate in this country today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is not happening in other countries. I know the government can point with some comfort, I suppose that is the right word, to the experience in the United States, an experience which is about as bad as ours. The reason, I suspect, is that many of the theologians in charge of the United States economy were trained in the same schools and read the same bibles as the theologians who have been in charge of our economy. There is no excuse for this unemployment, none whatsoever. Most countries of the western world do not have unemployment at these levels. Only in Canada, the United States, Italy and Great Britain is a level anything like ours accepted.
I should like to outline three steps that ought to be taken if we are to have full employment. The first step consists of a further reduction in taxes at the low income levels. The last budget may have been successful in offsetting the effects of the American DISC program. It may have provided a stimulus for industry, but it did nothing on the other side of the economic equasion-it did nothing to increase aggregate demand. One could ask why business would want to expand considerably if, at the same time, there is not sufficient purchasing power in the hands of people who need goods and services. Why would business expand if there is not that capability in the hands of the people for purchasing the products of business, if there is not that capability in their hands which, in the first instance, would induce business to provide extra goods and services? So, if we want to get our economy back on the road, if we want to get it rolling again, we must provide an infusion of purchasing power. The best way of infusing that purchasing power is by providing tax relief for those people who need food, shelter and clothing, who need the necessities of life about which the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe talked. Lower taxes would provide an immediate infusion of money into the economy and create the demand which would create jobs which, in turn, would stimulate the economy and get the economy rolling again.
The second step, of course, because, mathematically steps one and two are related, is increasing the total amount of effective demand which would set the total level of employment. Economists call total effective demand total aggregate demand. That is the regulator which sets the total employment level in the country, and anyone who has even a faint knowledge of the dismal science of economics is familiar with that. So, if we want to provide sufficient economic demand to create meaningful employment for the people of this country who want to work, we must increase total aggregate demand. This means, in effect, that we must increase the money supply, as the government has been doing, or rather as the central
July 7, 1972

bank has been doing, to the point that interest rates are driven down.
How can people who want to buy a house afford a house if they must pay 9 per cent interest on the mortgage? That is beyond the reach of the average person in this country. There is no way that the average citizen can buy a home for which he must pay over a period of 35 or 40 years if the mortgage interest rate is 9 per cent. Further, how can the people of this country begin small businesses, corner grocery stores and similar small businesses of any kind, if on the money they borrow they must pay 10 per cent, 11 per cent, 12 per cent or 14 per cent interest? There is no way they can do that, Mr. Speaker. There is no way that people who want to do something for themselves, who want to become involved in the economic system, can branch out in business if the economic dice are loaded against them as heavily as they are at present. So, the second step must be increasing the money supply and driving interest rates down.
The third step is one that the people in authority in this country have rejected. The people who have responsibility for the management of the economy of the country have resisted the No. 3 step which must be taken, the imposition of mandatory wage and price guidelines in this country, the only effective way to control monopoly power.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I have looked at the amendment and regret having to do what I am about to do. So far, it seems to me that the hon. member has made the sort of speech which he would make in a budget debate. I do not think he is speaking to the amendment. I know we have been generous, but I really think it is time for me to remind the hon. member that we are debating the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think it would be much better if he could relate his remarks more directly to the amendment than he has done thus far.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly do that. I am trying to point out that there is an alternative, and I was speaking of one particular alternative which the House ought to consider after the bill has been to committee. Certainly, those remarks come within the ambit of the amendment now before the House. I know Your Honour realizes that there must be some latitude in debate and that anything which could legitimately be described as an alternative to the ineffective provisions of the bill would come within the rules and within the ambit of the amendment.
There is no way in which you can have a reasonable degree of economic stability in Canada unless, some day, somebody will be brave enough and sensible enough to impose mandatory wage and price guidelines in this country. I know some members of the government agree with that. I should not be surprised if the minister agreed with me. However, he has some tough friends in cabinet and they are not as easy to get along with as he is sometimes.


John Gilbert: The hon. member ought to know.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is no alternative, Mr. Speaker, to this step in view of what has happened in the last few years. The lack of effective controls and mandatory guidelines has distorted the entire economy, pulled it out of shape, to
Family Income Security Plan
the point where, today, in all ten provinces a married man with two children can get more on welfare than he can by taking a job at minimum or near minimum wage rates. In many cases people can get more by drawing unemployment insurance than by working. I say to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe that this is true in his province as well. I was told recently of a manufacturer in that province who owns three factories. He cannot fill them with workmen, even though there is a high rate of unemployment on the island. I am not saying this is bad; but I am saying that this shows that, often, people across this country can make more by not working than by working.
The inevitable result, of course, is disaster from all points of view for this country. First, on the economic side, with more people drawing welfare or unemployment insurance, more people are taking from the national income produced and there are fewer working. Consequently, the total pie is smaller than it otherwise would have been and there is less for everyone. Second, we must remember the social distortions that result from people not working. They become used to doing nothing and find it more and more difficult eventually to re-enter the labour force.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? He referred to three manufacturing industries in my province. I wonder if the hon. member would name these industries. I am not aware of them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member's question is a perfect example of the sort of thing I meant when I last interrupted the hon. member who has the floor. That hon. member is so far away from the amendment that he is now being questioned about factories he mentioned. I think the Chair has been very lenient. I have not heard complaints, but the hon. member knows the rules. I ask the hon. member again to try to keep close to the subject matter of the amendment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more, but with deference I think Your Honour's ruling is really a reflection of how far conventional wisdom and the inadequate bill presented to the House by the government is from a fundamental solution. We are talking about family income. Is that not the name of the bill? Is it not relevant that the family has sufficient income to look after the needs and requirements of its children, including proper food, clothing, shelter, educational and other opportunities? Is that not what we are talking about? Are we not trying to provide income for families so that children of all families, regardless of the circumstances, can grow up in decency and dignity? I certainly think so. That is the purpose of the minister's bill and the amendment put before the House by the New Democratic Party.
If we really want to do something about this situation we must go back to fundamentals. We must provide jobs for those who are able to work. We know how to do it. If we did not know how, it would be different. We wish that others would take seriously what we have to say. We should control monopoly power in this country. If there were a Liberal party in this country-
3880

July 7, 1972
Family Income Security Plan


An hon. Member:: There is.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I hear from a backbencher that there is a Liberal party in this country. There is no Liberal party in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If there were a Liberal party in this country it would be fighting monopoly power, fighting General Motors for building front ends that either smash in or fall out, fighting doctors for leaving patients unattended, fighting strikers for not picking up garbage, and fighting the vested interests on behalf of the people of this country. That is what a Liberal party would be doing.
The fact that there is no Liberal party in this country causes much pain and distress to some of us. The government is so involved in band-aid treatments that for one reason or another it has managed to avoid looking at the principles. The principles are Liberal principles. If they would go back to them they would know what to do. The Liberal principle is that when the rights and freedoms of any individual or group in society reaches the point where they trample on the rights or freedoms of another individual or group, they have to be curtailed. The government has not effectively done this in so far as labour and management are concerned. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) can laugh, but he is as guilty as anyone in this government.
The philosophy of Liberalism is in ill hands at the present time. This government is totally removed from and unaware of what Liberalism means. They continue to allow wages and prices to get out of pace with productivity; they do nothing about it. Three years ago the government said it was going to control inflation even if it meant creating 6 per cent unemployment. That is precisely what it did. Now, 300,000 families in this country are in misery economically because this government put them there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is how they got there. That is the truth. The tight money policy of 1969-70 is the cause of the present level of unemployment. That is one reason the government is now going to such extraordinary lengths to do something about it. If they do not do something about it, it is because they are unaware of the facts. I was interested to learn this morning that new opportunities programs will be introduced. Some of them may be worth while but in many cases it will just be another opportunity for the favourite few of the government to spend a lot of someone else's money; for the majority the only opportunity will be to pay higher taxes.
There is another alternative and I would like hon. members to think about it. We do not have to stay with this outworn, outmoded trade-off theory which the professional economists are pawning off on us. This is nonsense, but it will persist in the minds of the experts as long as you have monopoly power on both the labour and the industrial side pushing up wages and prices out of step with productivity. As long as that continues, the central bank has no recourse except to be involved in this trade-off between too much unemployment and too much inflation

or, as we have at the present time, too much of both simultaneously.
We should go back to fundamentals. That is the reason I intend to support the amendment. The committee would do well to take a hard look at this bill and what was proposed last night by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). She referred to this incredible bureaucracy as a Saint Vitus's dance; I thought it was a most eloquent phrase. Why do we persist in solutions which are so complicated and insensitive to humanity that they get everyone in this country uptight as a result? Surely there is a better way. If the committee cannot come up with one, I will be surprised. As a matter of fact, if given a free choice I will be surprised if the minister does not do that. We should refer the bill back to committee.
The frustration that one feels in a situation like this is real and understandable. Here is a bill that very few people like. Someone told me last night that a group of young programmers, people who learn to put information into computers at school, was largely responsible. I do not know who is responsible for it, but whoever it is I hope he has to live with it and has something docked from his pay every time the computer throws out false information. It is a horrendous prospect.
Members of Parliament, including many Liberal backbenchers and the people of this country realize that this is a poor bill. Many Liberal backbenchers do not want to fight the next election with this bill hanging over their heads. I know this from talking to them. They think it is more bureaucratic nonsense that the system did not have a chance to throw over. Opposition members are divided: some want to get ahead with it, not because they think it is the right solution but failing another solution they feel that half a loaf is better than none. Some want to get on with the job, taking the chance that they will be able to unravel the whole ball of yarn later.
The New Democratic Party made it clear that they do not like the bill. They say it is a bureaucratic monstrosity which removes the principle of universality that has worked satisfactorily over the years. I would venture to guess that given a free vote on conscience the vote of this House would be negative on the bill; it would not carry. I would go so far as to say that the same thing could happen in the country. The people of this country have more sense; they would be able to come up with a better solution. They would not do anything as complicated as this. They would reject this further intrusion into their lives and privacy. They would say that there has to be a better means of distributing income. They want opportunities and meaningful wages. The people of this country want the government to make it possible to start small businesses and do the things they want to do. They want the government to get off their backs with its tight money policy, regulations, bureaucracy and all the other things we have had that make life so complicated and take all the joy out of it.
I understand, but I do not like to understand, that when so many people are against the bill, when the prevailing opinion is negative and so many people think it can be improved or, better still, that it should be scrapped and started over again, nevertheless the bill will be passed because of the old party system of cracking the whip. The
July 7, 1972

whip cracks down and everyone jumps into line whether they agree or not. When the vote is called and the leader stands up, everyone falls into line even though their conscience says no.
Is it any wonder that the young people of this country are cynical about politics? Is it any wonder that the people generally have become cynical about politics? Is it any wonder that when you talk to them they say, "These ideas make sense, but will anybody listen?" Are you not just beating your head against a wall?" Is it not a sad state of affairs that the Canadian people should be losing faith in democracy because once a government has been elected they have no control over it and it persists in doing things of which the people would not approve if they had an opportunity to vote in a referendum. They say, "What difference does it make who we vote for, because the same thing goes on and on." The whip cracks, the bell is rung and the bill goes through; that is the situation.
I personally regret that one after another four or five bills have gone through which do not really make sense for Canada. Some of them can perhaps be reversed. But it is just like the Viet Nam war; you get into it inch by inch and there is no way of getting out. You get all the bureaucracy built in. So much face would be lost if things were changed. The time to avoid that trap is before you cross all the thresholds, before you get too far down the road.
I hope someone else will speak this afternoon. I hope the amendment carries and that the bill is referred back to committee, because if we as representatives of the people cannot come up with something better than this bill on behalf of those who need help, we should be ashamed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when I came into the House a few minutes ago I had no intention of speaking on this bill. However, having seen the reaction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr Macdonald) to the words of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) I feel compelled to speak. After all, the minister was at one time a close collaborater and friend of the hon. member for Trinity, and then the hon. member for Trinity was regarded as holding such high ideals and opinions that he could hope to attain the leadership of the Liberal party.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Sir, you have it wrong.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to miss any of the pearls of wisdom that come from the lips of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If he wishes to interrupt, all he has to do is stand up and I shall be glad to make way for him.
We have listened to a speech this afternoon by a member of this House who for many years was a strong supporter of the Liberal party. He has found that under its present leadership it is no longer the Liberal party but that it has become the Trudeau-Pelletier-Goyer party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Family Income Security Plan


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) is not here today, because I have just raised his status a little and he certainly needs elevation; no one needs it more than he does.
On this subject I think I can speak with reasonable objectivity. I have never collected any portion of the baby bonus or the family allowance and as far as the old age pension is concerned, I refused to apply for the pension because I felt that while it purports to be a contributory measure, in point of fact, as far as I am concerned, in view of the few years of contributions made it would not be a contributory pension.
The words of the hon. member for Trinity, spoken with deep sincerity-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What was that sickly laugh for?


John George Diefenbaker: -were most impressive. Two or three of those backbenchers seem to think they have a monopoly on sincerity as long as they follow the Prime Minister's line. They realize that any deviation means they will never be appointed as parliamentary secretaries. The hon. member for Trinity mentioned the dreams he had about what might have been achieved. He did not mention the just society of which we heard so much in 1968 and of which we have heard so little since. Indeed, the expression "just society" has during the past three years become a dirty word in the vocabulary of Trudeau Liberalism.
I say that this bill, brought before the House in the dying hours of the session, is one which should have been given earlier consideration. I feel sure many hon. members would vote for the amendment were it not for the fact that we are also in the dying hours, as I believe, of another Parliament and that when they return it will be to a new Parliament with, I hope, a new government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: July 7, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
consideration given to controversial or bills other subjects in committee. Some contend that committees are successful in the United States. Under the American system they are, because it does not matter in a committee what decision is made in either the House of Representatives or Congress; it does not directly affect the presidency of the United States or the leadership of the party in the presidential office.
However, it is different here. I do not care which political party is in office, because when a measure of a controversial nature is submitted to a committee, members vote on the basis of their political persuasion because to do otherwise, were they supporters of the government, would be to weaken the government.
The hon. member for Trinity said that this Parliament had ceased to hold the respect of the Canadian people. I agree. I find everywhere across the nation the view expressed that the institution of Parliament in these days is no longer effective. If that be so, then we might as well close down the institution. However, it need not be so for much longer for the Canadian people have an opportunity to make a change and to once more bring about the restoration of this institution. While we may differ in our views sitting, as we do, either to your right or your left, Mr. Speaker, there should none the less not be any requirement on members of the House to park their consciences at the door of Parliament. As I view it, that is the great danger today.
With regard to the present motion, I know that there are members in the House who in their hearts entirely support the need for further consideration being given this matter in committee. But they cannot vote that way because to do so would weaken their government.
Where are we going today? I recall when in 1944 the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King introduced family allowance legislation in this House. My own party was opposed to it and I was alone in caucus on the issue for several days. I said I was determined to support it and it was pointed out to me that if I did so it would be contrary to the viewpoint of my own party. Yet I stood my ground. A Member of Parliament is not an automaton to be pushed around as a puppet. Finally my party joined in support of family allowances in this House, with one exception.
With regard to old age pensions, this party has given its support through the years. During my period of administration we raised the amounts of pensions very considerably. We thought that the $6 increase given by the St. Laurent government in 1957 was unjust and unfair and we made sure in the next election that the "six buck boys" did not ride again. When in office we brought about increases.
I am in favour of fair social security measures. But what do we face here, Mr. Speaker? We face a government that refuses to accept the principle of universality. The means test is the meanest test of all because it is applied to the average person across the country and places everyone in a position of mental or physical subservience. I am opposed to anything in the nature of a means test.
During the last year I was in office the total federal expenditure in Canada was about $6 billion. That was said to be frightful. I remember the mourners sitting over on this side of the House with tears running down their faces. Their speeches were laced with lachrymose sentiments. What are the expenditures of the government today? They are up to $17 billion! In part this is due to the fact that this House has no control over expenditures made today, none whatsoever. The day that this Parliament agreed to place our expenditures in committees for investigation we closed the door of this House against protecting the Canadian taxpayer from outrageous and totally unjustified expenditures. I said that the door to effective examination of expenditures would be closed, and what we witnessed the other night during the late sitting till 2.30 in the morning, in the passage of $16 billion in 4 i hours, was-


Thomas Miller Bell: Disgraceful.


John George Diefenbaker: It was the most inexcusable conduct that Parliament ever indulged in. But it was the natural fruit of those who planted a tree that they said would make Parliament work but which turned out otherwise.
Today we have the highest taxation in Canada's history. I should like to put on the record what the minister said in the immortal speech that he made in Quebec City. I said "immortal", but as far as the Canadian taxpayer is concerned it was an immoral speech and aimed against the middle class of this country. At page 18 of his speech he said:
Governments, contrary to what many may think, are not uniformly indifferent or hostile, impersonal or heartless institutions.
I have never heard anyone say that they were, but we now have the imprimatur of the minister.
They are composed of people who genuinely seek the aristotelian mean-
That indicates a knowledge of the classics.
-the maximum good that can be evenly distributed.
Aristotle never thought of that, but today he is blamed in the minister's speech. The minister then goes on to say:
To take the example which most concerns us here to day, measures to alleviate poverty-to increase the economic and social security of those now living a marginal existence-result only from transfers of resources which, in one way or another, come from those who are better off.
That is where the members of this House come in. Unfortunately, we do not have enough of the "super-rich" to effect this transfer only from the manifestly affluent. Resource transfers of any magnitude must come from the great middle class-those who provide the overwhelming majority of the tax revenue, but do not by any means see themselves as having reached Easy Street- or fat city, to use the term of the poverty ghettos.
What does that mean? In the next paragraph the minister said:
We cannot act like Leacock's horseman and go madly galloping off in all directions at once.
He should have given that advice to his fellow ministers because that is what they have been doing in this session in advance of an election. If this government is returned, then in view of what the minister said in Quebec City the middle class of Canada should know what is going to

July 7, 1972

happen to them. Today they are taxed as never before. But they have only just seen the sunrise; taxes are going to go up even further. Let me read what the minister said in this connection when speaking in Hamilton on June 28:
We must convince the middle-income groups that they are the only source of income adequate enough for taxation to really aid low-income groups.
As the hon. member for Trinity said, people are taxed today until in many cases there is no incentive left. In anticipation of an election the prospect is that we have not seen the half of it yet. The government has in mind increasing taxation for the middle class. This is the first time in recorded history that a government has gone to the people and has said that, so far as the middle class is concerned, if they think they have paid through the nose up to the present time, they have not seen the half of what they will be subjected to. The minister went on to say:
If you tax the top groups more, you would run into the law of diminishing returns-
Surely the law of diminishing return applies to those people whose incomes are between $8,000 and $15,000. But not according to the minister.
-because there are not many in that group and you would kill their incentive.
It would ruin the incentive of the high income groups to pay any additional tax, so they have already received some relief in the recent budget. The minister went on to say:
The same would apply to a 10 per cent increase in corporation tax, which would produce only $250 million in revenue-
Hence the tax collectors cannot touch the corporations and they cannot touch the rich. When in that position, what do they do? They will soak the middle class. That is what the minister's speech means. He goes on to say that if we had a 10 per cent increase in corporation tax this could harm incentive among companies facing stiff increases. There you have the picture. The top boys will not pay. They already had a slash on their income tax. Those on the bottom cannot pay. Those in between, however, will be taxed to an extent that can only be imagined at this time.
The blueprint set forth by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) indicates that the middle class have not seen anything yet in taxation. He made a speech to the Liberal Association in his constituency. The House might be interested in the reaction. He was challenged by a worried Liberal. A man has to be pretty worried to go to an annual meeting of the Liberal party in a constituency represented by the minister and indicate that he is worried. But this Joe was worried, and I think he deserves a lift to immortality. The minister was challenged by a worried Liberal crane-operator named Joe Boich. Joe spoke for the Canadian people: he said, "For God's sake, don't tax us any more". I want the minister to take his words to heart because Joe Boich is no Joe-boy. Joe Boich is a Canadian who used these words which will ring across the country in the coming election, and they bear repetition: he said, "For God's sake, don't tax us any more".
Family Income Security Plan
Then Joe spoke some more. He got that far without interruption and there must have been some listening to what he had to say. He added that taxes are already hurting the middle-income earners and discouraging them. That is what I have been saying-and Joe Boich, in front of his own minister, at a Liberal Association meeting, came to the same conclusion. His views indicate there is an undercurrent in this country. Then he had some more to say exactly along the line taken by the hon. member for Trinity. Joe expressed it in words the hon. member for Trinity did not use. Joe used simple, direct words: he said, "When we make it, you are going to take it away from us".
Mr. Speaker, those words deserve to be on every billboard in this country-"For God's sake, don't tax us any more. When we make it, you are going to take it away from us". What did the minister say? He did not answer that, but he said that if he listened to the opposition the taxes would be even higher. With all the billions of dollars being spent today, with the lack of examination of those expenditures by this Parliament and with the cry of Canadians everywhere, "Don't tax us any more", what does the minister say? The minister tells them they have not seen anything yet. If the Trudeau government goes back, the Canadian people will get a lesson. Do not think I am looking at this from a biased standpoint-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -because I am going to quote.


An hon. Member:: Look at the Davis government.


John George Diefenbaker: Over there in the lee section I know that the hon. gentleman from High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Deakon) reads the Christian Science Monitor. He is one of those gentlemen who always read this fine publication. Here is what the Christian Science Monitor had to say-and the writer is a thirty-second degree Liberal, Bruce Hutchison. It is dated July 1, Dominion Day. I do not like to quote but I must place his words before the House:
The ordinary Canadian, neither rich nor poor, has been warned by his government that he must pay for a large transfer of wealth from the fortunate to the unfortunate sectors of society.
The minister's speech is described as a blunt speech. It is not so blunt, however, that the point has not got over to the Canadian people. Then the article quotes the minister as having said:
We must convince the middle-income groups that they are the only source of income adequate enough for taxation to really aid low-income groups.
The article continues:
Already the government has moved to implement its warning by personal income tax cuts in the lower brackets and on corporation producing goods within Canada.
The resulting loss of revenues at the top and bottom of the scale will be made up, it is hoped, by higher taxes at the middle beginning next year. A temporary reduction of 3 per cent on all incomes will be withdrawn then and for the first time capital gains will be taxed.
It is not clear yet, however, that a basic shift in the tax burden can balance a budget of $16 billion which has increased by 50 per cent in the first four years of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberal government-

July 7, 1972
Division
What is said means a tremendous increase in taxation across this country for Canadians of the middle class. Sir, I wish I had more time because I would like to read some other prize bits in the minister's speech. However, everybody received a copy. Having handed out copies of this, the minister has not found a way of evading responsibility for telling the Canadian people that even though they think they have paid high taxes they have not seen the end yet.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Shall we now proceed to the consideration of private members' business?
[DOT]	(1600)


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Trinity objecting to our proceeding with private members' business?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have the unanimous consent of the House to extend the time for consideration of public business long enough to put the question on the motion for third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is suggesting what I was asking indirectly, that is, whether we should go to private members' business. In either event we require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the time for private members' business has arrived, and this government could have done much better for the poor people of Canada. Perhaps the next government will.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are nuts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not make a speech. The Chair inquires whether there is unanimous consent, and there is not unanimity.

July 7, 1972

It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions. Could we have order, please?
Before the Chair calls the motion which is on the order paper for today, perhaps I could take advantage of the fact that there are so many of us here at this moment to remind hon. members that later this afternoon, after royal assent when we return to the House, all hon. members are invited to room 16 to wish one another a pleasant holiday.

I will be glad to welcome my hon. colleagues who will meet in Room 16 after Royal Assent.

This cordial invitation is extended, of course, to the senior officers of the House and to members of the press gallery.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which reads as follows:
Government House, Ottawa,
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 7th day of July, at 4.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Colonel
Administrative Secretary



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville) moved:: That the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of preventing or delaying the showing in Windsor of corporation-produced television series or programs in order to sell these series or programs more profitably to broadcasting networks in the United States be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts for investigation and report.
C.B.C. Broadcasting Policy
He said: The background of this motion, Mr. Speaker, is that three times within the last year-and-a-half the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has denied to television station CKLW, channel 9, in Windsor the right to carry Canadian-produced television series being carried over the rest of the CBC network. The first two series, "Audubon Theatre" and "Adventures in Rainbow Country", where the CBC was the co-producer with independent producer Ralph Ellis of Manitou Productions in Toronto, were denied to CKLW-TV during the 1970-71 season. The withholding of the third series, "The Whiteoaks of Jalna", where the CBC was the sole producer, occurred in January of this year.
In the first two cases the series were erroneously released to CKLW-TV and withdrawn only after the CBC discovered its error. In fact, 22 of the 26 instalments of "Rainbow Country" were shown in Windsor before the series was withdrawn. With respect to "Jalna" the CBC intended a delay of nine months in the Windsor release after the January 23 premiere on the rest of the CBC network. However, when it was not able to sell "Jalna" to the American networks even with the sacrifice of the Windsor market, it allowed the series to begin in Windsor on June 18, a delay of five months rather than nine.
After the two instances of CBC discrimination against Windsor last year I raised the subject in the House on April 5, 1971, at the time of adjournment, and in reply the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State read a statement prepared by the CBC. In that statement the CBC claimed that it released all full network programs to all stations of the English television network, including affiliated stations such as CKLW-TV in Windsor, with three stated exceptions.
The exceptions were as follows: first, with respect to television series produced in the United States and acquired by the CBC from a Canadian distributor for full English television network release, in which case the rights acquired by the Canadian distributor seldom include Windsor, since American distributors regard Windsor as part of the Detroit market; second, with respect to television series produced in Canada by independent producers and acquired by the CBC from a Canadian distributor for full English television release, in which case the CBC usually defers for a period of some months the right to include Windsor in its network schedule in order to increase the private producer's chances for United States sales; third, with respect to television series produced in Canada which are cofinanced or co-produced by the CBC, in which case the CBC again usually defers its Windsor rights to assist the private production company with its cost-recovery problems. It is readily apparent that the "Jalna" series, which was produced entirely by the CBC with taxpayers' money, does not fall under any of these exceptions, and therefore by the CBC's own statement ought to have been released to CKLW-TV.
To amplify the problems which CKLW-TV has with border-protection clauses, I should like to underline that the station is denied about 25 hours a week of American programming which is available to all other stations in the CBC network. Included are such popular programs as Flip Wilson, The Carol Burnett Show, Laugh-In, The Par-

July 7, 1972
C.B.C. Broadcasting Policy
tridge Family, The Jimmy Stewart Show, Walt Disney productions and specials like those of Jacques Cousteau. In these cases the decision to deny the Windsor television station access to the programs is made by the American networks, in the interest of having Windsor viewers watch the programs on the network stations in Detroit.
An allied border-protection problem is the denial to Windsor sports fans of the opportunity of seeing hockey games played by Canadian teams which conflict with home engagements of the Detroit Red Wings, or baseball games played by the Montreal Expos which conflict with those of the Detroit Tigers. In such cases the programs are not available to viewers anywhere in the Windsor-Detroit area. Again the decision is made by American interests, and it might be assumed that the CBC is here in the position of an unwilling accomplice.
Even though American network programs denied to channel 9 remain available to Windsor viewers, there is still a serious consequence. Since CKLW-TV does not have first-run American network programs as lead-ins for Canadian programs, it is able to attract a much smaller proportion of the audience to Canadian productions than it would otherwise be able to do. As a result, channel 9 has only 23 per cent of the Windsor audience and only 7 per cent of the Detroit audience. It is worth remarking that the station is able to attract a higher 12 per cent of the Detroit market for its American programs even though these are limited to re-runs of earlier American network programs. Its best lead-in, however, is its 9 p.m. local news program. With respect to its competitive position vis-a-vis American stations in Detroit, CKLW-TV is further affected by the fact that CRTC regulations do not allow it to carry many of the advertisements that can be broadcast in the United States.
The financial situation of the station is of public relevance because it affects the quality of programming which it can afford and also because of the CBC's purchase of a 25 per cent interest in the station in 1970 and its contract to take over 100 per cent ownership on May 31, 1975. The Auditor General's report recently revealed that CKLW-TV lost $3,135,000 in its first 13 months of operation and that the CBC will eventually be responsible for all losses sustained by its present principal owners, Baton Broadcasting Ltd. of Toronto.
The bleak financial picture is somewhat alleviated by the fact that $838,000 of this initial loss was for depreciation in the value of feature films which Baton Broadcasting had had to purchase, along with the station, from the previous owners, RKO General, at Detroit market prices which are much higher than those for Windsor alone. The introduction of Canadian content quotas will prevent CKLW-TV from showing many of the films before its rights run out.
It is also worth remarking that CKLW-TV has been adjudged to have made such an imaginative contribution toward local programming that it has recently won the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' award as the Television Station of the Year for 1972. Its 9 p.m. local news program and its efforts to promote the United Community Service campaign have been especially outstand-

ing. It should be added that it makes no effort to do any local programming for Detroit. However, it remains true that the 40 per cent of the schedule which consists of U.S. re-runs has to finance the 60 per cent of the schedule which is Canadian. Channel 9 has a constant struggle to avoid being a re-run and old movie station.
The CBC has recently been subjected to criticism for entering into an allegedly one-sided deal in favour of Baton Broadcasting and its chief shareholder, Mr. John Bassett. However, this was not an ordinary market transaction but, rather, one into which the CBC was forced by the CRTC, which required it to assume an immediate equity position and to guarantee total acquisition in the near future. In return for the financing of the acquisition of the station by Baton Broadcasting and its turning it over to the CBC at the acquisition price at the end of a five-year period, the CBC agreed to reimburse Baton for its interest and carrying charges and for its share of any operating losses during the period.
This appears to be a reasonable enough arrangement for the CBC to enter into. At the same time, the station will tend to be a financial liability for the CBC when it takes it over in 1975. Indeed, since its advertising policy is more stringent than that of the CRTC, its financial position may well be worse than that of the present management.
Many of the financial disadvantages of CKLW-TV are inescapable regardless of who operates the station, but the CBC's own border-protection policy is not. It is this which adds the final indignity to the situation. Dr. George Davidson, president of CBC, was quoted by Ron Base in the Windsor Star of January 17, 1972, as saying in an interview: "The thing I'm concerned about is the position of the Windsor station when it becomes CBC-owned and operated. I'm saying frankly that when that happens it will have to be treated like any other CBC station." To a Windsorite these words are not so much a reassuring conclusion about what will happen in mid-1975 as a discouraging reiteration of the CBC's intention to maintain the status quo as long as it can. The CBC expresses, not repentance but confirmation in sin.
The peculiar reasoning behind the CBC's border-protection policy is highlighted by the attitude it displayed in April of this year regarding the televising of the quarterfinal games in the National Hockey League play-offs. Since the Detroit Red Wings did not gain the play-offs, there was no border-protection clause to interfere with channel 9's carrying the games. If the NABET strike had not been in progress at the CBC at the time, channel 9 could merely have joined the CBC network. However, as a result of the strike McLaren Advertising, which handles the television rights of the games for the NHL, transferred those rights to the CTV network from the CBC.
As a station whose licence from the CRTC provides that it should carry CTV programs, CKLW-TV applied to the CBC under its affiliation agreement for permission to carry this CTV program. The CBC refused permission on the ground that this would involve splitting the network. This argument struck television viewers in Windsor as a mere rationalization, in light of the CBC's willingness to split the network to the disadvantage of Windsor viewers
July 7, 1972

whenever there appeared to be a possibility of financial advantage to it in so doing.
The hockey deadlock was broken by a combination of two factors: CKLW-TV carried the CBC network program as it was required to do, but paid WTVS, channel 56, a non-network UHF station in Detroit, to carry the first quarter-final games for it on April 5 and 6. This pressure, coupled with probable pressure on the CBC from the CRTC, induced the CBC to change its policy on April 7, and from the third game onward CKLW-TV was allowed to join the CTV network to present the rest of the playoffs to Windsor sports fans.
In its statement of April 5, 1971, the CBC ranks the economic factor of increasing the private producer's chances for U.S. sales-and, presumably, its own chances where it is the sole producer, though, of course, it does not admit the possibility of border protection in such a case- over any cultural factors, or indeed over any economic factor relating to the well-being of channel 9. But in point of fact it has not succeeded in selling in the United States any of the programs denied Windsor, so that the economic benefit which it places above all else is not actual but is at best potential.
On the other hand, it has been shown that no actual financial detriment occurs by allowing channel 9 viewers to see programs in advance of or at the same time as the rest of the Detroit market. The BBC sold its series on "Henry VIII" to a major U.S. network even though it had been previously shown on channel 9. Even more striking is the fact that "Harvey", an American special shown on March 22 of this year, was seen on channel 9 at the same time as on U.S. stations. This resulted from the fact that "Harvey" was taped at John Bassett's production studios at CFTO-TV in Toronto and was also shown on the CTV network. Mr. Bassett successfully insisted that any show produced at his studios and shown on the CTV network must be made available to Windsor.
The only conclusion possible is that the CBC's giving in to border-protection pressures, real, potential or imaginary, is an indication of commercial ineptitude. In actuality, no benefit has accrued to the CBC from border protection. In actuality, no detriment has occurred to other networks which have refused to discriminate against Windsor. In actuality, there is no economic sense to the CBC's economic argument. I need hardly add that there is no non-economic argument to which the CBC could appeal, since its position is, from the socio-cultural viewpoint, an absurdity.
In sum, the CBC policy with respect to Windsor television is a tissue of contradictions. A CBC-produced television series was denied to Windsor viewers on January 23, 1972, in contravention of the CBC's own announced policy of April 5, 1971. Channel 9 is beggared by the CBC even though it will have to pick up in 1975 the deficit to which its own policies contribute. The CBC denies programs to Windsor to gain selling advantages in the United States and then fails to sell in that market.
The president of the CBC recognizes that the CBC will have to abandon as untenable in 1975 policies which it now insists on following. The network can easily be split to Windsor's detriment when it is deemed to be advantageous to the CBC, but when a program split would be
C.B.C. Broadcasting Policy
advantageous to Windsor it is found to be inconsistent and illogical. The CBC, which exists to promote Canadian culture, attempts to limit its availability in Windsor. Of such insubstantial stuff is the CBC's policy towards Windsor fabricated.
In conclusion, I would ask the House to support my motion to refer this CBC mistreatment of Windsor to the broadcasting committee for a thorough investigation, one which would allow the intensive questioning of top CBC officials. I am convinced that such a study and the eventual report of the committee would bring about a change in the present unenlightened and discriminatory policy of the corporation.
It may be, Mr. Speaker, that "Jalna" is the CBC's "Ed-sel", as president-designate Picard has remarked, but residents of the automotive city of Windsor have the expertise and judgment to carry out their own vehicle tests. It is this cultural choice, so vital to a healthy democratic society, which they are being denied by the CBC. I hope that the CBC will be able, like the rest of us, to accept the consequences of democracy.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that in what may be the last debate of the twenty-eighth Parliament we should be dealing with one of the aspects of national identity. There was a debate of short duration a couple of days ago arising out of the Dominion Day episode. That had to do with our identity. This debate, however, brings us into the equally important arena in which we ask, "How are we to hold on to things Canadian and maintain Canadian values when our large neighbour to the south threatens to overwhelm us?"
From the point of view of the economics of this situation, I would imagine that the Windsor area stands alone. If one examines all the other cultural confrontations along the American-Canadian border one realizes for instance, that Montreal is vast enough to overwhelm any influence of Palm Springs, Maine and similar areas on the other side of the border. Toronto, perhaps, has a much tougher time dealing with the influence of Buffalo; but it is a city large enough to cope adequately with the situation.
Windsor, smaller than Detroit, really is in the nutcracker in this problem. Western Canadian cities are large enough to hold off American challenges. That is the nature of this kind of economics. One area of Canada, represented by, among others, the hon. member who has just spoken, has been suffering because of the desire of some Canadians at least to make dents in the American television market.
If we examine the statistics regarding viewer preference of television stations, the Americans, being much more parochial than Canadians and much more nationalistic-minded, probably will not be seduced over to a Canadian station in any event. They tend to follow the mass media and basic television fare. Our noble experiments in Canada will attract but few.
As for "Jalna," perhaps it is a mercy that the residents of Windsor did not have to see it when the rest of us did. It gives the knowing Windsor person an opportunity to write
3888

July 7, 1972
C.B.C. Broadcasting Policy
to someone on the outside to find out what the series was all about. Maybe they could have the program translated into simple terms. It was an extraordinarily difficult production to follow. I enjoyed it, but I did not understand it.
This was a strange year in dealing with estimates of the government. One of the largest and most controversial agencies, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, did not have its representatives appear before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. This was partly due to the protracted labour difficulties that had gone on between the CBC and NABET. The fact is that when the deadline arrived by which the estimates were to be considered, those of the CBC were not subjected to scrutiny and, perforce, they were passed pursuant to the Standing Order of the House of Commons. It might have been there that the hon. member could have made his mark earlier this session. I realize that he is asking for this matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. I will support his motion in that regard, but it is a hollow thing. I do not imagine the members of that committee would be overjoyed with the prospect of trooping back to hold hearings this summer. In any event, the hon. member has not indicated that is what he wants to do.
I am sorry the hon. member did not take up this matter when the season of original shows was in full bloom, rather than the present season of re-runs. We could then have called witnesses. It would have given us a chance to examine the CBC on its philosophy without getting mixed up with their labour situation. Perhaps the most ironic factor in this whole strange business involving the Windsor television station is that the CBC, in the interest of expediency and trying to make some sales to the United States, found it necessary to turn its back on the mandate Parliament had given to it. The CBC was formed four decades ago to help Canada achieve its identity, stay together as a nation and help foster Canadians as actors, broadcasters, writers, musicians and all the fields of the dramatic arts. I think it would be this point which would most exercise us if we were to examine the Windsor problem in the broadcasting committee this summer. If not, it will certainly exercise the members of the broadcasting committee who will deal with it at the next session or in the new Parliament.
The CBC has always been tripped when it has shown itself to be overwhelmed by the cashbox mentality. In any event, it has not been conspicuously successful in that regard. It has certainly become a very bad cropper on this Windsor issue. It has left the people of that area down and has not shown a Canadian spirit by adopting the policy that it has adopted. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I will support the hon. member's motion.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) about the problems of the television station in Windsor, which is next door to the metropolis of Detroit. As the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) said, the general purport and philosophy of this motion will find favour with all members of the House. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville is aware of the problems surrounding private members' motions. In general, mem-

bers usually support each other's private motions and discuss them at length, so they rarely come to a vote. Even if this motion came to a vote, in view of the fact we are in the closing minutes of this session, and perhaps in the closing minutes of this twenty-eight Parliament, it is difficult to see what could be done in a meaningful way.
I listened carefully to the explanation of the motion. When I heard some of the scuttlebutt I thought the hon. member was moving a motion to have the House try to bring "Jalna" to the Windsor residents. I have great regard for the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. He was a very esteemed chairman of the constitutional committee which travelled from coast to coast dissecting or trying to arrive at a new charter for Canada. He came in contact with many Canadians. I am relieved to find that, being exposed to Canadians from coast to coast, he was not taking the time of the House to try to have "Jalna" brought to the people of Windsor, good people though they may be. As the hon. member said, "Jalna" has become an "Edsel." I watched it once or twice and I really started to wonder about the CBC.
I think another hon. member wants to contribute his thoughts in respect of another area of discrimination in television service. However, I would like to make a few points. I agree with the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants that it is rather ironic that in the closing hours of this session, or this Parliament we are talking about communications. Communications is one of the real problems in trying to define something that is called Canada. There was worry about the physical bindings which hold this country together, whether they are the CPR, the CNR or the Intercolonial Railway. It was the physical approach that helped to bind this nation. Now we have electronic highways, electronic air. But communications is one of the cohesives or adhesives of a nation.
In Atlantic Canada, where I come from, you turn on the news in western Nova Scotia and invariably get the cookie sale in the Moncton baptist church, or you turn on the news from CBC or CTV in western Nova Scotia and you find out what the Saint John Girl Guides have done at their Brownie festival.
The CBC should not only help to correct the problem of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville but should start to correct the discrimination existing in other areas of Canada, particularly in Atlantic Canada where all we get in Nova Scotia is news from New Brunswick-their news, their stories, their cookie fairs, New Brunswick teas. We are in Nova Scotia and we want Nova Scotia news. It is one thing to have an airport called Halifax, which sometimes gets fogged in, and to have to land in Moncton-I have nothing against Moncton or the province-but I would like to know what Quebec would do if the alternate airport serving a Quebec airport were in Ontario.
I think it is an insult to the jurisdiction of Nova Scotia that the alternative to the Nova Scotia airport should be in another province, four hours away from Halifax. But in transportation we have to accept the fact that sometimes there is fog in Halifax and we have to land in Moncton even though Greenwood, one of the best air bases in western Nova Scotia, is available and is free from fog.
July 7, 1972

The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), both former ministers of national defence, know the attributes of Greenwood and know there is no fog there. I am glad to be the member from this area which has no fog, even though sometimes I may try to create a little. Be that as it may, there is discrimination on the part of the CBC.
There are only a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, and there are many other serious things I wish to say. However the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville has brought to the floor of this House in the closing moments of this Parliament a question with respect to the CBC which I think every Canadian taxpayer wishes to see raised before the relevant committee of the House.
We did not take the opportunity this year to discuss the CBC estimates, because of the NABET strike. We did not want to get involved in that sensitive jurisdictional conflict. But the budget this year amounted, I think, to some $190 million. The fact is that the CBC during my time in the House over the last five years has more than doubled its operating budget. This makes the expenses for running the CNR a picnic by comparison. It is time we looked at the operations of this corporation. Maybe one of the good things emerging from the NABET strike is that Canadians managed without a CBC service and were able to live without it and enjoy the programs they received from alternative networks or through cablevision.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville mentioned the CRTC. There are a whole raft of problems connected with the CRTC, cable vision, Canadian content and the whole issue of communications. I, too, hope this whole list of items will be referred to the new broadcasting committee if there is a dissolution of this House before we next meet, or, should the House reconvene in September, that we will deal with it then.
As far as the NABET strike is concerned, it took us years in Atlantic Canada to get the national news at eleven o'clock, the same as every other Canadian community. For some incomprehensible reason, even though the strike is settled, we are still getting the national news at twelve o'clock. This may be thought to be a small and picayune point, but I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, if you watch the national news, that you imagine watching it around twelve o'clock until 12.30 or 12.45. Since we are such God-fearing folk in the east who go to bed early and like to get up early to work a hard day, that difference of an hour at night has quite an adverse effect on our physiology, let alone our psychology. So in these two ways we are affected.
I completely agree with the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. I was a member of the broadcasting committee and I know he was involved, indeed, overinvolved, in the constitutional issue. I referred to him in jest as the Marco-Polo of the constitution, the way he moved all across the country trying to resolve that large problem. Today, in the dying minutes of this session he is trying to resolve a more local problem. He has my deep sympathy. But I do not want it to stay there: the CBC must expedite its plans for satellite service in western Nova Scotia. It is not good enough to say we will get satellite coverage in Nova Scotia in five years to give us reception in Nova Scotia from Nova Scotia rather than getting it from Maine or New Brunswick.
C.B.C. Broadcasting Policy
As far as the national news is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I do not see why, if the staff is in Toronto and the equipment is there-and it was not damaged during the strike- a couple of people not sitting on their buttons could fail to send the national news at eleven o'clock right across this land. So the hon. member has my sympathy and I hope we do something about this problem in the new session.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the motion before us. I appreciate the motive of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) in the dying moment of this session and in the immediate pre-election period when something of this nature might be useful by way of improving his local fame.
Although I am prepared to consider his cry for some small thing of the nature of an alternative program, it does not seem very important to me. After all, I have to take into consideration the fact that almost 90 per cent of the geographical area of my constituency is not serviced by any kind of television service. Here we have a situation where the hon. member's constituents are exposed to a great variety of television stations and programs of all kinds, yet he is crying about them not being able to see "Jalna." Those of us who did see some of it, particularly myself, had a great desire to put a motion before the House to take the program off CBC television-and I am not trying to be critical of the efforts which were made by those who produced the show. I realize that those efforts were intended in part to effect an increase in Canadian content, but I think we all agree it was rather an amateur effort and in my opinion the viewers of Windsor-Walkerville did not miss much.
I should like to deal briefly with the absence of a television service in northern Alberta. Consider towns like Fort Vermilion, High Level and Fort Chippewyan, each having a population of 1,500 to 2,000 or more, where there is absolutely no exposure to direct television viewing at all. One of the biggest complaints I receive when I visit these areas is that my constituents do not have the opportunity tq see their Member of Parliament on television. That is a various serious matter, I think hon. members will agree.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It might be a blessing in disguise.


Paul Yewchuk: It is a very serious matter. People should be able to get the direct news and views from Parliament, to which they are entitled. The citizens of Windsor-Walkerville certainly have not suffered that kind of serious deprivation. Over the four years in which I have been here I think it is fair to say that the CBC has been involved in several controversies, whether over programming, lack of service to certain areas or labour relations. In any event, they seemed to be involved in greater difficulties than one would expect for a Crown corporation.
I have given this matter a great deal of thought and have several suggestions to make which I think would improve the efficiency of this corporation. I do not want to be misinterpreted: I do not want it to be thought that the people working in the CBC as reporters, those in the press gallery and in this area, are not doing a very fine job. Most of them are sincerely trying to do a fine job. But if you look at the corporation as a whole it is not very
3890

July 7, 1972
C.B.C. Broadcasting Policy
difficult to agree that there is a degree of efficiency lacking in the corporation. For example, if we look at the coverage given by the CBC of a convention or meeting and the coverage given by a private station, it would appear that almost always the CBC has at least double the staff of the private corporation.
I do not know whether that is the result of union demands, an effort to do a better job or is sheer inefficiency. But in view of the fact that it is a public corporation that is responsible to the public an operation that is paid for in large part out of the public purse, we should look at ways of making the operation a little more efficient. I think experience in the past in other areas have shown that some participation by private enterprise almost always has the effect of improving the efficiency of an operation of this kind or the operation of any kind of business.
Therefore, I suggest that consideration be given to the sale of part of the CBC to private enterprise, perhaps on a 50-50 basis or on some other basis, thus incorporating into the administration of the CBC that element of efficiency [DOT] which comes from private enterprise, which has to pay its own way. That suggestion is prompted in part by the fact that during the past four years I have been making efforts to get services into northern areas but have been told not to get too excited, that a satellite is just about to be fired into the sky and that everyone will receive TV service and be happy.
I cannot blame the CBC for the absence of such a satellite today. I can only blame the laziness of the government, as portrayed by a good number of its ministers involved in the satellite program. Four years ago I was told that a satellite would be up in two years. We are told today, four years later, that it will take another two years.
It is a little discouraging to my people back home constantly to write them year after year and say that we expect a satellite to be up in two years, that receiving stations will then be built and they will have the pleasure of receiving the same privilege as is enjoyed by the rest of the country and seeing direct television on a live basis.
I have received communications from some of the educators in the area, for example the principal of a school who did a study of student marks on current events and their knowledge of current activities in this country. It was his impression that those students who were not exposed to direct news and public affairs programs, or to television viewing, were less informed on various topics. Therefore, from the education point of view his conclusions were that it is definitely detrimental to students attending school in such areas to be denied such facilities. I would be inclined to agree that is probably true. There is no question that education is not the only matter of importance which is a benefit from viewing television; television is also recreational. Unfortunately, not all of the intended recreational programs are useful, though they do take up leisure time and, viewed as a whole, are probably worth while.
I conclude by suggesting to the hon. member that in general I think his motion has been a waste of time. There are some very serious problems facing the country today,

such as unemployment, with regard to which there have been no new initiatives recently by the government. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) asked today whether any new initiatives were being proposed by the government, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) replied there were none. We are all going home for the summer and are very disappointed at his statement since we were looking forward to talking to our constituents about something. If no new initiatives to combat unemployment are being taken, then the Prime Minister could at least have given us some new alibis to discuss with our constituents.
I see there is only one minister in the House, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), so I should like to ask him directly whether he would write down the names of the three towns of High Level, Fort Chipewyan and Fort Vermillion and ask the cabinet to make a greater effort to ensure that television service is extended to the people in those areas.
To get back to the satellite program, I have had further communication with the CBC and apparently there is a lot more to it than just getting a satellite into the sky. There is also the question of allocating funds and doing preliminary surveys, as well as planning for the construction of receiving stations. While I do not know for sure how long it will take to complete these aspects, I am inclined to think it will be two, three years or more. But if we have to wait another two years before the satellite is put in the sky-


Mr. Orange:: What about November 1?


Paul Yewchuk: Which year?


An hon. Member:: 1981.


Paul Yewchuk: My hon. friend says it will be November 1, 1981, which is even later than I imagined. If it is sent up sooner, I will consider that a bonus. Then we must add the time required to obtain all the preliminary information that is necessary to deliver materials to isolated areas, and staff must be recruited to construct the receiving stations. So it appears very much as if it will take a significant period of time before the people, not only in my northern Alberta constituency but in the constituency of the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), who is not taking this matter very seriously, receive television service.


An hon. Member:: He knows more about it than you do.


Paul Yewchuk: I am informed the hon. member for Northwest Territories knows more about it than I do, and that is quite possible. I hope he speaks as soon as I sit down and shares his knowledge with the House. I have been in fairly frequent and close contact with the CBC-I would say, in continuous contact-but I have not yet been given the information that this satellite is being sent up on November 1. I have been given the information that it may still be a couple of years away, and I would be inclined to think that is closer to the truth.
I see the hon. member for Northwest Territories is very anxious to participate in the debate. While I realize he is retiring from active political life, I am sure he is still interested in speaking for his constituents who are very
July 7, 1972

keen to receive direct, live television coverage as soon as possible. I had the opportunity and the pleasure to visit one of the major towns, Yellowknife, in his constituency about a month ago. I was quite impressed with the degree of desire by his constituents to have a receiving station built there. Apparently no effort has yet been made in that direction. I am a little amazed that the hon. member has not seen to it that construction has been commenced, since he states he had the information that a satellite would be launched by November 1. It seems to me that construction of such a receiving station should have been well under way by this time.
[DOT]	(1650)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT]	(1700)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-183, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code-Chapter No. 18.
Bill C-5, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act-Chapter No. 19. Bill C-215, an act to amend the Pension Act-Chapter No. 20.
Bill C-230, an act to provide for the resumption of the operation of the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec-Chapter No. 22.
Royal Assent
Bill C-203, an act to amend the Representation Commissioner Act-Chapter No. 21.
Mr. Speaker:: Before we adjourn I should like to remind hon. members that tney are invited to join me in Room 16. It will be an occasion to extend greetings and to wish one another pleasant holidays and good luck in any event that may occur in the months ahead.

Evidently, I would ask my hon. colleagues to join me in a moment.

I would also like to add one word. Earlier today hon. members were kind enough to extend warm congratulations to my humble person in the discharge of my work as Speaker. I think at that time I should have acknowledged that any measure of success of the Speaker depends on the co-operation of hon. members. It depends also on the assistance, guidance and counsel of the officials of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: On numerous occasions in the past I have had occasion to remind the House, to remind visitors to Parliament and those interested in this institution, of the magnificent contribution made to the House of Commons by our distinguished Clerk, our distinguished Sergeant-at-Arms and the Clerk Assistants who make it possible for us to perform, if I may use the word, and to do our work from day to day as parliamentarians.

On behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank them sincerely and to wish them happy holidays, which they well deserve.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: You are an outstanding Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.06 p.m., pursuant to special order made July 6, 1972, until Thursday, September 28, 1972, at 2 o'clock p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday. August 31, 1972