1972-03-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43, the subject matter of which has to do with the derogatory statements made of and concerning a professional public servant which, unless challenged, will be a precedent, making public servants defenceless and undermining the fundamental concept of ministerial responsibility and the traditional relationship between ministerial heads of departments and their employees, both professional and otherwise, of the civil service. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That the subject matter of the public statements made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development pertaining to the report entitled, "The Bankslanders: Economy and Ecology of a Frontier Trapping Community," and in particular the minister's disparaging references to the professional competence of Dr. Peter Usher, a geographer employed in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or other appropriate committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. gentleman's motion is proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Turned down by the Liberals again.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.



HOUSING


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent to move a motion under Standing Order 43 arising out of the serious allegations about the operations of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in this week's leak and the need for hon. members to have the document in question before the tabling of the CMHC capital budget as well as its annual report. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That an order of this House be issued for a copy of a study prepared for the CMHC task force on low-income housing entitled "The Adequacy and Production of Low-Income Housing" by Melvin Charney in collaboration with Serge Carreau and Colin Davidson.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion proposed under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT. 1971

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Speaker:: As has been indicated previously, some of the private members' public bills before us are questionable from the point of view of the Chair in relation to procedure. It is the feeling of the Chair that in some instances some of these bills might infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown. It is the feeling of the Chair that this is a very important rule, indeed, a paramount rule, and unless the House is prepared to recognize that the rule does not continue to exist an effort should be made by hon. members, by the House and certainly by the Chair on behalf of hon. members, to see that we do not change this long-established practice that bills, motions and resolutions which tend to infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown be not allowed to proceed unless they are preceded, of course, by a recommendation from His Excellency. This is basically and generally the objection I have to a number of these bills.
Out of the ten to which reference has already been made three might be allowed to proceed without argu-

March 24, 1972
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 ment. I have reference to the one standing in the name of the hon. member for Brant, on which the Chair is prepared to put the motion, the one standing in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw and a third one in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Although there are some reservations, the Chair is quite prepared to give the benefit of the doubt in these three instances and to put the motions.
In the case of the other seven bills presented for introduction by hon. members I would think there are possible difficulties and I would be prepared to hear arguments on each one of them as it is proposed. I would suggest that in order to save time, because this might be a protracted procedure, I will reserve my ruling and perhaps give it to the House later today or on Monday. For the moment the Chair will put the first motion in the name of the hon. member for Brant.



AMENDMENT TO EXCLUDE SICK LEAVE PAY FROM EARNINGS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Howard, Skeena (for Mr. Blackburn) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-177, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: This is a simple bill. It seeks to correct one of the chaotic abuses that have resulted from the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission since the introduction of the new legislation on the first of this year. It provides that sick leave pay shall not be classified as earnings for the purpose of receiving benefits.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre (for Mr. Skoberg) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-178, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (labour disputes).
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when the new unemployment insurance measure was before the committee last year it was the feeling of many of us that the provisions regarding involvement in a labour dispute went too far. It included people who were really not directly involved. The purpose of this bill is to correct that mistake.


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

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-179, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (maternity benefits).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to rectify a provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act which gives a woman a certain definite number of weeks before and after her confinement when she is covered by unemployment insurance. This amendment would permit elasticity in choosing the number of weeks before and after confinement.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Gilbert-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971".
Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Howard, for Mr. Gilbert, seconded by Mr. Knowles, move for leave to introduce a bill intituled "An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971".
As I have indicated, and I repeat, there may be some question from a procedural standpoint relating to the possible infringement upon the financial initiative of the government in reference to this and subsequent bills. I would be pleased to hear argument if hon. members would care to express their views on this particular point.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if I may comment, I think the fact there are a number of bills on the order paper relating to the Unemployment Insurance Act reflects what almost everybody in the country knows has been a confused and chaotic situation this last winter with interminable delays in the payment of benefits to claimants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot argue the bill itself. I would hope we would limit the discussion to the strictly procedural aspect.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I am just saying that in that context this bill attempts to correct those abuses and that the argument relating to this bill procedurally probably has some application to the others as well because they seek to correct the same situation.
When the Unemployment Insurance Act was amended and the new act came into existence one of its provisions also sought to amend the Income Tax Act so as to declare that workmen's compensation payments to injured workmen would be liable to tax. Previous to that time such payments had never been liable to tax. The purpose of the bill is to change the existing situation.
March 24, 1972

With respect to the financial initiative of the Crown, the bill does not actually infringe upon that financial initiative and does not seek to authorize the expenditure of public funds in that regard. It just seeks to return the situation to that which previously obtained. If there is a procedural doubt in Your Honour's mind, then we say that the particular rule, if it applies to this bill, is archaic in any event. This amendment affords an opportunity for the government, which is responsible for all the confusion over the Unemployment Insurance Act and the delays and difficulties that people are experiencing with it, to correct that situation. If there is some doubt in Your Honour's mind about the procedural acceptability of the bill, then it falls upon the government to say that they will agree to permit the introduction of these bills in an attempt to overcome the confusion and delay that exist at this time. I do not think that in this instance the government should insist on our following an archaic rule to the letter, nor in the case of the other bills, because it was government mismanagement which brought about the difficulties in the first place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Are there any further arguments on this bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is one word I should like to add. During recent debates, of which there have been many, on income tax matters, it was frequently ruled by the Chair, usually when we were in Committee of the Whole, that provided amendments that relieved individuals of taxation did not directly impose a tax on someone else, those amendments were in order. We had a few such rulings during the debate on the income tax bill in the previous session, and there has been a similar ruling earlier this week on a bill before us in this session. I suggest that the effect of this measure is to relieve certain persons of taxation. It does not impose a tax anywhere else and, therefore, on that ground it should be considered as being within the prerogative of a private member.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will take the matter under advisement. The next bill is in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Frank Howard: May I introduce the next bill on behalf of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, Mr. Speaker.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING BENEFITS RECEIVED BY INDIANS ON RESERVES

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Rose-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (Indian reserve rights)".
Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Howard, for Mr. Rose, seconded by Mr. Knowles, moves for leave to introduce a bill intituled "An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (Indian reserve rights)". Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have, of course, the same reservations about this bill as I had about the previous one. If there are any arguments that the hon. member for Skeena wishes to advance in support of the procedural acceptability of the bill, the Chair will hear them.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, when you asked, "shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill", I hoped that Your Honour had reviewed the situation with respect to this measure. It is somewhat different. Basically, what is involved here procedurally is this: the Indian Act declares that income received by an Indian on a reserve is not liable to taxation. An Indian does not pay tax on income he receives on a reserve. The amendment is a very simple one. It provides that unemployment insurance benefits payable to an Indian who is a claimant under the Unemployment Insurance Act and is ordinarily resident on a reserve shall also fall within that same protection and that such income shall not be liable to taxation. It merely seeks to correct an error made when the new Unemployment Insurance Act was passed by parliament and to carry into law the traditional, historic right of native Indians not to have their incomes on Indian reserves taxed or liable to taxation. It seeks to clarify the situation by providing that unemployment insurance benefits, although ordinarily liable to be taxed, shall not be taxed when paid to an Indian who is ordinarily resident on an Indian reserve.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is no further comment on the procedural aspect of the bill, perhaps hon. members may wish to let the matter stand. The bill that follows is in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING TAXATION OF BENEFITS AT SOURCE

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Harding-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (no tax at source)".
Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Harding, seconded by Mr. Knowles, moves for leave to introduce a bill intituled "An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (no tax at source)".
I again bring to the attention of hon. members that there is some procedural difficulty. I will hear argument if hon. members have arguments in relation to this bill different from those which have already been proposed.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the legislation is in order. Actually there is no real change. The amendment will allow the whole benefit payment rather than reducing it by making an income tax deduction at source. It does not change the intent of the act to consider benefit as income. It merely suggests that payment be made at the end of the year instead of on a weekly basis. We feel that in many cases the workman will be receiving back some of his income and he will need it at the time he receives his cheque rather than several months after the end of the year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will you permit me for a moment to underline

March 24, 1972
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
what the hon. member has said. Your Honour did ask that any arguments in relation to this bill should be distinctive, that is, they should be different from the arguments we have advanced generally.
I suggest that the proposal in this bill really does not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown at all. The taxability of Unemployment Insurance benefits remains intact. The only difference is that the individual will not have to compute and pay that tax until the end of the year rather than on a weekly basis when the Unemployment Insurance benefit is received.
The fact of the matter is that the Unemployment Insurance benefit that that worker is receiving is less than his normal pay. There is no telling what will be his total position for the calendar year. It may be that at the end of the year he will get back the amount which was deducted from his benefit. On the other hand, if he has done well, returned to work and his income is high, he will have to pay. Perhaps I am getting a bit into an argument on the substance of the bill, but I am simply trying to make the point that in terms of dollars and cents and in terms of what the treasury has to gain or lose, there will be no change as a result of this bill. It is only a matter of convenience to the unemployed worker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened with interest to the views expressed by both hon. members and will take their argument under consideration.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING HOLIDAY PAY

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Peters-Bill  Intituled@: "An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (holiday pay)''.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the same argument which applied to the bill Your Honour allowed respecting sick leave pay applies to this bill. In the case of all these bills it seems to me that the only argument that can be advanced against them is that these matters are the responsibility of the Crown and that we are infringing on the Crown in relation to them.
The bill that amended the Unemployment Insurance Act established some new rules and provided for changes in the original act. However, in the original act and in other pieces of legislation severance pay and bonuses accumulated over a period of time in our opinion were not intended to be included as earnings and certainly not calculated over the period when those sums of money would not normally be available.
When holiday pay legislation was originally passed in the province of Ontario there was a time element placed on it. The worker received stamps in his book. He could not cash those stamps until July 2 of the year following the earning of those stamps. They were specifically collected by the worker to provide for a holiday period. The amount was not considered as earnings. It was part of the pay schedule. This was not the intention of the legislation but it was the intention of the regulations.
We are not now asking for a payment from the Crown. We are not redistributing the money the Crown has

raised. All we are doing is exempting something which does not belong in the calculations of benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I presume that Your Honour's objection to these bills stems from the situation that the moneys are not now in a fund directly linked with the Unemployment Insurance Commission but are included in general revenue and that in a technical sense all moneys paid for unemployment insurance through the collection made by the Department of National Revenue become moneys of the Crown. I suggest this is a technicality. There is a lot of bookkeeping in the process and the situation has really not changed since the unemployment insurance fund lost its old form and became a revolving fund. The moneys paid for holiday pay will make no difference as far as the tax structure of the nation is concerned and the question of whether this involves a change in taxation should not enter into our consideration because I believe there is a difference between moneys collected to pay for unemployment insurance benefits, or expenditures made on behalf of the unemployment insurance fund, and taxes which flow into general revenue. If this is not the case, the country will be very surprised to find that unemployment insurance is a welfare measure operated by the consolidated revenue fund rather than an unemployment insurance fund. I do not think even the government has that intention.


Mr. Speaker:: The bill will stand.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING RETIREMENT BENEFIT

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Peters-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (retirement benefit)".
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, this bill was placed on the order paper more for clarification and interpretation than probably a change. In looking at the Unemployment Insurance Act which we passed recently there is by a simple reading of that act a three-week retirement period for persons who have either made an application under the Canada Pension Plan or have reached the age of 70.
This has been interpreted to mean that a person who is already on a major claim that has paid 20 weeks benefits is entitled to three weeks. But if he is drawing benefits when he reaches 70 the interpretation has been to discontinue the payments. This is a clarification indicating that those three weeks to which he is entitled will be paid to him after he has reached his seventieth birthday.


Mr. Speaker:: The bill will stand.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING BENEFITS AT TIME OF RETIREMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (benefits at time of retirement)".
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is simple. I realize I am not introducing the bill at this point, but the purpose leads
March 24, 1972

into the procedural question. The purpose of this bill is to provide that section 31 of the Unemployment Insurance Act shall not apply until the year 1977.
Section 31 of the Act is the section which denies people, unemployment insurance benefits except for a three-week period if they are 70 years of age or over or have applied for benefit under the Canada Pension Plan. I suppose Your Honour looks at this and says it means that certain persons will be drawing benefits, if this bill goes through, which they would not otherwise draw during this transitional period. That was the purpose of my putting it this way-just to provide a transitional period. Your Honour may feel that if they were drawing money which they would not otherwise draw, it would have to come out of the treasury.
May I remind you that the present structure of the new Unemployment Insurance Act is one in connection with which there is no federal contribution. Charges are levied against employers and employees. Under the old act there was a tripartite basis for the making of contributions. Under the new one, there is only a bipartite arrangement. I know there are certain points at which the government comes into the picture, but the basic structure is one in which only employers and employees pay.
There is a similar situation with respect to the Canada Pension Plan. Some private members' bills touching the Canada Pension Plan have been allowed on the basis of this same argument, namely, that the Canada Pension Plan is financed entirely by employers and employees without any government contribution being made thereto. It is on this basis that I contend that the bill we are considering does not infringe the financial prerogative of the Crown.
Then there is the point which my hon. friend from Timiskaming raised, namely, that there does not presently exist an unemployment insurance fund, that the money goes in and out of consolidated revenue. But in terms of bookkeeping I suggest that if this bill were allowed, and if it cost any additional money, it would result in an increase in the amount which employers and employees would have to pay. On this basis I contend it is not a bill which infringes the financial prerogative of the Crown.
There is one other point I wish to make. Your Honour might find it unusual, coming from me, but the argument is a sound one anyway. There is another place in this building. It still exists, despite years and years of efforts on my part to get rid of it.


An hon. Member:: Like you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In that place a gentleman from Saskatchewan-he is Hon. Hamilton McDonald-has introduced a bill which goes further than mine does. He wants to abolish section 31 completely. That bill has been introduced and given first reading in the other place.
If my bill infringes the financial initiative of the Crown because it postpones the application of section 31 for five years, then the other certainly does so to an even greater extent. Not only are private members of the other place denied the right to introduce bills trespassing on the financial initiative of the Crown, but that prohibition
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
applies to the Senate as a whole; that body cannot deal with, or pass, what we call in general terms a money bill. There was an instance a year or two ago of a government bill wnich was passed in the Senate. When it came over here we discovered it was a money bill, and after a point of order had been raised Your Honour ruled that it could not be proceeded with as a bill from the Senate; it had to be introduced by the government in this House.
My point is that a bill that is similar to this, with the exception that it goes further, has been allowed by the Speaker of the Senate as in order. That means that in his view that bill does not infringe the financial initiative of the Crown. I believe that Your Honour and His Honour the Speaker of the Senate are on good terms and communicate with each other. Therefore I am happy to suggest that since Your Honour is reserving judgment you might discuss this matter with him. Whatever one may think about the other place, I am sure we would not want to be practising an inconsistency or want that place to be able to grant a right that is denied this House. I hope Your Honour will find this bill is procedurally in order.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING WAITING PERIOD AND DELAY IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Howard (Skeena)-Bill Intituled: "An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (justitia pro societas)".
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I know that on the first day when these bills might have been introduced Your Honour raised some question about the construction of the Latin in the subtitle to the bill. All I was trying to do, though realizing it was inaccurate grammatically, was to put the concept of the just society in its proper place, namely, in the past, indefinite, indeterminate tense that it always has been.


Mr. MacEachen:: What sort of tense is that?


David Lewis: The imperfect past.


Frank Howard: Without dealing with the substance of the bill, as I will when Your Honour permits it to be introduced on another day, I might just say that it does involve an expenditure of funds out of the unemployment insurance account. This is an expenditure to eliminate the two-week waiting period and to impose a penalty on the commission in the form of an additional benefit to be paid claimants whose claims have been delayed through no fault of their own.
I submit that the arguments which have been advanced by my colleagues from Timiskaming and Winnipeg North Centre about this expenditure not being from public funds are accurate. This is not money that would be available to the Crown to spend in any way. It is not money that is raised by taxation or by a general levy for public purposes. All the government is in this regard is the custodian of money provided by employees and employers. Inasmuch as the money is not public funds and it is not money under the authority and control of the government, except in a technical, custodial sense, I

March 24, 1972
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
submit there should be no question of any infringement of the right of the Crown to expend public funds.
The other matter Your Honour should consider is this. Even if it is determined that, in the strict legal sense, yes, perhaps this does infringe upon what you might call the financial initiative of the Crown, I think in this day and age account should be taken of the fact that people who have complaints, who have experienced difficulties with, and been disadvantaged by, the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in its administration and dispensing of money to those people who contributed the funds in the first place, should have some avenue that enables them to come before parliament with their complaints instead of having to go to this unknown thing called the Crown. Further, I submit that private members representing citizens all across the land should have the opportunity to raise such complaints and grievances in a formal way by proposing they be corrected through the introduction of a bill.
An interesting note-and this is the last of the series of ten bills dealing with people who have been disadvantaged-is that not a single member of the government has in any way objected to the procedure on these bills. They have advanced no procedural arguments against them. In this regard, because the government is sensitive to these matters and to the disadvantages suffered by claimants through delay and so on, I suggest the silence of the government means it consents to the introduction of these bills.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reinforce the argument advanced in support of these bills. As an individual member I am not of the opinion that we are infringing the prerogative of the Crown to raise money or to distribute money by means of taxation. The Crown has responsibility for moneys that are deposited in the fund and for how they are spent, but this does not upset the balance of ways and means. If this bill were a government measure, I suggest it would not be preceded by a resolution.
For this reason, I hope Your Honour does not make the decision that measures relating to moneys that are on deposit-I am thinking of the Canada Pension Plan, annuity plans and similar schemes in which the government has money on deposit-should be considered as in the same class as a taxation or revenue measure.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members who have participated in the procedural debate. I shall have an opportunity later today or perhaps over the weekend to look at the arguments which have been advanced in support of each bill, and to review the bills from a procedural aspect, and without delay I shall indicate to hon. members which bills, if any, can be proposed to the House. Then hon. members can proceed further in light of the ruling that will be made at that time.
There is a late addition to the notices received under the name of the hon. member for Skeena. However, I do not have a copy of the bill. I would think that, although there is a notice, since there is no bill the matter cannot, of course, be put to the House at this time.


Frank Howard: I was going to ask that the order stand in any event, Mr. Speaker, for the very reason that the bill is not yet fully complete.



TERRITORIAL SUPREME COURTS BILL


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the first reading of Bill S-3 (from the Senate), to change the names of the Territorial Court of the Yukon Territory and the Territorial Court of the Northwest Territories.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statements made this week by the governor of the Bank of Canada and the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission clearly warning Canadians that they must expect inflation in this country to rise considerably during the present year, would the Acting Prime Minister very briefly indicate to the House what steps the government is planning to take to stop this serious and continuing rise in the rate of inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has to take exception to a question that asks a minister or the government to make a statement as general as this. Even if the hon. member qualifies his question by suggesting that the list be brief or the enumeration be short, I would think a question such as this is not in order. The hon. member might like to rephrase his question and to put it in some other way for the consideration of the Chair.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, then I would ask the Acting Prime Minister, in view of the statements made by these two gentlemen this week, is the government prepared to introduce any measures other than those already introduced to stop inflation from rising?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of hon. gentlemen that the rate of inflation in Canada in the last several months has been the lowest of any of the major industrial nations of the world. It will be the intention of the government to continue the expansion of the economy while containing inflation, and constant studies are under way from week to week with all agencies of the government to that end.


George Harris Hees: Another Paul Martin. Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is this: In view of the nonanswer given by the
March 24, 1972

Acting Prime Minister, is the opinion of the government the same as that of the Prime Minister when he expressed his opinion-and I quote his words-that inflation is licked?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.


George Harris Hees: Could we have an answer to that, Mr. Speaker?



HOUSING


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask some questions of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who was not scheduled to be here but, who I congratulate for being here this morning. In view of the leak of a report by three professors of the University of Montreal regarding the operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I should like to know whether he would agree to table that report at the earliest possible moment.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister oi State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, whatever leaks there may be appear to be from the authors and not from CMHC. The comments I have seen in the press are neither new nor very original. Because there are so many reports which have been made within the corporation during the last little while, I have asked for a complete review for myself concerning which ones should be made public and which ones should not be.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. The head of CMHC has already commented-and I quote from the newspaper report- that this report is bloody nonsense. In view of the fact also that there are five additional reports according to the newspaper, indeed six reports altogether which have been prepared as a result of the task force, may I ask the minister how soon he will inform the House which of these reports will be made public so that the peode of Canada and members of parliament may have a better understanding of the role of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the National Housing Act on an issue as important as housing in Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, when my review of the question is finished. I had intended to table the annual report of the corporation today which indicates, contrary to some statements that have been made, that 83.2 per cent of the present budget is allocated for low-income programs. I must admit I have devoted most of my attention, as indicated in the Speech from the Throne and in my speech of a week ago last Monday, to getting before the House as soon as possible new housing legislation to correct some of the mechanisms we now have to improve housing in Canada.


David Lewis: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inform the House how long his departinquiries of the Ministry
merit and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have had these reports, because I am informed it has been quite a time? May I ask the minister what exactly the department is trying to hide in refusing to make these reports public?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might like to reply to the first part of the question, but the hon. member will appreciate that the second part of his question is hardly acceptable procedurally.


David Lewis: It is a statement of fact, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The reports have been received over a period of time whenever they were finished and submitted and the department has been devoting its attention to reviewing the National Housing Act and putting proposals before me and my predecessor in the government.



AVAILABILITY OF REPORT ON LOW INCOME HOUSING PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF ESTIMATES BY COMMITTEE

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. In view of the indictment in the report to the effect that the much touted special innovative program to help low-income groups a couple of years back was a failure, will the minister assure the House that the report in respect of which my friend and I are asking questions will be made available to interested members by the time when the housing estimates go to the committee.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered that question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Greenwood for a last supplementary and then I think in fairness the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Compton.



INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. In light of the apparent fact that the task force report advocates a rehabilitation program immediately to replace present stop-gap measures, will the minister assure the House that the promised legislation on this subject will be brought to the House very soon?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the government's position was indicated in the Speech from the Throne and in my speech to the House of a week ago Monday in which it was made clear that legislation dealing with a number of housing subjects would be proceeded with just as fast as we can.

March 24, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister?
As the Governor of the Bank of Canada has expressed concern over the deficit trend in of our balance of payments, would the minister indicate if the Canadian dollar will remain stable or if it will be affected by this trend?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I apologize but I did not understand the question of the hon. member.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question.
As the Governor of the Bank of Canada has expressed concern over the deficit trend in our balance of payments, would the minister indicate if the Canadian dollar will remain stable or if it will be affected by this trend?


Arthur Laing: Well, Mr. Speaker, of course the position of the dollar is affected from day to day and week to week by various circumstances internally and externally. It is the intention of the government to continue to pursue policies designed to keep the dollar as stable as possible to create the best conditions for both exporters and businessmen within the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the Chair undertook to give some priority today to a few of our colleagues who rose without success yesterday and for a few moments I should like to try to live up to this commitment. The hon. member for Churchill.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the great concern being evidenced both in Churchill, Manitoba, and Winnipeg regarding a reported change in policy which would mean that the annual requirements of the Keewatin area in the Northwest Territories would be supplied out of Montreal instead out of the port of Churchill as has been the case for many years, can the minister inform the House whether in fact supplies are to go out of Montreal instead of Churchill this summer?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in policy in so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned in this area.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reply of the minister, but in view of the fact that the Minister of Transport has advised me there has been no change in policy in that department, I would ask the minister whether he would look into the report that all the supplies for the Northwest Territories which normally went out of Churchill in past years are this year to go out of Montreal? Would he look into that and report to the House?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have already had word of that report and I am looking into it but, as I say, it does not reflect any change in my department.


POST OFFICE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the postal union contract expires next week, can the minister advise the House of the most recent progress in the negotiations?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: No,
Mr. Speaker, other than to say that progress is being made. I think the hon. member would agree that a detailed report would not be helpful.


Alfred Dryden Hales: In view of a possible breakdown in the negotiations, can the minister give the assurance that the people of Canada will not be inconvenienced and business suffer great losses and cost as they did at the time of the previous breakdown?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the question is based on the assumption of a breakdown, it is unfounded and consequently hypothetical.


POSSIBLE BREAKDOWN OF NEGOTIATIONS- CONTINGENCY PLANS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General relating to the one that has just been asked. In the event of a breakdown in the negotiations, what contingency plans does the government have to ensure the continuance of vital Post Office services?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the kind of question on which it is difficult to rule. The hon. member prefaced his question with "in the event", which makes the question hypothetical. At the same time I think it is valid to ask whether contingency plans are being made. A question posed in those terms is in order and perhaps the parliamentary secretary might like to reply on that basis.


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: I do not believe there is any indication that this will happen as negotiations are proceeding at a much more rapid pace than we had anticipated previ-

March 24, 1972

ously. I am sure that if such an event should occur the department is prepared to look after any circumstances as they arise.	-


HOUSING
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to table the capital budget of CMHC soon and why is it now two months later than it has been in the past two years?


Stanley Ronald Basford: believe it has been tabled, but I will check into it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture?
As he met with his provincial counterparts to discuss the small farms development program, for which $150 million were appropriated, would the minister report to the House progress made in negotiations with the provinces on this program, as several provinces recently objected to the terms of application of the program?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the last meeting I had with the provincial ministers was on February 14. In so far as the features of the program for the farmers are concerned there has been a great deal of progress, but as to the division of administrative responsibility between the two levels of government I regret I have to report that there has not been a great deal of progress.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask him whether this is because the provinces do not agree with the assumption that their administrative officials should be charged with the responsibility of carrying out what is essentially a federal program? Is this where the difference lies?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I think that, on balance, it would be the other way; they wish to assume more of the responsibility than we had suggested with us paying for it.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he would be willing to consider setting up individual methods of application for this program with each one of the provinces, that is to negotiate with
Inquiries of the Ministry
each one instead of applying the policy uniformly across the nation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the stage at which we are now. At the meeting on February 14 I think it was generally agreed that one administrative plan applicable in precisely the same way to all the provinces was not capable of being reached, and we are now attempting to negotiate with each province bilaterally.


PROGRAM TO ASSIST SMALL FARMERS-NEGOTIATIONS WITH PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to ask the
Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, whether discussions are at present going on between the government of Prince Edward Island and his department with regard to the initiation of the small farm program in that province in the near future?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not directly with P.E.I. at present although we have extended to that province the same invitation as to all other provinces. I think only three provinces have replied that they are ready to start these negotiations, but P.E.I. is not one of those that has replied to date.


FEED GRAIN-POSSIBILITY OF FREE INTERPROVINCIAL MOVEMENT
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture who of course is always interested in assuring that farmers have the largest possible income. I therefore ask him whether or not the government is giving consideration to making it possible for farm producers of feed grains on the Prairies to ship them to any part of Canada regardless of whether movement is otherwise controlled by the provinces?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sure that the right hon. member would be cognizant of the fact that if there were no restrictions such as those imposed at provincial borders at present it would completely break down the system of quotas which allocates the market fairly amongst all the producers, thereby leading to the destruction of that system which, in my view, would be undesirable.


John George Diefenbaker: That does not answer my question. The hon. gentleman should learn from the Acting Prime Minister who today showed what experience can do when it comes to answering questions. There is no substitute for experience. I ask the minister simply whether or not consideration is being given to making it possible for farmers to dispose of their feed grain regardless of provincial authorities or jurisdiction.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not think it would be proper for me to comment on the propriety of provincial legislation or programs which would flow from that legislation within the provinces.

March 24, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Is the answer a simple "no", instead of a multitude of equivocation?


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


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Francis Andrew Brewin: My question is addressed to the Acting Minister of National Defence, but I am not quite sure who he is. Has the attention of the minister been called to the recent lay-off of 50 employees at the Canadian Forces Base, Chatham, New Brunswick, with a consequent loss of jobs, seniority, retirement plan and other benefits and the serious effect of this lay-off in the already depressed situation? What action is the government taking to provide alternative employment for those affected?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been brought to the attention of the Acting Minister of National Defence and all possible steps that can be taken at present are being taken.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps someone over there could tell us where the Minister of National Defence is and whether he is alive and well.


Mr. Fairweather:: He has gone on a trip with Henry Kissinger.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would the acting minister accept some persuasion from this side of the House to have his colleagues reconsider this program of lay-offs at the end of March since it affects not only Chatham but all bases right across the country and in fact hundreds of men are being laid off at a time when unemployment continues at an unacceptably high level?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is alive and well. At the present time he is visiting Canadian bases, as he should, and on his return he will be given notice of the question asked by the hon. member.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Is it the policy of the Treasury Board, in negotiating contracts with public servants working in different parts of Canada, to try to settle wage rates on a regional basis?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In
principle, yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Why does the government attempt to institutionalize the dilemma that faces this country, the dilemma of regional disadvantages and disparities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that the way the supplementary question is asked it is inviting debate, but if the minister wishes to reply perhaps he will be allowed to do so briefly.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is not a question but an argument that is being presented. I would reply by saying it is not true that an attempt is being made to institutionalize our problems. This is an attempt to bring about, in an orderly way, a greater measure of unity.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
In view of continuous submission of petitions from weanling producers calling for financial assistance as compensation for losses incurred during 1971, may I ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture whether he would be prepared to have this special problem considered in order to give, if warranted, a favourable reply to this class of producers who, according to the petition I received this morning, are calling for payment of a certain amounx per brood sow?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that we intend to pay this deficiency payment to those who market finished hogs. It seems to me that the hon. member has raised this question before, and he has agreed with me that the possibility of paying on the same hog more than once, if one were to make the payment at any other point in the marketing system, would be very high, and therefore it is not desirable.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
I would ask the hon. minister-although I have already put this question I believe we did not quite understand each other-whether he would be prepared to recognize that those raising hogs for marketing at 200 lbs., for instance, are in a different class from those raising piglets. Losses incurred by producers of piglets are not compensated under government policy, whereby there is payment of $5 for a "finished hog". Therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister migl reply to the rephrased question briefly, and then we w try to proceed to another subject.
March 24, 1972


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have recognized that difference in replies in the past, but even recognition of the difference does not solve the administrative problem of probably paying on the same piglet more than once.


INCREASE IN FEED GRAIN SUBSIDY-EXCLUSION OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to reply to the question I asked of his parliamentary secretary some days ago as to why Prince Edward Island was excluded from the list of provinces to which Canadian Livestock Feed Board subsidies for feed grain shipments are made?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward Island is not excluded from those subsidies. Indeed, there have been no changes that in fact increased the actual cost to producers in Prince Edward Island. All of the changes that were made in the various zones across the country were to compensate for actual upward movements in transportation costs.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he would give consideration to amending or correcting the press release which was issued from his own office?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think it was a very accurate press release.


IMPORTATION OF FRENCH BEEF CATTLE-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PROGRAM
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister will recall his reply to my question in the committee regarding the three-year no resale department requirement on imports of French beef breeds. Has the minister now had time to reconcile his reply with the facts as I disclosed them yesterday in the committee?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, my replies were not at variance with the facts.


Mark Willson Rose: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question of the minister. Will he undertake a thorough review of this whole program and then make a statement in the House articulating an improved policy in this area?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Fraser Valley West rising on a point of order?


Mark Willson Rose: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that the minister nodded in reply and I do not think the Hansard reporter caught the nod.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I said yes, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE


EXPECTED MORE RAPID GROWTH OF IMPORTS COMPARED TO EXPORTS-EXPORT TARGET
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since there have been predictions by the business community in Canada that our exports in 1972 will grow more slowly than our imports, I would like to ask the minister if his department has an export growth target for 1972 and, if so, could he inform the House what that target might be?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister oi Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the observation made by the hon. member is a correct one. In 1972 imports are expected to grow faster than exports. Indeed the present estimation is for a moderate growth of exports but in real terms, that is, with the lowest possible inflation content. The present expected growth is in the 7, 8 or 9 per cent range. If the hon. member wishes to see me later I will indicate to him a number of measures which we are taking to push on that moderate growth.




Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Have he or his officials investigated the possibilities that would be inherent in the pooling of surplus assets of Canadian Crown corporations and those of the Department of National Defence with a view to economies in administration, increasing revenue through better merchandising techniques, and the possibility of departmental cataloguing and retailing of items?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the pooling of assets of all Crown corporations is not within the area of my responsibility.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the government House leader. Can he tell us why he cannot say for sure whether or not we will be reconvening on April 10 after the recess? In fact, yesterday he said the return date would probably be later. Is it a fact that the government does not want parliament sitting while President Nixon is here?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!

March 24, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH



MEDICARE-POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF DENTAL CARE FOR CHILDREN-GOVERNMENT PRIORITY FOR EXTENSION OF SERVICES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the growing requests from both community and professional organizations to expand the medicare program to include dental care programs for children, I want to ask the minister if he is prepared to indicate to the provinces that the federal government would be willing to pass the necessary Order in Council extending the medicare program to include dental care for children?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the premise of the hon. member's remarks that the provinces, or some of the provinces, are pressing for dental care. It seems to me that various provinces have different priorities. Some feel that medicare should be expanded to include drugs as a priority over dental care. Some are pressing for other paramedical personnel to be covered rather than den-ticare first. I think there is really no consensus developing among the provinces for denticare per se.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister that there may be some differences of opinion with respect to the priorities that the various provinces have established. May I ask him what is the priority of the federal government with respect to the next step in a comprehensive health insurance program? Is the minister seriously considering dental care for children as an essential next step?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is the government view that dental care is very important indeed but to answer the question specifically as to whether we have come to a decision on our preference, no, we have not formally come to that decision but we are giving it consideration at the moment.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint ]ohn-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may rephrase the question which the hon. member for Huron addressed to the government House leader. Regardless of whether we come back on April 10 from the Easter recess, can the House leader assure us that we will be back in time for the memorable visit of the President so that we can take part in it in some form?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, probably the motion will indicate that we will come back on Thursday which is the day the President's visit begins.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the House leader realize that if we are not back then and are not given an opportunity to take

part, the government might be accused of a fast political shuffle with the President with an election coming up?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, people would not suggest that at all.


George Harris Hees: They are suggesting it already.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Based on the fact that we are on the eve of another crop year and that for the past two years the government has sent missions including officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to various countries in order to study market demands and new products, may I ask the minister if he is now prepared to recommend to producers of agricultural products, especially in eastern Canada, any new crops or any crop diversion that might relieve some of the economic burden they now face?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not have at my fingertips, or off the top of my head, information on some new product that has not been produced before. However, two weeks ago or thereabouts there was an updated report from the outlook conference and producers will have available to them that updated prospectus on what the market demand for various commodities may be for the 1972 production year.


Harold Warren Danforth: Based on all the research, the task force reports and the meetings of the various commodity groups, has the Department of Agriculture no new crops to recommend or no new crop measures to recommend to agriculture at this time?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, what has come out of the research branch are new varieties and that sort of thing. If the hon. member is asking whether there is some completely new type of crop or product to be produced, I do not think we are in a position to say that there is a commercial, viable market for some of them although there are several that are being tried experimentally to test the market.



FISHERIES


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, perhaps his parliamentary secretary would take my question as notice. Would the minister be prepared to make a statement in the House or at least a reply giving details of an incident which took place a short time ago between a Russian ship
March 24, 1972

and a Canadian fisheries patrol vessel off Canada's east coast, at which time the Canadian government attempted to discuss with the Russians their dangerous fishing practices and were refused access to the command ship?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: I shall certainly bring this matter to the attention of the minister, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is really a point of order directed to the government House leader but I see he has disappeared. First of all, I was going to ask if all of us could be told when we are being let out, let alone when we are returning? I see the minister has now returned to the chamber. Second, is he correctly reported in Hansard of yesterday as saying the "piracy amendments to the Criminal Code" or did he really mean the privacy amendments?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I meant "privacy"; I think I did say privacy. On the question of dates, I should like to tell my hon. friend that we propose to put down a motion to adjourn this part of the session on Wednesday next, probably coming back on the Thursday as I have indicated already to the chief whip of the opposition.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that divorced women or women living apart from their husbands cannot vote in the forthcoming federal election unless they have the preface "Mrs." before their names on the list, will the minister, in the interests of achieving sexual equality, draw to the attention of the minister in charge of the Canada Elections Act the need for a rule change to require divorced men or men living apart from their wives to be listed as "Mr." on the electoral lists?
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I shall draw that matter to the attention of the Chief Electoral Officer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about bachelors?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Joliette had a supplementary to a previous question.

Does the hon. member wish to put a question that is supplementary to the one he asked earlier?
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



HOGS-PAYMENT OF SUBSIDY TO PRODUCERS OR JOINT PRODUCTION UNITS

Roch La Salle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.
As several hog producers are now concerned about knowing in whose name the subsidy cheques will be made out by the federal government, can the minister tell us whether the cheques will be addressed to the producer or to the "integrator"?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the payment will be made to the producer and, of course, the upper limit is 200 hogs per producer. There are some difficulties in various parts of Canada because of the method of selling. We have asked producers, in making their applications, to provide us either with the grading certificates or the best evidence that they have. We will check this against plant records to make sure that all bona fide producers, but only bona fide producers, are paid.



MEDICARE-POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF PARAMEDICAL SERVICES

Randolph Harding: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker, which is really a supplementary to a previous question. Will the government this session either amend the Medicare Act, if that is necessary, or change the regulations to include cost-sharing of paramedical services with any province which includes or wishes to include one or several of the paramedical services under its medicare plan?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may be aware, we have been negotiating with the provinces with respect to new proposals which would, in effect, replace hospitalization and medicare and provide a great deal more flexibility to the provinces to include paramedical personnel. We combined that proposal with a further proposal to make available to the provinces roughly $640 million in terms of thrust funds so they could get into new areas, one of the principal ones being the inclusion of paramedical personnel. The provinces are now considering these proposals.



MEDICARE AND HOSPITALIZATION-LIMITATION OF FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION UNDER GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker. Are these proposals which the federal government is putting forward to the provinces contingent on the provinces accepting a restriction of the federal government's contribution to hospitalization and medicare pro-

March 24, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
grams and limiting the increase in any federal government contribution to the increase in the gross national product?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is an element of the proposals. The proposals have a twofold purpose, to halt the escalation in costs and to improve the efficiency of the health delivery system and by so doing respond to the provinces' demand for a greater say in the priorities. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that many of the provinces agree with the federal government that if the present projection in terms of escalation of health costs continues without some governmental action to limit the increase over the next few years, the growth will be so monumental that it might constitute a threat to the whole system we have developed in Canada which I believe is second to none in the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister's statement. We have reached the end of the question period. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: We have reached the end of the question period. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State wishes to ask the House to revert to motions?


Mr. Faulkner:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have unanimous consent to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling the evaluation task force report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table copies in French and English of the evaluation task force report.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government orders:
March 15, 1972-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of Bill C-170, An Act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children.- The Minister of National Health and Welfare.
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope that my point of order will be of interest to Your Honour. I think it will interest the government House leader. My point of order is based on the bill now before the House, Bill C-170. I submit, and this is my point of order, that the motion for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of Bill C-170 cannot now be considered. To do so, Mr. Speaker, would violate the long standing rule of the House to the effect that a question, being once put and decided in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as a judgment of the House. I submit that that is the accepted principle governing this House. Explanations of this rule will be found in May's Parliamentary Practice, Seventeenth Edition, at page 396 and following pages and at page 518 and following pages, and in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, page 164, paragraph 194.
That is the procedural rule, Mr. Speaker. When applied to the situation now before the House, we find that the message containing the recommendation of His Excellency informs this House that the bill provides for amendments to the Income Tax Act. Clause 22 of the bill purports to implement this recommendation by amending section 120 of the Income Tax Act. Only a few days ago this House voted on Bill C-169, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. Having passed all stages in the House, Bill C-169 is now before the other place at the second reading stage. The Senate minutes for Thursday, March 23, 1972, under orders of the day, so indicate. Page 77 of the Senate minutes also indicates that on that day the other place adjourned until next Monday at eight o'clock in the evening.
Section 34(2) of the Interpretation Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, Chapter 1-23, provides:
An Act may be amended or repealed by an Act passed in the same session of Parliament.
I want to make it clear that we do not oppose the principle of the bill before the House. What we oppose is the change that the government, in our view, has made in the bill. A bill similar to this one was introduced in the last session, I think as Bill C-264, and received first reading on September 13, 1971. Clause 21 or 23 of that bill regarding the repeal of the Family Allowances Act and the implementation of the new act provided that that section shall come into force on the 1st May, 1972. On a number of occasions throughout the previous session members on this side of the House pressed the government to bring forward this bill. There was general agreement in the
March 24, 1972

House to pass this bill so that the families of Canada, especially the middle and lower income families, could begin enjoying the new benefits by the target date of May, 1972. Clause 3(4) of the bill now before the House provides:
No benefit is payable under this Act for any month in a benefit year for which an allowance is payable under the Family Allowances Act.
In other words, it is entirely at the discretion of the government when extra benefits will be available for the mothers of Canada, whereas under the previous bill a specific target date was set. Frankly, we are suspicious of the government's intentions in this regard. We suspect it is trying to play politics with this bill and save it as a tidbit before the election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I submit that because of the mismanagement of the business of the House, a mismanagement of which the government is guilty, this House, according to the rules and precedents which I have referred to in my point of order, is prevented from proceeding with Bill C-170 until Bill C-169 receives Royal Assent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I tell the hon. member that I will have no difficulty ruling on the point of order he has raised. If other hon. members want to express their opinions, I will listen to them, although I do not think I will have much difficulty in ruling on the point. Of course, I do not want to prejudge the point, and if any hon. member wishes to add to the interesting point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East, I will listen. If not, I will give my ruling.
There being no objection, I will proceed. May I begin by referring to the well known rule to which the hon. member for St. John's East alluded. The long established practice of the House is that the House should not be asked to pronounce itself on a question in the same session on which the House has already decided or expressed itself, either by negative or positive vote. That rule, of course, applies to legislation which is proposed to the House within a single session. If a particular item of legislation is proposed to the House on which there is a decision, either in favour or against, it is against the rules and long established practices of this parliament and other parliaments to ask that the House decide again the same question or reconsider the same legislative proposal in the same session.
However, so far as I know, no decision has been taken by this House in the current session, which began a few days ago, which would preclude anyone from proposing legislation of the nature before us at present. May I also indicate to hon. members that there is nothing wrong procedurally with bringing forward two legislative proposals dealing with the same subject. If hon. members will look at our parliamentary papers they will see that on many occasions, and almost at any time, a number of legislative proposals were before the House dealing with the same subject. Of course, once a decision has been reached on one of those legislative proposals, then the House has decided and, within the same session-this does not apply to the following session-it would be irregular to ask the House to look at the same legislative
Family Income Security Plan
proposal in order that there might be a new or renewed debate. That might lead us into the strange situation in which, within the same session, the House might reach two decisions on that proposal, one being contrary to the other. That is the logic behind the long standing practice and rule to which the hon. member alluded. I do not think it is possible for the Chair to agree that this very valid rule should be extended to the point where it would preclude the consideration of the bill now before us.


John Carr Munro: that Bill C-170, to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-170, which is now at the second reading stage, I should like to refer to the white paper tabled in this House over one year ago. In referring to family allowances, it pointed out that family allowances have lost their effectiveness over the years, as benefits have remained almost unchanged since their inception despite sharp increases in the cost of living. It further pointed out that, although the payments are a welcome addition to the limited incomes of poor families, the size of the allowance is relatively small. As a result, the white paper pointed out that the program has had a limited anti-poverty effect.
Payments per child of $72 to $120 a year, in essence the level of payments which our present family allowance program provides, cannot come near the annual cost of maintaining a child. It is estimated, for instance, that in 1971, about 24 per cent of family and youth allowance expenditures was paid to families with less than $5,000 income, and 76 per cent to families with incomes above this level. Many suggestions have been made in recent years that the family allowances program be made selective rather than universal. It is argued that money used to pay benefits to well-to-do families should be used to increase substantially the benefits payable to low income families.
Increasing the benefits within the existing structure, in other words, following along the philosophy of the present family allowance program, undeniably would involve massive increases in expenditures. One must take into account that current coverage involves almost 7 million children. When one takes into account the seven million children, and if we proceed along the universal route as presently embodied in the family allowance, each dollar added on to the present family allowance rates, again if universal, would mean additional expenditures of $82 million a year. To double the present rates would cost an additional $560 million. That is not counting youth allowances. With youth allowances providing coverage now for
670,000	youths, each dollar added to the youth allowances would mean an additional $8 million a year. To double the amount of this benefit, that is the youth allowances, would require another $80 million.
We see the tremendous expenditures involved when we start to double the rates and benefits under the present family allowances if we just double them and make them universal. We all know there are many other competing

March 24, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
demands, both within and outside the security system, for funds of this magnitude. Improvements and social assistance, social insurance and the guaranteed income provisions for the aged are a few examples. For the program to be improved at this time, an alternative is to convert it from a universal to a selective measure, directing more of the current expenditures away from the well-to-do toward the lower income families. This may not be well received by many who will lose some or all of the allowances they receive, but it will do a great deal for those who have greater and more pressing needs.
Any restriction in the family allowances program must, therefore, serve a two-fold purpose. It must assist families in poverty whose resources cannot adequately cover the needs of their children. It must also compensate families in the lower middle income range with the economic burden of raising children so that they can take their place in the society of the future. Achievement of both these goals must remain a key element in Canadian family policy. I refer to the opening statement of the white paper. As Canadians strive for a better social and physical environment, one of their goals is to ensure that everyone has an adequate income on which to live. The white paper provided a focus for eventual consensus on income security for Canadians. For instance, how best can the federal government play its role in relation to income security within a context of a federal study? Adequate income bears partly on the actions of the government and partly on factors beyond a person's capacity to control.
The role of government, and I am referring to the white paper statement, is to develop social and economic policies that will influence those factors beyond individual control in a way that will help people to reach this goal. Income security protects people by giving them additional money when their own resources are not enough to meet the needs regarded by society as being basic. It also replaces the income of people who have lost their earning capacity for such reasons as unemployment, maternity, sickness, disability or death of the family income earner. As one component of over-all social security policy, income security programs are strengthened by the other parts, health insurance and special services for social assistance recipients. These are two outstanding examples.
Although any new initiatives are necessarily limited by what is economically feasible, the economy must be enlisted in support of social objectives. The primary goal is human development. This opening statement of the government's position on income security was a starting point and was subject to the various modifying influences implicit in the white paper dialogue. It could not stand alone nor was it intended to stand alone.
The next step was up to the people of Canada, to citizens and their spokesmen in various other governments and organizations. The people of Canada participated in the dialogue and as a result FISP, the family income security proposals, provides a departure point for the future in the development of the guaranteed income approach for people in the labour force.
In the development of the Family Income Security Plan, a vigorous effort has been continuously made to keep the provinces informed of the proposals, to seek their views 
and request their suggestions. Several provincial governments were critics of the existing family allowances program. Visits were made to all provinces by myself and my officials to outline and discuss the nature and scope of the federal proposals with provincial ministers and their officials. A federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers was held at which the proposals were further reviewed and the views of the provinces obtained. A number of important changes were made. Again, I and my officials visited the provinces to discuss the modifications. Some further adjustments in the proposals resulted. Another meeting of the welfare ministers took place. Following the announcement of the plan in this House, additional talks were held with those provinces which wished further discussion.
I would like to talk about FISP in relation to income security in general in Canada. The FISP bill is the third step to improve the over-all income security program in Canada. The first step was the guaranteed income supplement for old age pensioners. The second step was the improvement made in the unemployment insurance program. The third step was a selective income security plan for families in the lower income brackets, namely the bill now before us. Under the bill, benefit payments doubled over existing family and youth allowances programs. Children under 12 will get $15 a month instead of $6 or $8. Children 12 to 17 will get $20 a month instead of $8 or $10. This is a program intended to provide income support. Income support alleviates poverty and reduces dependency among those people who have very limited means of support from other sources.
Typical of income support plans are the social assistance programs and guaranteed income plans. The income security system in Canada operates on three levels. First, there is income protection through various social insurance and universal payment programs to people who meet certain eligibility requirements, without regard to their current incomes from other sources. Some examples of this are unemployment insurance, Canada and Quebec pension plans, veterans pensions, workmen's compensation, old age security and family allowances.
The second level is income support to people whose incomes from other sources fall below specified amounts. This in essence is the guaranteed income approach. This would be represented by current programs such as the guaranteed income supplement for aged persons and the new FISP bill which is now before us. The third level, of course, is social assistance for people whose needs are not adequately met through their own efforts or through the programs operating on the other two levels I have just described. The universal payment plans such as family allowances and old age security allowances serve both as income support and income protection. Both are very costly in the effort to reduce poverty. Old age security pensions at $80 a month are continued because this is such an important element in the retirement plans of most Canadians; it provides the foundation upon which Canada Pension Plan and private retirement arrangements are based. But we have placed most emphasis on the guaranteed income supplement and raised it substantially. Of course, it takes other income into account.
March 24, 1972

With this bill, two universal payment plans are being replaced by a family income security plan based on the guaranteed income concept. The role of FISP is important. FISP benefits will provide a basic income for each child upon which can be built additional supports as deemed appropriate by provincial or municipal authorities. We know that unemployment insurance does not make any special provision for children. Neither do old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada Pension Plan retirement pension or war veterans allowances. Thus, FISP is designed to help families in the lower income groups.
Perhaps it would be possible for me now to deal with some of the details of the FISP proposals. The federal government has tried to ensure that the federal plan fits in with provincial priorities and social policies. Quebec, which has been closely involved in this, is the only province with a supplementary family allowances plan. And, as we know, Quebec administers its own youth allowances. Quebec has proposed a selective family allowances program along similar lines to the federal plan. The extension of FISP as envisaged in this bill will cover youths 16 and 17 years of age and will replace the youth allowances program. Benefits under the proposed legislation are not treated as taxable income.
The white paper suggested that benefits might be reduced by $1 per month per child for each extra $500 of income. We find after discussion with various people that a provision of these lines might act as a disincentive. The plan, therefore, calls for an adjustment of 30 cents for each $100 extra of income.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Isn't it 33 cents?


John Carr Munro: It works out in terms of percentage.
To make benefits selective, an income floor of $4,500 is established below which full benefits will be paid and above which benefits will be reduced as income increases. The income floor is raised by an additional $500 for each extra child in the family. The ceiling or cut-off point for benefits depends upon the number of children, their ages and the reduction rate. Benefits are, as I indicated earlier, $15 a month for children under 12 and $20 a month for children aged 12 to 17 inclusive. Two and a half million families will receive benefits. Nine hundred thousand families will receive maximum benefits. This would include children of the lower middle income groups and children of families receiving social assistance as well as most of the 150,000 mothers who are, by themselves, raising more than 300,000 children. It will be particularly helpful to families in communities where the amount of social assistance is low.
By this measure the government will be committing $820 million to the FISP proposals, a sizeable increase over the amount now expended on family allowances.


An hon. Member:: How much is that?


John Carr Munro: Roughly $650 million.
The scope of the new FISP proposals is such that it replaces both family allowances and youth allowances.
Family Income Security Plan
The plan takes into account the number and age of children in a family. As far as coverage is concerned, all children under 18 are covered. As far as benefits are concerned, I have already indicated what they will be. In connection with the reduction as income rises, I have indicated that benefits per child are reduced in one-child families with incomes above $4,500 a year and in two-child families with income above $5,000 a year. The income floor rises by $500 for each extra child. The plan introduces a reduction rate of 33 cents per child per month for each extra $100 of income, or $1.65 for each $500, above the floor set for families at that size.
The maximum income in one-child families beyond which no benefits are paid is $10,560 if the child is between the ages of 12 and 17 and $9,045 if the child is younger than 12. In the case of two-child families the figures are $11,060 and $9,545. For three-child families, if the children are aged between 12 and 17-and there is a mixture here between 12 and 17 and under 12-the figures are $11,560 and $10,045, and so on by $500 intervals. I repeat that FISP benefits are not counted as taxable income.
The House would perhaps be interested to hear what is counted as income in the determination of benefits. The income of a person includes all items of income subject to tax, plus unemployment insurance, scholarships and bursaries, adult training allowances and Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan, orphans and dependent children's benefits. It does not include social allowances based on a means or income test. Family income is the income of both parents or substitute parents except in the case of separation or divorce or unwed motherhood. Where the adult members of the family contribute to family income, only the income of the adult responsible for maintaining the child and that of the spouse would be counted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. minister, but it being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, before the one o'clock break, I was referring to what was included in the calculation of income to determine the benefits which would be payable. I mentioned that it does not include social allowances based on a means or income test. Family income is the income of both parents or substitute parents, except in the case of separation, divorce or unwed motherhood. Where the adult member of the family contributed to the family income, only the income of the adult responsible for maintaining the child and that of the spouse would be counted. So far as the basis of calculating income is concerned, we have endeavoured to avoid the hardship to recipients with declining incomes. Options will be permitted allowing the substitution of an estimate of income in the calendar year of 12 times the average monthly income in the remainder

March 24, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
of the current calendar year instead of based on the previous year's income which is the usual case. So far as escalation is concerned, to ensure that FISP remains a significant program, arrangements have to be made to ensure that the income floor and benefit levels remain relevant as prices and incomes rise. To achieve this objective, periodic reviews by the Governor-in-Council will be made on the recommendation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare of the basic income floor and the maximum monthly benefit rates.
Perhaps I might now refer to the impact of the FISP proposal in terms of families affected. Full benefit under FISP will go to 1,249,000 families, or 35.5 per cent. Partial benefit under FISP, in terms of those who will be better off than under the present family allowances program, will go to 623,000, or 17.7 per cent of the total number of families affected. Partial benefits under FISP will go to families who will still be no better off than they were in terms of family allowances. This will happen in the case of 585,000 families or 16.7 per cent. Then, we have the total in respect of full and partial benefits, in other words, people who will be receiving all or part. This will involve
2,457,000	families or 69.9 per cent. Nil benefits will go to approximately 1,050,000 or 30.1 per cent. This is out of a total number of families of 3,516,000.
I should like to give an example of how this would work with reference to a family with an annual income of up to $5,500 having three children aged 7, 9 and 14. They receive under the present family allowances a total of $240 a year or $20 a month. Under the FISP proposal, that family would receive $600 a year or $50 a month incremental income. So we can see from an example such as this what a significant impact this program will have in terms of incremental assistance to those families in the lower income groups.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to some well known authorities as a basis for the decision of the government to bring in FISP at this particular time. I shall refer to some submissions to the Senate Committee on Poverty. First of all, I shall refer to the submission of the Economic Council of Canada. I will paraphrase what the council had to say before the Senate Committee on Poverty. The Economic Council of Canada states that it is difficult to discover an authoritative statement of the fundamental objectives of the family allowances program in the circumstances of today. That, of course, has reference to the present family allowances program. Further, the Council states that this is not to say that family allowances and other long-established programs are not continuing to serve some highly useful purposes, but these purposes should surely be re-examined in the light of the many important economic and social changes in the last generation. One of the great uncertainties is the extent to which the existing structure of policies in fact constitutes an attack on poverty, the extent, that is, to which its benefits flow to those most in need.
I refer to another brief by a highly renowed body which is concerned in the social area, the Canadian Council on Social Development. I shall paraphrase its submission to the Senate Committee on Poverty. The Council believes that the ideal approach to a reformed family allowances

program is a general family allowance plan that takes care of a substantial proportion of child rearing costs. The net benefits should be related more closely than now to other income resources.
I now refer to the brief of the province of Ontario, and again I am paraphrasing. The province is vitally concerned with the problem of the working poor, who are primarily low income families with children. Such families receive family allowances but their incomes are still inadequate for their needs since the allowances are not sufficient to raise their incomes to the poverty line. The needs of the poor are real. The leakage in the family allowances system cannot be justified in terms of public acceptability, simplicity of administration or a dubious anonymity. If the family allowances system is retained, it should be converted to a selective system which provides meaningful benefits to the poor and the near poor.
Then we have the brief by the province of New Brunswick, which reads:
We believe it is essential that additional funds be invested in children to ensure that they have the capacity to compete, on an equal basis, during the years when they are obtaining the education and skills that are so important if they are to lead productive lives.
In terms of human resource development, we do not think there is any group that is more important.
The use of family allowances would go some way to solving the policy problems associated with establishing adequate minimum wage levels: establishing adequate welfare benefit levels; and providing strong incentives to work. Minimum wage levels, unemployment insurance benefits, and Workmen's Compensation Board payments all reflect the earning potential of the family head. They do not take into account the size of the family and its relative need.
A restructuring of the family allowances program provides a means for ensuring that adequate levels of assistance can be provided under a needs tested welfare program without at the same time removing the incentive to work for employable persons with large families.
If the increased allowances were combined with changes in the Income Tax Act designed to remove the benefit from those that do not need it we do not think the over-all cost would be great.
Now, I shall paraphrase the submission of the Canadian Labour Congress. For over a generation, Canada has recognized the problem of the cost of rearing children. Family allowances were introduced to supplement wage income in that connection since wages are not geared to family size. The value of family allowances has been seriously diminished by the fact that the scale of benefits has remained virtually unchanged since the introduction of the legislation in 1944. In the meantime, wages and salaries, prices, living standards and expectations as to such standards have risen very considerably. Accordingly, the role of family allowances as a contributing factor toward the well-being of the family with young children has gone down. We are not concerned with those families where wages, salaries or other income are adequate and where the family allowance benefit is no more than a minor supplementation to the total income enjoyed by the family. We are concerned about families with low incomes and particularly so where families are fairly large. In those circumstances, family allowances should play a much more important role. It is not simply a matter of increasing benefit rates. We believe that our family allowances system should be reviewed in order to cope more
March 24, 1972

realistically with the cost of raising children at various ages and with the much greater needs of families with many children as against those with only one or two.
There we have some of the outstanding organizations concerned with the poverty problem, and concerned with the incomes of our wage earners in the low-income groups, urging a more realistic family income security system that would bring much needed incremental income to these people most in need. In essence that is what this legislation would do. My closing remarks would be directed mainly to the official opposition. I have been encouraged over recent months by various questions put to me from members of the official opposition, particularly those from the province of Newfoundland. I refer to questions put by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), just to mention a few. If I interpret their questions correctly, I take it that the Official Opposition is much in favour of this legislation. They may have suggestions as to details that can improve it, but in terms of the concept, they are for it. If that is the correct interpretation of the posture of the Official Opposition, then I would expect that this legislation, which is for a very worthwhile social purpose, will commend itself to the House.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate the minister upon putting up such a good front with so little to base it upon. It is just over 25 years since the baby bonuses, now called family allowances, came into effect in Canada. They were masterminded by Mackenzie King and Jack Pickersgill. The reason for their introduction was the depression which had come to the country in 1929. Mackenzie King saw the effects of that depression over the years, and as a result brought in the baby bonus. I do not know why it was called baby bonus, because it was a family allowance from the start. Its purpose was to help relieve poverty in the homes and to increase the spending powers of those on low incomes. As I said, no thought was given to the needs of the child in establishing the baby bonus, the money was to go to the family unit to help that family. This plan came into effect in 1945, and we are much more affluent now than we were then. I heard the minister say what he had done, but let us take a look at what has happened since.
Between July 1945 and September 1971, which was the year FISP was introduced, the consumer price index had more than doubled and had reached the figure of 230.7. It follows then that if the baby bonus had kept pace with this rise, payments for a child aged 11 would have risen from $7 a month in July 1945 to $16.50 in September, 1971. I should like to ask the minister why this figure was not reached, in view of the present affluence and in view of the fact that he has brought the baby bonus up to only a certain level. He has put a ceiling on it. Why did he not go a little beyond that figure? Under this new bill, a child aged 11 will be receiving a maximum of $15, not $16.50 a month, and children aged 12 to 17 will be receiving $20 a month.
Family Income Security Plan
The point I am making is that we are not even restoring the buying power which was provided under the legislation in 1945, 27 years ago. Why is that? I say to the minister that he has taken a very timid step, and I congratulate him on that, but maybe somebody should have given him a push. Since 1961, personal income per capita has almost doubled, rising from $1,600 to just over $3,000. At first glance, it would appear that there are fewer people living in poverty, but let us not fool ourselves because the fact remains that inflation and unemployment have eroded the value of the dollar. There are more people below the poverty line than there were in 1961. Let us suppose that personal incomes double again over the next ten years. More and more people will find themselves disqualified because their incomes will have risen above the cut-off line, yet many of those disqualified people may be living at the poverty line. I say to the minister that, in view of all the money that has been put into circulation in the last two or three months, inflation is likely to come about in six months.
While I am on this point, I should like to ask the minister why he should have the discretionary power to say when family allowances should be raised. Why should it not be parliament, and why should it not be done every year in accordance with the rise in the cost of living? This is the same old hook that we had with old age pensions. The government is defrauding the public. I am not saying the minister will do that; I do not think he would, but why does he take the prerogative of making the decision himself, why is parliament not deciding?
I believe that the government should stand condemned for its handling of the constitutional negotiations over the last 16 months. We have heard repeatedly in this parliament vague and conflicting statements from the officials of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). After a further delay of six months, there has been the introduction of the FISP Bill C-170, keeping in mind that Bill C-264 died after its first reading in the House on September 16, 1971.
Let us take a look at Bill C-170. We find that there has been very little change, in spite of all the constitutional chit-chat in the meantime. No mention is made of the new arrangements for joint federal-provincial participation in family allowances, as was suggested by the Prime Minister himself in the letter to the premiers of March 9, 1972. There is not even a mention of it in the present Bill C-170, and the minister made no mention of it today. In other words, we have a bill before the House that will likely be amended over and over again by the cabinet, after consultations with and suggestions from the provincial governments to make it more acceptable to the provinces so that the constitutional deal can be completed.
I ask the government: why did they not pass the original Bill C-264 last September, since the amendments could have been introduced later and families could have been receiving their new family allowances at a much earlier date? Of course, the joker in the whole thing is that for every month they can delay the implementation of the Family Income Security Plan, Canadian families lose $13 million a month.


Mr. Bechard:: That was not the argument in 1944.
1136

March 24, 1972
Family Income Security Plan


Philip Bernard Rynard: It is rather interesting to think of the sinister motives which might lie behind the government's action, in view of the fact that today is the day of the Newfoundland election. It is peculiar that they should have taken this long to introduce it. It is a good thing that the Newfoundland election is today or the bill might have been delayed longer.
Is it not peculiar that there is no date set for implementation in the bill? The minister never gave any indication as to when he was going to implement it, nor is there any date established for the signing of agreements with the provinces. When the Newfoundland election is over, will the bill be left on the order paper with just a few days debate? These are questions that should be answered. I am disappointed in the minister. I like him; he is a nice fellow, but he did not give us very much to go on.
As to the bill itself, there is no quarrel with the fact that families with children have needs that families without children do not have. No one quarrels with this, particularly when one considers that in the year 1944 some 84 per cent of Canadian children under the age of 16 were dependent on only 20 per cent of the gainfully employed. Unquestionably, this plan helped to ensure a little more income for the family unit, while avoiding grants that would diminish work incentives. That was the picture in
1944.	Now, we see the minister penny pinching, and not even maintaining family allowances at the original level of their purchasing power. Of course, these allowances which are received by families are used to buy consumer goods, thus helping the economy of the country as a whole.
When family allowances were introduced on July 1,
1945,	every child under the age of 16 years who was born in Canada, or who had resided in Canada for one year and complied with the school children attendance laws of the provinces, was covered. Later on, the one year's residence clause was eliminated if the child was supported by an immigrant who had permanent residence in Canada, or by a Canadian returning to Canada to live permanently. The family assistance was paid for a period of one year until the child became eligible for family allowance.
Over the years changes have been made. When family allowances were first introduced, the benefits were $5 up to age six years, $6 from six to nine years, $7 from ten to 12 years, $8 from 13 to 15 years, and monthly allowances were reduced by $1 for the fifth child, $2 for the sixth child and $3 for the seventh child. These restrictions were removed in 1949. In 1957, the regulations were again changed, and the new rates were $6 up to ten years and $8 from 10 to 15 years. Some of the provinces also had their own supplementary benefit plans.
In December, 1970, the government issued a white paper setting out a cut-off point at an income level of $10,000 per year. Monthly benefits would no longer be paid according to the age of the child, but would be regulated on a sliding scale according to income. Family allowances were to become taxable, and youth allowances were to remain unchanged. That is one good thing the minister has done, but it is amazing that, on one hand, the government taxes unemployment insurance benefits and other benefits, and

on the other hand, does not tax these benefits. This is a hodge-podge jungle that we are getting into with some things being taxed and some things not being taxed.
The white paper recommendations were never put into legislative form. Bill C-264 was introduced in the House of Commons in September, 1971, as I have stated, and it retained some of the features of selectivity, and included 17 and 18 year olds. In brief, Mr. Speaker, family allowances would be paid to all dependent children under 18 years according to family income, with a limit of ten children for a family with an income of $15,000 per year. Up to age 12, maximum benefits would be $15 per month, and for ages 12 to 17 years benefits would be $20 per month. The family gross income floor was set at $4,500.
I would like the minister to tell me how he picked that figure of $4,500? Why wasn't it $5,500 or $3,200?


John Carr Munro: I took the poverty line from the economic conference study.


Philip Bernard Rynard: What year was that fixed?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is a sliding scale, too.


Philip Bernard Rynard: That is correct, and it is my opinion that this sliding scale will necessitate a great increase in staff. I think the minister himself admits that it will mean a doubling of staff. There will be a bureaucratic administration, the cost of which will be high and which will not benefit the family. The cost will be extracted from the taxpayer. This bill alone will involve the expenditure of around $800 million in its first year of operation. I do not think the minister gave this figure.


John Carr Munro: Eight hundred and twenty million dollars.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I note that the government has anticipated more than a doubling of staff. I think I am correct in stating that around 1,500 people will be required to administer the scheme. This will cost the taxpayers $12 million for administration. It is a bureaucratic jungle.


John Carr Munro: The cost of administration is only 11 per cent. It is better than any private scheme.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Could these things not be all put together rather than have a mish-mash like this? Can they not all be placed in one department? Sometimes I wonder if the ministers ever get together and talk things over. In the field of welfare, we are getting into an administrative jungle. I believe it was the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) who said that less than 10 cents out of every dollar goes to the person who needs welfare. I do not think that has been disputed. As a matter of fact, I believe the figure is about 9 cents out of every dollar. When I see some of the things that are being done today, I wonder how long we can continue on our present path. It is my opinion that an income security scheme, administered through the income tax structure, could accomplish the desired end as effectively. It would decrease the number of administrative bureaucracies connected with welfare. In effect, it could wipe them out.
Turning to another point, Mr. Speaker, recently the minister told me that he would have enough nurses trained and put into practice. I wonder what fees he will
March 24, 1972

pay them. At present we have nurses serving communities and their charges are just about the same as the charges that doctors impose. How is the minister going to get around that? Apparently the minister looks quite surprised at what I am saying. I will give him facts and figures.
Members of the government say they are helping the poor. How are they helping them? I want to talk about the chronically ill, and they are not all old people. Some have had paralytic strokes at age 50. I saw a fellow the other day who was a cripple and he was no older than the minister. These people have to go to hospitals for the chronically ill and to nursing homes, and they are charged a $3.50 a day deterrent fee.
What a magnanimous government we have in this country. These people need nursing care, medicine and doctors. They are the very people for whom services should be provided free. Let us not boast that we are helping the poor. I could tell the minister about a dozen places where the poor are not helped, where the poor and the sick lie silent, and nobody talks about them. I know the minister will say that these things are within the jurisdiction of the provinces, but the government introduced national medicare and has a responsibility to see that it works effectively.


John Carr Munro: Were you for it when we introduced it?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, the minister asked me if I was for that. I want to tell him that I was. I also want to tell him that I mentioned the 30 per cent of doctors' bills that they were having trouble with and asked that this be covered. If that had been done, we would not be in this mess today. The government does not know whether or not it is going broke, but it is not providing the doctors or the service.


John Carr Munro: Talk to Premier Davis!


Philip Bernard Rynard: The other day the minister spoke about services and so forth, but services are not being provided. Why are the universities not open during the summer in order to train the doctors that are needed? The minister speaks of pre-examinations and clinical check-ups to keep people out of hospital-


John Carr Munro: Talk to Premier Davis; he is in charge of education.


Philip Bernard Rynard: This government introduced medicare, and it is their responsibility to talk to the provincial premiers. Mr. Speaker, I will go with the minister and talk to the premier anytime he says.


John Carr Munro: I might take you up on that.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I will be glad to go, because I feel very keenly about this. The minister said that he wanted to practice more preventive medicine but, Mr. Speaker, there are not enough doctors to look after the sick, so where are we going to get doctors to practise preventive medicine? The minister spoke of setting up a clinic but what an impossible situation that is. Now, we are coming
Family Income Security Plan
into the summer holidays and the universities could be running summer semesters for medical students. This plan would not cost anything because the cost would be recovered in income tax paid by the students as soon as they begin to practice. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a well accepted principle that there is a tendency for families with a large number of children to have lower incomes. I think it is also reasonably well accepted that family allowances do not encourage couples to have children. There is no doubt about this, since studies have shown that family allowances are not an incentive to increasing the birth rate.
It is interesting to note that Dr. Willard, Deputy Minister of National Health and Welfare, cites as a major error the use of gross income rather than net income in establishing cut-off levels, and says that while there is evidence of the role of family allowances in reducing poverty, it is flimsy and incomplete. It is a pretty weak crutch on which to lean. I believe it is only fair to say that family allowances, as suggested in Bill C-170, will play only a very small role in reducing poverty. There have been many sociologists who have stated outright that this bill will do little to combat poverty. Perhaps we could add that it will do a little levelling between the rich and the poor but the crux of the whole problem is to provide greater opportunities, more work and more jobs for more Canadians so that they can look after themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: The very fact that these larger family allowances are needed, and the number of people who are unemployed, give silent testimony to the fact that the challenge is not being met by this government. This measure is only a stop gap. At best, FISP will not even restore the buying power of the family allowance of 1945. It is not a new advance. It has not even broken new ground. It is only restoring part, not all, of what has been lost because of the selectivity factor which cuts off families in the higher income brackets. Not only does this bill fail to close the gap between the buying power of the family allowance cheque in 1945 and the buying power of FISP cheque today, it does not include an automatic escalator clause to keep pace with this inflationary government.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister is such a bad fellow, but you never know who might be in that portfolio next! It is true that at the whim of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, benefit levels may be raised but that is not automatic. As a matter of fact, the principle of FISP is at odds with other social security schemes. We have universality in medicare and unemployment insurance, but we have selectivity in FISP. Why? Working wives, for example, will be compensated for day-care costs up to a certain sum, and maternity benefits are paid by unemployment insurance, but FISP penalizes the working wife by cut-off levels being based on gross family income. In other words, she is penalized for working.
Actually, this aspect hits poorer people harder than anyone else because the wife goes out to work and her added income results in getting less money for the children through family allowance. This seems to me to be grossly unfair, and the cut-off level should be based on net income after deductions rather than gross income. In
25104-13',

March 24, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
this way, personal income tax exemptions and day-care exemptions will have their full effect for the working wife. Let us take a look at the man who receives a raise of $1,000. He pays taxes, unemployment insurance and pension contributions. The single man earning $7,000 would lose 33 per cent of that raise in tax payments; the man with a wife and four children earning the same salary would lose 47 per cent; and the man with a wife and four children earning $11,000 would lose 33 per cent.
In closing, I want to say to the minister that I think he and the other ministers concerned should get together on this measure because they do not seem to know what they are doing. They look at the various schemes, but they do not blend them together. I am not blaming the minister. Perhaps these ministers commune with somebody higher than parliament, I don't know, but if they do only God knows!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member agree to accept the question?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Carr Munro: I have some difficulty detecting from the hon. member's speech whether, in terms of principle, he is for this legislation or against it. Which is it?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is typical of the minister, and the way in which he established these allowances, because nobody knows how much he wanted to help the poor people. I suggest that he made a very poor attempt at giving them something. We are a lot more affluent today than we were in 1945, but that has not helped the poor very much. I have been trying to urge the minister to see that these people are looked after in a better fashion, instead of having a lot of money going into administration expenses. The ministers in charge of welfare and of manpower ought to get together to discuss this thing and come up with something to really help the poor.


John Carr Munro: Are you in favour of it in principle or not? Which is it?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I do not think for one minute the minister is so dense that he does not know I am in favour of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) made a few references to the history of family allowances which, as he pointed out, came into effect on July 1, 1945. Some of us have to be careful that we do not paint ourselves too far back into history, but these references recalled to my mind the debate in 1944 when the Family Allowance Act was passed. There are only three of us still in this House of Commons who were members of the House in 1944. I refer to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Mcllraith) and myself. My good friend, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), had been here before that but had gone to the province of Saskatchewan so that he could take certain

steps which would force other governments of this country to give more favourable consideration to social security legislation.
The debate of 1944 was a dramatic one. I was just thinking earlier how times have changed. This afternoon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) had to wait for a number of minutes before he could continue his speech. He had to wait for a quorum to arrive in the chamber. Back in 1944, the attendance during that debate was greater than usual. There were a number of dramatic occasions. Perhaps the one most remembered by many around here was when a distinguished and greatly respected member of the House, the late Dr. Bruce, was named and put out of the House for the balance of a day's sitting because he had refused to comply with the Speaker's request to withdraw the word "bribery", which he had applied to Mackenzie King's action in bringing in the Family Allowances Act.
Another moment of drama arose when the then Prime Minister, Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, referred to the humble poor. That phrase, coming from his lips, produced laughter on this side, and actually occasioned a remark, recorded in Hansard, by the hon. member for York East, who then was Robert McGregor. He had the reputation of having sat silently in this House perhaps longer than any other member. At any rate, in that debate a remark by Mr. McGregor got on the Hansard record. The other dramatic part of that story involved the recorded vote on second reading. When the Speaker called for the yeas and nays, some ventriloquist made a noise which sounded like nay. So, the government members stood up and a recorded vote was taken. It turned out, when the vote was taken, that everyone present voted yea. It was one of those unanimous recorded votes. Liberals, Conservatives, CCF members, as our group was then known, and Social Credit members from Alberta all voted yea. Mr. William Golding, the late member of this House who later went to the other place and, still later, to another place, said afterwards that he was paired with the hon. member for Parkdale, who then was Dr. Bruce, but that if he had voted, he would have voted for the measure. That, of course, implied that Dr. Bruce who was then not present, would have voted against the measure. He never confirmed or denied that.
That was one of those interesting occasions when a measure was passed at second reading on a recorded division, with no one voting nay. When we got to third reading and the vote was called, Hansard merely recorded the bill as carried. No one said nay at that point, or even "on division". So, there we passed a piece of legislation that was very contentious and about which there was a great deal of feeling. Hon. George Drew was making noises in Ontario about this being done for Quebec; some threatened to take the bill to court, and so on. Some even charged on the floor of this House that the bill was an election gimmick. Mr. King dealt with that insinuation in the typical Mackenzie King fashion. By the way, I agree with one remark that Charles Lynch made in one of his columns a few days ago. He said that we should not forever be likening the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing), and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. March 24, 1972

MacEachen) to Paul Martin. He says that they are really talking the way that Mackenzie King talked.
You know, Mr. Speaker, Mackenzie King dealt with the election propaganda charge in a manner that only he could get away with. That legislation was before us in June and July of 1944. He stood up with all the solemnity he was capable of mustering, and he was always pretty solemn, and said, "This is not an election promise; I have written into this bill that these payments will not come into effect until July 1, 1945, and everyone knows that under the constitution there will have to be an election before then." So, this was not election bait. The bill just happened to pass in 1944, and it just happened that an election was called in June, 1945, and the Liberals were able to say, "We have got this piece of legislation through, and you will get the benefits on July 1." No, it was not election propaganda-by no means. Good old Mackenzie King!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They cannot say that this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I say, 1944 was a dramatic year and interest in the bill was keen. Attendance was good. It is noticeable, as we talk about this bill on Friday afternoon, that although there are quite a few people in the galleries, there are not many members in the House, even though this will have far reaching implications. It changes not only one of the basic principles of the Family Allowances Act, as put on the statute books in 1944, but taken with the guaranteed income supplement and statements made by the minister, it pushes still further ahead the principle of selectivity instead of the principle of universality. Actually, this government is changing the whole approach to social security programs that Mackenzie King and Louis St. Laurent built up over several decades. For the moment, I shall concede that the way we should approach this matter is debatable. I have my views and the minister has his, and we can still talk to each other despite our differences. But I think it is unfortunate that, when so major a piece of legislation is before us as this legislation, there seems to be so little interest in it on the part of members of the House of Commons. I am not complaining about the number of members who happen to be here while I am speaking. I am thinking of how small the attendance was when the minister himself brought in this legislation.
I should like to say a word now about the way in which the minister and the government are perverting their own white paper technique. I concede that under our system of responsible government, the government has the right within its council chamber to work out its legislation, lay it before the House in final form and to say that it shall stand or fall on the basis of that legislation. That is the kind of responsible government we have, and that is the way the prerogatives and the initiatives of government work. Yet, it is this very government that said it wanted to change all that, that said it wanted to develop the concept of participatory democracy and to develop the idea of involvement-


James Aloysius McGrath: Ha!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -of the people and of parliament in the decision-making process. Mr. Family Income Security Plan
Speaker, those are not my words. Those are the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He stresses all the time words like "decision making process", "participation" and "involvement". This really is as nonsensical as some of the things Mackenzie King used to say. And what did the minister do? He brought down a white paper entitled, "Income security for Canadians" and tabled it on November 30, 1970. It had in it a number of sections dealing with a number of areas. The two main ones were old age security and guaranteed income security for families.
The idea behind a white paper is that the government puts its ideas before parliament and before the country in a tentative way, presumably to let us participate in making the final decision. I thought when we got the white paper on income security, that that was what we were to do. I thought we were to be given a chance to participate in the making of the final decision. Everyone knows what happened. What happened to the old age security portion of the white paper is a matter of history.
As I say, the white paper was tabled on November 30, 1970. The bill to amend the Old Age Security Act, Bill C-202 in that session, was given first reading the next day, December 1 It was called for second reading on December 2. It went through all stages in the House, was given third reading and passed on December 17. It went through the Senate and was given royal assent on December 18. There was no practice of the white paper technique with regard to old age security changes at all: we got the white paper one day, the next day the process of making the change forecast in the white paper was started, and 17 days later it became law.


John Carr Munro: That bill was not necessarily the last word in the old age pension scheme; you said that yourself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My good friend, that is the finest thing you have said today. I hope Hansard recorded it. That bill is not the last word.


John Carr Munro: No, and we say it in the white paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is nice to have it confirmed. I wish the minister would act on that.


John Carr Munro: Have you now changed your mind about the white paper technique?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, but the government has altered the technique. The things that this white paper proposes respecting old age security were enacted immediately, without any chance of parliament to discuss them as white paper proposals. I thought, with respect to income security for families, that the white paper technique would be carried through, Mr. Speaker. But today is March 24, 1972, this white paper was tabled on November 30, 1970-a year and four months ago-and in all that time it has not been referred to a committee of the House of Commons. We have had no opportunity in committee to discuss the proposed changes respecting family allowances. We have had no opportunity to take part in the participatory process that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he was introducing to make things better in parliament.

March 24, 1972
Family Income Security Plan


John Carr Munro: The Senate Committee on Poverty had a chance-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't throw the Senate committee at me.


John Carr Munro: You expressed your views on that, or at least your party did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall get around to the Senate Committee on Poverty in a moment. Because of what I am going to say to the minister, I remind him that he is my friend. My point is that we are still being handed the same process we have had down through the years with Liberal governments. They decide what is to be put before us; they put it before us and we have to take it or leave it. As I say, under the responsible government set-up that we have, that is their right. But it is the Prime Minister and the cabinet colleagues around him who have said they want to do it differently. They want parliament to be involved. We have had no chance at all to be involved in this.
We now have a bill before us in complete form. The minister found it necessary to ask the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), are you for or against it? The minister thinks he put the hon. member on the spot. If he puts that question to me I shall tell him where we stand, if he has any doubt.


John Carr Munro: I am not going to ask you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My point is, no wonder the attendance is low in this House. No wonder there is lack of interest. We have been fed the notion that we would participate in the process, but we are not getting the chance to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We can have this debate on second reading and express our views. Then the bill will be shipped off to committee where we will be permitted to go through it clause by clause. However, will we be able to get anywhere with basic changes in the concept of this bill? No. The only changes made in this bill will be those agreed upon by the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of Quebec. The Prime Minister of Canada told Prime Minister Bourassa in a letter that if they reached agreement on provincial participation in this regard, the necessary amendments could be made to the legislation as it was going-


Albert Béchard: You sound like Drew in 1944.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon.
member knows better than that. I think I have made my point. It is the same old "take it or leave it" technique- and it comes from a government that said it would use the white paper technique!
I am recasting the line of development of my argument because of the interjection of the minister about the Senate Committee on Poverty. I will give the minister the benefit of the doubt because maybe the speech writers did it for him, but I thought it was less than fair of him to read us quotations implying that certain well known organiza-

tions in the country support the principle of this bill which in the main includes cutting off some people and paying only certain individuals. He referred to the Canadian Council on Social Development-but did he quote what that council said with regard to the Family Income Security Plan? No. He paraphrased what that body said before the Senate Committee on Poverty when it was dealing with the question of poverty in general. Even in his paraphrase he was not able to say categorically that the Canadian Council on Social Development is in support of this bill.


John Carr Munro: Of course not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says, "Of course not". But he stood here and tried to give the impression that the Canadian Council on Social Development, the National Council on Welfare, the Canadian Labour Congress-


John Carr Munro: I said they thought we were doing something meaningful in respect of family allowances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not going to paraphrase; I am going to put a quotation on the record. This is from the comments and recommendations by the Canadian Council on Social Development on the Family Income Security Plan proposed in the federal government white paper "Income security for Canadians", 1970. This is a policy statement issued in 1971.1 quote from page (iii):
The council believes that:
Family allowances should be universal, paid to all families with dependent children as a social right thus avoiding divisiveness among families and any element of stigma. The present program-
That is the family allowances program.
-has this feature but FISP would eliminate it.
That is an open condemnation of this bill in changing from the principle of universality to selectivity.


John Carr Munro: No, it is not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that the minister read these documents before making interjections.


John Carr Munro: Do they say how we are going to recover the money?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On page (iv) they deal with the question of universality and selectivity. They say they believe in selectivity within universality. In other words, they are prepared to have arrangements made for the tax of those in the higher income brackets to be adjusted so that most, or 100 per cent, of it is recovered.


John Carr Munro: Now we are getting at it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, now! They come down squarely for a plan that maintains universality and avoids the concept of putting some people into the position of being stigmatized because they are getting something that others do not get. I ask the minister to read page 10, and I quote:
Family allowances should be universal: i.e. paid to all families with dependent children. As such, they would be accepted as a
March 24, 1972

basic social right and would avoid the division of these families into the "haves" and the "have-nots"-


John Carr Munro: What happens if you pay it out and then take it all back?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared at any time to deal with that at length. What I am pointing out now is that the minister misled the House when he told us that the Canadian Council on Social Development supports this bill.


John Carr Munro: I did not say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me finish the sentence I was quoting.
-would avoid the division of these families into the "haves" and the "have-nots", eliminating any element of stigma in receiving the payments. This result is certainly evident in the present family allowances program in which the entire "community" of such families participates.
I find the same kind of comment in a statement on income security prepared by the National Council of Welfare which was also issued in April, 1971. I am looking at page 18. This is the kind of criticism I would make of this plan. It is the kind of criticism I made of the guaranteed income supplement proposals. Here it is, from this important body, the National Council of Welfare, set up under federal legislation:
The proposed family income security plan is very much similar to the OAS-GIS revision in that it proposes that the increased benefits for the poor with families be financed by the not-so-poor with families. This presumably explains its total lack of even pretensions to adequacy.
We have called it a redistribution of poverty. There we find the proposition clearly stated by the National Council of Welfare. The minister also quoted what the Canadian Labour Congress said when it appeared before the Senate Committee on Poverty about the desire for a more realistic approach to family allowances. He tried to paraphrase this into support for the bill before us, but even by paraphrasing he could not do so. The position of the CLC is that family allowances should be related to the cost of rearing children. Yes, the plan should be more realistic and imaginative but the Canadian Labour Congress has never supported the idea abandoning the universality feature of family allowances.
Up to this point, Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to set the record straight with regard to what some outside bodies have had to say on this matter. Now I should like to say a few words about the legislation before us. There is one feature of it that is good. It provides for higher allowances, at least to those who will receive allowances. It is a crime, as the hon. member for Simcoe North said, that the rate has not been increased long before this. Except for the reduction from four categories to two it has not been changed since 1945, and it is good that a change has at last been made. But that is about the end of my capacity to say what is good about this bill.
Let me point out some of the things that are wrong. First, the complexities of this scheme make it just about unworkable and will make it incomprehensible to most of the Canadian people. Families will need computers in
Family Income Security Plan
order to figure out their entitlement. What is the information which would have to be fed into these computers: the number of children, first of all, and just where they fit into the various age brackets. Next, statistics about the family income, and in the case of persons whose income is not steady from year to year estimates will have to be included because this will affect the point of cut-off and the amount of benefit per child. As the Canadian Labour Congress says, this will produce anomalies and difficulties out of keeping with all the fuss the government is making about the change.
The minister likes to speak of this bill as if it were a means of helping the poor. Mr. Mackenzie King, too, wanted to help the poor. I am glad to see the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has come in and is now in his place. I want to tell him that earlier this afternoon references were made to the origins of the family allowance legislation, and I recalled certain incidents in 1944 when the bill was put through the House. I mentioned that only three of us who were there at that time are members of the House today-the right hon. member for Prince Albert, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Mcllraith) and the member for Winnipeg North Centre; and we three voted for it.


John George Diefenbaker: That is one occasion when we were all right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, we were right then and we are right now. I was saying that the minister talks about doing something for the poor. That is a very nice line of talk but it is pretty hollow when one considers what the government has done in the field of income tax. What was done in Bill C-169? We provided for a 3 per cent tax reduction for individuals, amounting to a few dollars for the poor and many dollars for the wealthy. That is characteristic of the whole income tax structure. The small attempt to reshuffle which is involved in the bill before us does not counteract the basic unfairness of the income tax structure as far as ordinary people are concerned.
What I dislike most about this bill, though, is the decision once and for all to cut off payments at certain levels of income. I know there is a lot of popular support for this idea, especially from those who are below the levels set in the bill, although not so much from those whose incomes are just above those levels. My objection is not so mlich to the administrative difficulties which are encountered or the complaints we shall undoubtedly receive from those whose incomes are in the $11,000 to $14,000 a year range. There will be lots of them; people will write to us about their special circumstances, complaining that even though so-and-so earns $1,000 less, certain conditions which affect them and do not affect the other person make it unjust that one should get the allowance and another should not.
My real concern is that we shall be moving one step further toward the idea that our security and welfare programs must be placed on a basis of selectivity rather than universality. The minister speaks at length when we get into this argument and thinks he has it over me like a tent because he can announce three points, three principles or priorities governing the way in which programs

March 24, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
should be set up. He did so last night and he did so again this morning. The arrangement differed slightly but in essence the list was the same. This morning he mentioned three things: (1) social insurance and universal payments; (2) income support; (3) social assistance. Last night it read: (1) social insurance; (2) demogrants; (3) service. He sets out these schematic areas, and because his proposal fits into them he thinks that makes it perfect. But I say to him that this scheme under three headings is altogether arbitrary. The whole business should be looked at in the context of where society is going.
Society is moving away from the work ethic. Society is going in the direction of a guaranteed livelihood for our people. I am not thinking, now, about a guaranteed annual income in terms of negative income tax, and so on. The minister knows enough to understand that I am not being inconsistent with my ideas on universality, because I have a different definition of a guaranteed income. But today society is going in the direction I have indicated and it is a good thing that we in Canada already have some programs which correspond with this development.
Already there is any amount of evidence that the government is not opposed to the giving of large amounts of money to people for doing nothing or next to nothing. Right now, under such programs as Opportunities for Youth, LIP, DREE, and so on, all kinds of money is being thrown around. Then there are the training allowances and all the rest of it. I am not criticizing these things. I believe some of these things have to be done and they are probably a foretaste of the future. We may reach a point at which, as I read in a paper the other day, welfare is not just a peripheral concern of government but the main business of government.
I think we will come to the day when we shall have universal grants and allowances, when people will have the right to live at a decent standard of living whether or not they have a job. So long as you take the other approach and give government money to people because they are poor, because they are have-nots rather than haves, then you keep them in that category.
I think it is good that old age security was universally applied. It is also excellent that family allowances have been universally paid to all families in the community. But once you get to the point where certain families draw family allowance and other families do not, if that continues it means the children of those families will be recipients of family allowances and they will be the next generation's have-nots. You will perpetuate the division of this country into those who have and those who have not. That is what this kind of program does and it is why I am concerned about it.
As I say, this concerns me even more than the mail that I know we will get from people who are denied family allowances because they do not have a sufficient number of children or because they are just over the income level set by the minister. Therefore, I think the government should have paid more attention to the proposals of the Canadian Council on Social Development; the government should have continued the principle of universality.

I agree that under that kind of scheme family allowance payments should be subject to taxation, perhaps through a special scheme of taxation so that those in the higher income brackets actually pay it all back. Indeed, they might be put in the position where it is not to their advantage even to apply for family allowance; but at least the matter should be left so they can apply. There may be cases where they would want to, cases where the husband would say to his wife, "Let us apply for the family allowance so that you will get the money, and then I will pay it back in income tax."


John Carr Munro: If you put it through the tax system they automatically get it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say that relating it to the tax system is a good thing to do. At this time in our history there is a considerable trend in favour of equal rights for men and women. There was an interesting question on that point this morning put by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). For the past 27 years this is something the mothers of Canada have had: a cheque has been coming into the house in the name of the mother. It was hers. For the million or more families in the category to which the minister refers, these cheques will now cease. Even if it were the case that the mother received the payment and the wage earner had to pay it back in income tax, I think in principle it would be better to keep it that way.
I know what we are up against here, that is, that there is a certain popular notion that it is a good idea to make this money available to the public. If we did give an adequate amount of money to the poor, then that might be a matter to look at. But we do not. We are up against a system in this country where the government makes a decision and that is it; we are stuck with it, the white paper technique notwithstanding.
I am as convinced as I am of standing here that Canada was right when it started to move in the direction of universality with respect to old ages security and family allowances. That is a principle that we should be extending. The government is going the wrong way in trying to reverse this trend by imposing these tests, whether you call them needs or income tests. This approach does precisely what the National Council of Welfare said it does; it makes the not so poor pay for the poor. It also does what the Canadian Council on Social Development said it does; it divides the people in our land into haves and have-nots. That division is with us already and it should be the task of government to lessen the division, not widen it.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the clock seems to move just as fast when one has 40 minutes to speak as when one has 20, as was the case yesterday, but there are one or two other matters I should like to mention. I am terribly concerned about the situation between Ottawa and the provinces on this question. In thinking about this matter this morning I resolved that I would not say anything about the matter unless the minister did. He did not, yet here am I deciding that something should be said about it. The correspondence tabled some days ago by the Prime Minister which has passed between him and the Prime Minister of Quebec indicates that negotiations are going on between Ottawa and that province in regard to some kind of
March 24, 1972

arrangement under which Quebec could alter the scheme provided it did not claim more federal money than would otherwise be available. Another condition is that for any province to do this, the province would have to spend an amount equal to 15 per cent of the total amount spent in this area.
I recognize the growing strength and responsibility of the provinces, but it is interesting that so far as I can ascertain none of the other nine provinces wants this kind of arrangement. None of the other nine provinces wants to have a say as to how the money will be distributed if that would mean they would have to pay additional money. Therefore, I think this proposal has to be looked at carefully, and we should take this look when we go into committee.
If there is a desire on the part of the government to provide special status in this area for the province of Quebec, then I would not object to it, but say so. In effect, that is what we did with the Canada Pension Plan; we drew up the legislation so that any province could set up its own plan, at the same time knowing that Quebec was the only province that was going to do that. It was a special status arrangement which has worked out very well. If that is what is wanted in this case, then I suggest the arrangement be called that, not an arrangement for all the provinces, the government knowing that the other nine provinces are not interested in such an arrangement.
I make that brief comment about the matter because, as I say, the minister said nothing about it today. But the Prime Minister in his letter to the Prime Minister of Quebec did say that if they reached agreement on what should be done to provide for provincial participation, that matter could be dealt with when the bill was being considered by Parliament.
At this point I shall conclude my remarks. As one who, with other members, was here in 1944 when this legislation was first brought in, I am delighted to be here in the House when the amounts under the legislation are being raised, not by as much as I should have liked to see but nevertheless raised by a number of dollars. However, I am very sorry that the basic principle of universality, the principle that we are all together in this, is being dropped by the government. I think this step is wrong and that it should be looked at very carefully.
On this basis, the position that I am going to take on this legislation is that we should look at it further. We are therefore prepared, when the times comes, to give it second reading and to send it to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. However, there will have to be a lot of improvement made to the bill as well as some effort to restore the basic principle that I think was so important to family allowances before we can be satisfied with the bill in its final form.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are getting up, so I shall sit down. I simply say again that I think the government of Canada was right with regard to the original concept of old age security and family allowances and that the present government, in reversing that decision, is wrong. Those of us who are trying to advance the idea of universality, of a country in which we are Canadians all, are not looking backward but are looking forward to the kind of Canada of which we can all be proud.
Family Income Security Plan


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in the debate on Bill C-170 which promises to be highly interesting. The bill is entitled: "An Act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children." Thus, it provides for payments for those who have dependent children.
First of all I should like to subscribe to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) at the beginning of this speech when he recalled the history of legislation authorizing payment of family allowances. They highly interested me.
I remember that during the depression years in Canada, from 1939 to 1940, agencies concerned with the plight of the people called on the government to pass legislation for the payment of allowances to Canadian families. I also remember that at the time short-sighted people denounced the views put forward by agencies or their representatives, accusing them of proclaiming a communistic concept. They claimed that this would mean handing out money to families without their having earned it directly as a salary. In their view, this would incite people to sloth.
Well, it has since been seen that family allowances did not have the results anticipated, that life continued quite normally and that those who were lazy remained lazy and those who were hard-working continued being so.
During a recent debate, I was surprised to hear hon. members, both Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, accusing each other of having done too little in the field of social security.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in politics it is perhaps quite normal to try to stress that greater progress was achieved during the time one was in power than during the time the other party was in power. However, I believe that we should ask ourselves whether Canada, from an economic standpoint, can do more to acknowledge the rights of the Canadian family.
In a speech he made recently the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) said that Canada is the most advanced country in the field of social security. So much the better, if it is true that the Providence has given us untold resources and if it is true that Canadians can develop and transform them in the best interest of the people.
Mr. Speaker, as for me, I believe that the family is the very basis of our society, that it is the family that provides the most important thing in this country, human capital. Therefore if the family assumes such a responsibility, I believe it behooves the State to recognize those rights in a better way, to enable it to fulfil its ideals by providing it with the financial means needed for a decent way of life.
Indeed, why do we live in a society? I believe we do not ask ourselves enough questions about that and I think our young ones, would like to benefit from life in society without thinking as much as they should about the reason why people live in society.
On the other hand, we have rights but we also have responsibilities. And even if it is not practical, from the
1144

if the child is in the 12-to-18 age bracket, the allowance will be $20 and the reduction will again be $4.95, so the actual allowance will be $15.05. If that family has two children, the reduction will be $3.30 for children in the 0-to-12 age bracket, leaving a possible allowance of $11.70, and for children aged 12 to 18, the reduction will be $3.30, so the actual allowance will be $16.70.
For a family with four children earning a basic income of $4,500, plus $1,500 as allowable income, they will receive a basic allowance of $15 per child under the age of 12 and $20 for children between 12 and 18.
If a family has 5, 6, 8 or 10 children, the allowances will be the same because they have reached the maximum. So, this means there is no increase for them.
In the case of a family having an income of $8,000 with one child, allowances will be $3.45 if the child is 12 years old or less, and $8.45 for a child aged 12 to 18. For a family with two children, allowances will be $5.10 for the first one and $10.10 for the second one.
A family having an income of $10,000 and one child will receive no allowance where the child is aged 0 to 12. For a child aged 12 to 18, the allowance will be $1.85. If such a family has 2, 3 or 4 children, it will receive allowances of the order of $1.80 for each child aged 12 or less and $6.80 for children over 12.
I quote these figures to show that if this schedule is to bring some improvements in the case of low income families, we should increase the maximum allowable income from $10,000 to $15,000.
In fact, the present cost of rents, building and clothing is quite high and we are being taxed from left and right. So it would be an acknowledgement of the country's genuine wealth, and the fact that Canadians are hard-working people if this income were increased to $15,000.
Would Canada be worse off for this? I do not think so because this would give a higher purchasing power that would permit families to buy more. In buying more they would pay more taxes, the government would obtain higher revenues and in turn our economy would pick up.
Will this new act provide more money to Canadians? From the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) I understand that under the previous family allowance scheme, the government was spending $800 million a year and it is reported that the new act will increase this amount by $150 million.
This is all nice and well, but I am convinced that more could be done without demagogy and without depriving affluent Canadians or reducing our assistance to developing countries.
I wish to emphasize this because it is sometimes said that Social Credit members are opposing our assistance to developing countries. This is not true. We are in favour of helping developing countries in proportion to our own resources. We are also in favour of assisting underfed families and those who lack housing, food and clothing.
The text I have here is recent. Its title is:
We are not truly Christians unless we accept to share the plight of the poor.
It emanates from the Episcopate of Canada. What does it say?
Family Income Security Plan
The scandal of poverty and injustice throughout the world is flagrant. Twenty per cent of the people of the planet own 80 per cent of its resources.
Canada itself, with its vast resources, is far from presenting a comforting image to those who thirst after human righteousness and dignity. One of every three Canadians lives socially, economically, politically and culturally on the fringe of Canadian community life.
Present housing conditions, the lack of balance resulting from underdevelopment of some regions of Canada are an insult to justice and a canker at the very heart of one of the world's richest countries. We are all, collectively, responsible for such a situation.
Notwithstanding the fascinating horizons opened before us, our era, alas, is the source of many disillusionments. Economists contend that, for the first time in history, everyone could live well. Newly acquired knowledge and technological discoveries can transform old dreams into living realities.
We could do this. Do we really want to? How strong is our sense of justice? How sincere is our love? How steadfast are our convictions? Are we not facing the tragedy of collective irresponsibility? We forget the poor so easily. We are barely inclined to facilitate their participation in decisions concerning themselves. And yet that is a primary demand of man's dignity.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to quote from this text because it comes not from politicians, but from people able to have a really objective view of the situation and to ponder upon it. We politicians should take heed of it and act in such a way as to achieve a maximum of justice in our society which, I know, will always remain imperfect. However, there is nothing to prevent our trying to do more.
In closing, I should like to mention the opinion held by a king who made available to his subjects the money required to really live as a society, to exchange goods and services. I am referring to St. Louis, King of France, who said that the first duty of a king was to mint money when there was not enough of it to guarantee his subjects a sound economy.
Indeed, I feel that it is the first duty of a responsible government to issue the credits required to that end. I know our opponents will say: There he goes again, speaking of money! The minister spoke about it-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock) moved: that Bill C-10, to restrain the use of tobacco, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill which is again before us is one of three similar bills having the same general objective which I have introduced over a number of years. Like
25104-14J

March 24, 1972
Measure to Restrain Tobacco Use
bills put forward by hon. members on the government side and the official opposition, the subject matter of the three bills was referred in 1969 to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. Together with the representations of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) they provided the basis of the committee's hearings into smoking and disease.
This discussion resulted in the report of the committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), which report in turn agreed to the recommendation that all cigarette advertising should be phased out over a period of three or four years, and to that extent charted a course of action similar to that taken in many other countries to reduce the promotion of cigarette-induced diseases, including lung cancer, heart attacks, emphysema and bronchitis.
This bill is in two parts, Mr. Speaker. The first part has been law since, I believe, 1909 and deals with the prohibition on sale and provision of tobacco products to juveniles. The second part of the bill is my own, and it recommends an addition or amendment to the first part and would give the government power over the packaging, labelling and advertising of tobacco products, the precise target in this particular bill being to protect the health of the public from deception as to the character, toxicity or safety of tobacco products.
It is, frankly, not with any hope of having this bill passed or referred to a committee again-it has already been there-that I left it on the order paper. My thinking was that the government has not yet proceeded with the proposed cigarette products act which came out of the health and welfare committee's report on cigarettes, which in turn came out of this and similar bills and the representations of various health agencies in Canada who appeared before that committee in 1969.
Mr. Speaker, no one was more pleased than I when the Minister of National Health and Welfare introduced that bill last year, and nobody was more fearful than myself that the government would not proceed with what the minister proposed, which was to end all cigarette advertising by January 1, 1972. That is why my bill is again before us this afternoon. My purpose in bringing it forward is to urge that action be taken along the lines proposed by this bill but, better still, that action be taken by the government on the more far reaching proposal of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, namely, that all cigarette advertising in this country should end.
One reason for the government not having acted on the proposals of its minister to end all cigarette advertising as of January 1 last is, without doubt, the step taken by the tobacco industry in the meantime of ending all cigarette advertising on the air, whether radio or television, and undertaking to print a rather harmless or even deceptive health warning label on its products and stop giving away coupons or prizes to encourage the sale of cigarettes.
These steps have been or are being taken by industry. But, Mr. Speaker, while some $8 million of cigarette advertising has been ended-that is, the part that used to go to radio and television-the cigarette firms are keeping up the roar of publicity in the print media, inducing people, particularly young people, to start smoking cigarettes and thereby to get hooked on this sickly and dan-

gerous habit. We still have the type of good life, open-air fun and games cigarette advertisement illustrations, the same idea that cigarette smoking is a flesh-coloured, simple pleasure and not the grey killer that it is. There are never any hospital ward, operating room or funeral parlour scenes in cigarette ads. They are not in line with reality at all. Cowboys are still puffing away on cigarettes and they are never identified as coming from "emphysema county."
Mr. Speaker, this and my other bills and those of other hon. members of both the major parties all have one thing in common, as indeed does the minister's bill, that is, that the private profit of the tobacco, advertising and media industries cannot be allowed to stand much longer in the way of protection of public health. If chewing gum or pizza pie had been associated with one-tenth of the sickness and death that cigarettes have, then chewing gum and pizza pie would have been off the market many years ago. At this point I say that I am quite ready to take this bill and my other bills on the same subject off the order paper if someone on the government side will rise and indicate when we may expect the government to proceed with the minister's legislation to end cigarette advertising.
There is mounting need in the country for action such as is proposed in this bill and in the government's legislation. I have in my hand a letter received just this morning from the Canadian Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Association. I think it is particularly timely that I received this letter today. I quote one paragraph as follows:
-we ask you to take immediate action on the cigarette products act. As you know, the bill was introduced last June and we in the health field feel it is imperative we get that legislation through to effectively ban cigarette advertising. This association views with alarm the present rapid increase in the incidence of chronic chest disease. We indict the cigarette as the principal factor in this man-made epidemic. I ask you on behalf of our association, on behalf of our thousands of volunteers, on behalf of the health of Canadians, to enact the cigarette products act now.
Our association concerned as it is with tuberculosis and respiratory disease, had adopted a slogan we ask you to consider with great care, especially as it relates so dramatically to the smoking problem-"It's a matter of life and breath."
This is over the signature of the medical director of the association. In Great Britain the Royal College of Physicians estimates that 50,000 deaths a year are attributable to cigarette smoking, approximately 1,000 per week. In that country the number of doctors who used to smoke had dropped from a majority to just one-third. In the same period, the incidence of lung cancer increased by 25 per cent but it dropped among doctors by 30 per cent. In the United States, the number of cigarette smoking doctors has decreased to about one-third while in this country it is down to less than one-half.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Medical Association, whose representatives appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in 1969, put it this way:
The story of the health hazard created by cigarette smoking represents an unrivalled tale of illness, disability and death. The potential benefits to be derived from a cessation of smoking place it at a level of importance in preventive medicine with pasteurization of milk, purification and chlorination of water and immunization.
March 24, 1972

Many countries have acted against the cigarette disease and curtailed its promotion through advertising. This includes lands on both sides of what used to be referred to as the iron curtain and both sides of the Atlantic. Disease knows no geographical or political boundaries. In this country one million Canadians over the past 12 years have quit smoking cigarettes but about 8,000 begin smoking each month. Most of them are young people. It is this group of young people that we wish to benefit by reducing the inducement to smoke carried in advertising.
I have spoken so far only of terminal cases of cigarette induced disease and not of the millions of persons who are ill from smoking cigarettes or the hundreds of millions of dollars involved in lost lives and loss of time. Through the kind of legislation proposed in this bill, Mr. Speaker, there are several things we can do to help the nation's health. For one thing, we will encourage the government to move now on its own "Ban the cigarette advertising" law. This legislation also will encourage the Department of National Health and Welfare, the CBC and the CTV people to step up educational program aimed at putting out cigarettes across Canada. I might add that apparently the CBC's powerful recent show entitled "One way to quit" is to be aired again next Wednesday. The CBC says that this show has won more favourable audience reaction than any other informational show of this season.
I particularly urge the Department of National Health and Welfare to continue and expand its very fine educational efforts in this field of one year or so ago. Let it continue those efforts on paper and on the air, for without this kind of campaign cigarette smoking will increase. Despite the demise of air and cigarette advertising, this has occurred to some extent in the United States. That has happened, as I say, even though cigarette advertising has been taken off the air in that country. We could if we wanted to take a dramatic and immediate step that would save tens of thousands of lives over the next two or three years in Canada, follow the advice of the Royal College of Physicians of Great-Britain which recommended that cigarette smokers should simply switch to a pipe or cigars. We learned at the health and welfare committee hearings that pipe and cigar smoking are almost as safe as not smoking at all.
Another step we could take is this: Until the government proceeds with its own bill to end all cigarette advertising in Canada, we could say that any advertising so permitted at present must carry within itself, that is, within the text of the message, a warning. If the advertising is printed, there must be a tangible warning taking up at least one-sixth of advertising space and that warning must say something like, "Cigarette smoking is a hazard to health. Department of National Health and Welfare."
I conclude my remarks by urging the government to heed my suggestions. Also, I undertake to take the present bill and similar bills in my name off the order paper if the government will indicate that it will take action this year on its own cigarette advertising legislation and stop the spread of disease.
Measure to Restrain Tobacco Use


Mr. loseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak immediately after the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather). 1 am glad of the opportunity to say a few words on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, for some time now, there has been no doubt that cigarette-smoking is a health hazard. So overwhelming are its devastating effects that they shorten the life of most smokers. Considering this, one may be lead to try and study the psychic process by which man is urged to smoke, while he very well knows that this will be detrimental to his health. This phenomenon is interesting. Most smokers will readily admit that they do harm to themselves by smoking day in and day out and that the only way to recover is to give up the habit. Nonetheless, they choose to go on smoking, in defiance, it seems, of the medical art; they keep laughing at the warnings and not caring a rap about their health.
Once the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and his officials have discovered the reasons why people go on smoking despite the risks involved, I believe a great step forward will have been taken towards the elimination of the danger that the use of cigarette entails.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced in the House of Commons, on February 17, that the government intended to introduce a legislation concerning cigarettes during this session. In this House, thousands and thousands of words have been uttered over the last years concerning tobacco and health. During the short period of time allotted to me, I should like to review the reasons why cigarettes create a problem, in our country and elsewhere, in view of which they have become a priority.
I am pleased to say that I think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has done whatever he could in that field.
In order to become acquainted with some of the ill effects of cigarettes, all hon. members would be well advised to read the 1968 and 1969 proceedings of the House Standing committee on health, welfare and social affairs, dealing with tobacco and cigarette.
During those sittings, the minister himself referred to the health hazard created by cigarette smoking and with ycur consent, Mr. Speaker, I will now read part of the minister's statement. I quote:
I said that cigarette smoking was harmful to the individual as well as to the community. The damage caused to the individual can easily be shown. Tobacco is the main cause of lung cancer. In addition, smokers are more liable than non-smokers to other kinds of cancer. It is not the only charge that can be laid against cancer. Since it affects the lungs, it gives rise to some chronic respiratory ailments, such as bronchitis and emphysema. Those who have suffered from strong painful fits of coughing know what I mean. Ask any athlete. As a simple experience, I could ask any heavy smoker to try either a 200-yard sprint or to run a mile. Wait till he comes back gasping for breath. You tell me then whether their respiratory system is in good shape.
That is not all. If you consider the report, you will notice that the number of heart failures is 70 per cent higher for smokers. The risk is particularly high for young and middle-aged smokers since the risk of this type of stroke is from two to three times higher for them than for nonsmokers of the same age. Now, coronary disease is the main cause of death in our country. Generally speaking,

March 24, 1972
Measure to Restrain Tobacco Use there is no doubt that each cigarette smoked shortens life by approximately 8 minutes. For instance, a 32 year-old man who smokes from 10 to 20 cigarettes a day reduces his life expectancy by an average of 5 years.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the opinion of the Minister of Health and Welfare, who points out that cigarette smokers sacrifice in effect an important part of their lives.
Now, some people are probably asking: If cigarette smoking is so harmful, why not forbid it? Here is the answer: The tobacco industry is an important sector of the Canadian economy, and abolishing it would be a disaster from the standpoint of the economy and the employment market. I again refer to the 1969 report of the House of Commons committee, where it says that cigarettes are the basis of a prosperous agricultural industry in Ontario, and a lesser one in Quebec. Tobacco growing is also an industry in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. Tobacco is the second largest farm product export in Canada, wheat being the first, and this year the sales of smoke-dried cigarette tobacco yielded about $170 million.
The tobacco industry alone employs about 50,000 fulltime or part-time workers, and over another 10 million people are employed in tobacco processing. In 1968, federal and provincial taxes, including corporate tax, amounted to $723 million. Over 75 per cent of this amount goes to the federal treasury. The economic impact does not stop there. Tobacco products are sold in 90,000 outlets-this is still according to the 1969 report of the standing committee-and by 650 bulk dealers and distributors. Cigarette advertising brings in $25 million a year.
It is therefore evident that forbidding the manufacturing and sale of cigarettes would not only seriously affect the Canadian economy but also leave thousands of Canadians unemployed. We should, however, examine the other side of the picture and take also into consideration the damages caused to our country's economy by cigarette smoking.
The losses due to cigarettes in Canada in 1966 were estimated at $388 million. Cancer of the lung accounts for a loss of $56 million, coronary diseases $201 million, chronic bronchitis, $14 million, emphysema, $7 million, other diseases $96 million and finally fires due to smoking, $13,500,000.
Evidence submitted during the committee hearings in 1968 and 1969, is probably the best proof one can give as regards such gloomy statistics.
The Canadian Medical Association were very clear in showing how the cigarette could be harmful to one's health. I quote the following from their brief:
"The most tragic result as far as diseases, disabilities and death are concerned".
Their brief points out further on that the benefits in the case of people who stop smoking are the equivalent of preventive medicine and as important as pasteurized milk, purified water, fluoridation and immunization.
The brief, as to possible medical disputes, contains the following:
We believe one needs only to point out that there are no more scientific controversies as concerns the danger of cigarette smoking. The first statistics were confirmed by clinical observations

and the evidence brought about is now looked upon as a fact by Canadian doctors.
The Association des medecins de langue frangaise du Canada, another medical group, presented somewhat similar evidence when they appeared before the standing committee. In their report to the committee-


Harold Warren Danforth: What was that all about?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought to my attention a matter that is of vital importance to him, to me and to others. Although I am speaking on this matter I thought I would give him a written answer. I hope hon. members will tolerate this procedure and allow me to continue my remarks.

The Association has dealt with the tremendous change that can take place when someone stops smoking cigarettes. Their brief said in part:
It is very often noted that the symptoms affecting former cigarette smokers subside when they relinquish the habit: catarrh, cough and wheezing are less evident. Daily experiences now show that surgical complications are more frequent with smokers than non smokers.
Of course, hundreds of other statements have been made at the committee's hearings warning againsg the dangers of cigarette smoking, many of them being of an alarming character.
Mr. Speaker, I would have more to say in this respect, but I will conclude my remarks as soon as possible.
At the 1964 conference, a young high school girl from Ottawa, Miss Hilary Lips, made a report from which I shall quote a few excerpts:
It may happen that we come across an article describing the pains besetting a person who is dying of lung cancer and we become frightened to the extent that we swear to keep at least ten feet away from any cigarette; but fright has transient effects; a week or a month later, the first scare appears ridiculous and one quickly forgets one's decision to stop smoking. The decision not to smoke is not an action taken under the effect of histeria, but a decision arrived at calmly and reasonably after weighing the pros and cons. Many adults believe that teenagers are too immature to take such a decision and they try to exert pressures on their children either by categorically prohibiting cigarette smoking or by frightening them.
Surely, many of us could give examples of their personal experience, Mr. Speaker. I could do it myself because I gave up smoking more than four months ago and I used to be a heavy smoker. I know what it means to quit smoking and never start again.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, in my opinion, the House should be reminded that the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council published an advertising code of ethics to set up officially uniform standards for cigarette advertising in Canada. Canadian tobacco manufacturers readily stick to this code.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I shall leave the floor to other members who might wish to make a brief statement on the matter.
March 24, 1972


Mr. William Knowles (Norfollc-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on Bill C-10 introduced by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather). If I did not take part in the debate I would be remiss in my duty to the tobacco growing area of Norfolk county as well as many other counties in Ontario including Your Honour's constituency in Northumberland and Durham counties. Your Honour knows as well as I do the great impact which that industry has not only on those who produce tobacco but on many other sectors of the economy.
The production and sale of tobacco is of number one importance. Therefore, one can understand why tobacco producers get uptight whenever they hear something is going to affect the production and sale of a legitimate product. We also get uptight when we hear unreasonable attacks on this legitimate product of ours.
Having said this, I want to commend the sponsor of this bill, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. As he has told us, the bill is divided into two parts, one of which has to do with the control of tobacco products to young people. I do not think anyone in Canada, and certainly no tobacco producer, wants to encourage young people to take up the habit of smoking tobacco. But I am doubtful whether the proposition before us is the proper way of achieving such an end.
Young people are well able to appreciate logic and good reasoning when it is presented to them, and it seems to me that an educational program advising young people against consuming tobacco in amounts which might be harmful to them would be a more effective approach. As to the difficulty surrounding an attempt to do these things by legislation, I can only remind hon. members of the experience in the United States years ago when an effort was made to prevent the sale of liquor through the famous prohibition laws. Everyone knows what an utter failure that was.
It is part two of the bill which really concerns tobacco producers. First, as to the indication that tobacco advertising is to be regulated, it has now been shown that this procedure is useless in terms of restricting the smoking of tobacco. On January 1 legislation took effect in the United States banning cigarette advertising on radio and television. Nevertheless, as shown by figures at the end of the first quarter, consumption of cigarettes in the United States has continued to increase. The daily newspapers last week carried news items which made it clear that the only result was a negative one, a loss of revenue to the radio and television industry. So limiting advertising is not the answer. Again, I believe a program of education is needed.
What hurts and puzzles us as much as anything is the power which it is proposed be given to the Crown to test, analyse and regulate the tar and nicotine content of tobacco. We as farmers and producers are unable to control these levels except by a long process of plant breeding designed to produce tobacco with low tar and nicotine content. Suppose this were achieved: we would then have tampered with the aroma and flavour of the product and
Measure to Restrain Tobacco Use
nobody would want to use it. This would be dangerous to the continuance of our export trade to Europe and particularly to the United Kingdom where people are very conscious of these qualities. A significant change in this respect might well lose us the sale of our product.
In connection with the proposition that the government be given power to control or ban advertising, I am surprised the hon. member did not read more closely the advertising code agreed upon by the Tobacco Manufacturers' Council and effective January 1 of this year. This would bring about, by voluntary action, the very results which the legislation has in mind. I shall not read the code in its entirety but I should like to quote a few of the rules which have been adopted:
1.	There will be no cigarette advertising after December 31,1971, on radio and television.
2.	All cigarette packages produced after April 1,1972, shall bear, clearly and prominently displayed on one side thereof, the following words: "Warning: Excessive smoking may be hazardous to your health"-"avis: Fumer a l'exces peut nuire a votre sante".
3.	After April 1, 1972, labels carrying the warning noted in paragraph 2 shall be made available to operators of cigarette vending machines.
4.	Average tar and nicotine content of cigarette smoke from any brand of cigarettes shall not exceed 22 milligrams of tar, moisture free weight, per cigarette, and 1.6 milligrams of nicotine per cigarette.
These people, knowing the effect of tar and nicotine, have fixed levels which we can accept, levels we can live with and beyond which it would be dangerous for them to go. There are 14 rules in all. It is far better, it seems to me, for an industry which is willing to police itself to be allowed to do so rather than to impose legislation upon it directed to the same end. After all, the proposals before us certainly include an infringement of the freedom to advertise and tell the story of a legitimate commercial product: this is sometimes described as "the right to sell, the right to tell." It might also be considered an infringement of free speech.
I therefore maintain that to interfere with free advertising practices in such circumstances would be exceeding the scope of good legislation. After all, consumers are knowledgeable people and have sufficient good taste to appreciate when advertising is unsuitable or unacceptable: if they feel that an advertiser goes too far, he will suffer loss in the marketplace. It is up to producers to control themselves in this area.
As a tobacco farmer, I should also like to fault this legislation on several other grounds. First, we in the industry are deeply concerned that so much of the thrust of this legislation should be based upon statistical evidence that smoking is a dangerous health hazard in Canada. We do not agree with this. We agree that there is statistical evidence to this effect, but it is only statistical evidence and statistics are shaky ground upon which to go as far as this legislation seeks to go.
Not only are the statistics questionable, but the way in which the statistics are gathered is open to question. During the hearing of evidence in the committee on health and welfare having to do with smoking and health, a statistician appeared before the committee and testified that before one could really reach any conclusion from

March 24, 1972
Measure to Restrain Tobacco Use
statistics one should know how they were gathered, how many samples were taken, and so on.
What concerns me a great deal, Mr. Speaker, is that in the compilation of the report of that standing committee I have the impression that the writers followed a very selective procedure in bringing out evidence which seemed to favour a preconceived conclusion. In substantiation of this assertion I should like to quote from an important medical authority who gave evidence before the committee and whose reputation is beyond question. I refer to Dr. William B. Ober, director of laboratories at the Knickerbocker Hospital in New York and associate professor of pathology at the New York Medical College. His evidence was entirely omitted. This is what he said, and this is why we are so annoyed that people continue to cite tobacco as the number one health hazard:
I have noticed a reluctance by the people who claim cigarette smoking causes lung cancer to present statistics which fail to support or which even negate their preconceived ideas. This is not acceptable in scientific argument. It is what is known as sup-pressio veri. They are perfectly willing to tell you in great detail about all the carcinogenic substances they have extracted from tobacco smoke, but they never bother to tell you that they have repeatedly failed to induce epidermoid carcinoma of the lung in any experimental animal by exposing it to these substances or by having batches of experimental animals inhale cigarette smoke for hours on end. The most they have been able to accomplish is to apply the tar extracted from smoke condensate to the skin of mice and produce small skin tumours, most of them not malignant, some of them, yes, malignant but the same sort of skin tumour one can produce in mouse-skin by applying a variety of harmless substances; that is, harmless to humans. In spite of the several million dollars expended on mouse, rat and dog experiments, it has all come to nothing, no proof whatsoever.
In other words, there is simply no cause and effect proof that cigarette smoking is the number one health hazard it is claimed to be. This is why we become uptight and tend to look askance at legislation of this type. Again I say that a ban on advertising is not the answer. I could quote statistics to show the proof of that statement. I have already mentioned the fact that in the United States cigarette consumption has continued to increase. It should also be noted that figures for Italy, where a total ban exists, or for the United Kingdom, Denmark, Iceland. The Netherlands and New Zealand, where partial bans exist, show that during the five years after the establishment of such bans cigarette smoking has continued to increase. So I say a ban is simply not the answer.
I think this is our biggest quarrel with the whole program. Tobacco producers are sick and tired of having tobacco singled out as the number one enemy, while, as I have said many times, some of the other major health hazards in this land are ignored. I point to alcohol, which I think is the number one health hazard. When one considers the detrimental effect that overconsumption of alcohol has on the individual, not to mention the slaughter on our highways caused by accidents involving drunken drivers, or broken homes, welfare costs, and so on, if the people who continually harp against the tobacco industry went to the same trouble, using the same skill and assiduity, to collect statistics for consumption of alcohol they would be surprised at the result of their investigations. The smoking of tobacco would pale into insignificance compared with alcohol consumption.
[Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand).l
If I may quote a medical authority in California, Dr. Marshall Orloff, who spoke at the Toronto Academy of Medicine, as reported in the London Free Press for January, 1970, he said alcohol causes 90 to 95 per cent of cases of cirrhosis of the liver and can harm even the weekend drinker. He said cirrhosis of the liver is the ninth highest cause of death on the North American continent. In an interview he went on to say that scientists have proven conclusively that alcohol is directly poisonous to liver cells.
Then, too, we are annoyed that no effort is made to ascertain the effects of pollution on cancer and other bodily ailments. I should like to quote the Delhi News Record for December 8, 1971, an article headed, "Pollution consultant takes swipe at MDs on smoking question":
Medical associations have wrongfully blamed the tobacco industry for rising lung cancer rates. This assertion was made by R. W. Johns, a Calgary air pollution consultant, at a convention in that city on November 29.
He told a meeting of the Engineering Institute of Canada that doctors are "woefully" ignorant of the role of air pollution.
Certainly anybody who has been to the Toronto international airport and suffered the pollution from contained automobile exhausts knows something about which we are talking. Then too, no attention is paid to the many other chemical substances that are ingested into our bodies. As reported in the Globe and Mail for December 4, 1971, 30 cancer experts from leading research centres of the United States and Europe met under the auspices of the World Health Organization to evaluate the cancer risk to man of various chemicals. With the international agency for research on cancer they will work on a program to evaluate the human cancer risk of hundreds of compounds which have been shown to cause cancer in animals.
I think the key to this whole question, whether we are talking of tobacco, alcohol, pollution, chemicals or what have you, is excess in any one of these elements of human activity. Anything done in excess can be harmful to human health. No one is suggesting that we want people to smoke themselves into the grave, if you like, by oversmoking; of course that would cause damage. But so would overeating, overdrinking and many other things.
I have spoken rather strongly about this matter because that is the way we feel. We feel, as I said in my opening remarks, that the tobacco industry is the heart and soul of the economy in the area I represent. Eight hundred million dollars of the money earned from tobacco products went into the tax revenues of various governments. Taxes from the sale of cigarettes account for 7 per cent of Ottawa's total tax revenues.
What would happen to Canada's thriving export market for tobacco in some 28 countries, the United Kingdom being by far the biggest buyer? From the 1970 crop, 78 million pounds of cigarette tobacco worth $65 million was exported. Tobacco is Canada's second most important agricultural export, wheat being the first. It ranks sixth in value of all Canadian exports to the United Kingdom. And remember that exports are the life blood of the Canadian economy.
I have taken longer than perhaps I should have taken, but I wanted to get across to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the
March 24, 1972

members of the House the fact that we who produce tobacco for the welfare of our families and the economy in the area I represent feel very sincerely that we are being taken for a ride on what can be considered rather flimsy evidence which is built on half-truths and innuendos.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question before he resumes his seat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member wishes to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Barry Mather: I want to ask my honourable and esteemed friend from the tobacco country of Canada this question. I know he was a member of the health and welfare committee when all the representations to which I alluded earlier were made by the cancer society, the heart foundation, the emphysema society, the bronchitis and tuberculosis representatives, all of whom said cigarettes were a great health hazard. Can he recall any representative of any organized health agency saying anything to the contrary before the committee? I do not mean one or two people whom the tobacco group put before the committee; I mean anyone speaking on behalf of an organized health agency.
*


William David Knowles: I do not think I do, Mr. Speaker. But I also think that the people who did come to speak on behalf of the groups that they represented did not know the whole truth of the story. I do not think they had ever listened to the evidence I have just put on the record, and this is what makes us so annoyed. It seems to me we hear only one side of the story. The organizations to which the hon. member referred have preconceived notions in this regard and shut their minds to other evidence which I consider to be equally authoritative.


Barry Mather: May I ask a further question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired and I have the impression that hon. members are anxious to hear the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle).


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to support Bill C-10 which has been moved by my hon. friend from a neighbouring riding in British Columbia, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather). Due to the lateness of the hour I will not deliver my entire speech but will endeavour to select and dwell upon some priority items.
Regardless of the timely remarks, remarks I think we should take into consideration, of the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), there is such overwhelming evidence of the danger of cigarette smoking-I say cigarette smoking, not tobacco generally; I am referring to the way cigarettes are used by human beings-that I have no hesitation in supporting the bill, nor do I have any hesitation in personally condemning the use of cigarettes.
Measure to Restrain Tobacco Use
Perhaps one of the most frightening aspects is the paradoxical position taken by Canadians with regard to smoking and health. Many readily admit that cigarette smoking may be harming and indeed killing them, but they continue to puff away regardless. Somehow, some day, we must more than reach these people. Somehow we must make them respond positively, not for our sake but for their sake. Let us look at an example. A survey of students in 1968 in the Kenora region revealed that 90 per cent of non-smokers and 80 per cent of smokers believed smoking may have harmful effects on health. Yet only 60 per cent of the non-smokers and 50 per cent of the smokers said that publicity on the possible harmful effects of smoking had decreased their inclination to smoke.
Obviously, there is a great deal of work yet to be done. I suggest this should be centred on health education. I think we should pay tribute to the Canadian Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Association for the information they are providing and for the films they have made, as well as for their desire to co-operate with others in providing information for health education. I wish to refer to a letter which they sent to members of parliament on March 24 in which they advised that they had a film which was used on CBC television. The film is entitled, "One way to quit". It deals with the harmful effects of smoking. I feel they should be complimented for providing this film.
It is obvious that education must play a major role in the information program on smoking and health. In 1965, Ottawa was the host city for a youth conference on smoking and health which was attended by 74 teenagers from every Canadian province. One high-school teacher who attended that three-day conference was an Ottawan who walked away from the conference convinced of its value. He made the following statement:
From what was discussed at the conference, one area of attack will most certainly be aimed at the non-smoking youngsters in our schools. If they are not smoking by the time they are 20 years of age, many of them will not start as adults.
It is understandable that this is one area in which we should start combating the use of cigarettes as quickly as possible, because we realize this is a statistic which has been proven, that is, if people do not smoke until they are 20 years of age they may not start as adults. Therefore, it is important that these young people be influenced to stay away from cigarettes. This is how our health program should be developed. It should be stressed that smoking is not a sign of manliness or sophistication even though the advertisers may hope the younger set will think this way.
I should like to switch to the economic situation in respect of the tobacco industry in Canada as mentioned both by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand and the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay). I refer to the discussion which took place before the standing committee when it was suggested that we should immediately ban cigarette advertising. This was to be confined to television and radio. In effect, we were going to avoid having road signs in newspapers and periodicals. While a flash on television or radio could be banned, a full-page advertisement in a newspaper which might stay around the house day in and day out would not be banned.

March 24, 1972
Measure to Restrain Tobacco Use
If it were agreed-and I subscribe to this-that all advertising of tobacco should be banned, that would be one thing. But here in the House of Commons we are suggesting that one segment of the media should be discriminated against. I believe this would be most unfair. I feel we would be discriminating against radio and television. I would hope we would go forward with our bill to effectively eliminate all advertising or reconsider our stand in respect of discriminating against one section of the media.
On January 1, 1972 the cigarette advertising code of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council became effective. Under the regulations of this code, cigarette advertising on radio and television ceased. In other words, the tobacco industry has accepted the suggestion and has decided to devote its advertising budget to media other than radio and television. While we are at it, let us cover the whole spectrum. Cablevision, of course, is becoming a very vital medium for Canadian citizens in their enjoyment of television. We are subject to advertising from the United States. The advertising dollars of Canadian companies might find their way in the not too distant future into the United States advertising market. Of course, cigarettes, tobacco and other items which we may not prefer to be used or sold in Canada are being advertised by United States television companies. I am making my plea regarding this type of advertising based on fair play and on the fact that I do not believe we as Canadians should be discriminatory in this area.
I should like to close by reaffirming my opposition to the promotion, in any way, of the use of tobacco. We should continue to promote health education as much as possible. I think we should have more confidence in our youth. While our efforts may never be 100 per cent successful by virtue of the fact that we are a free country and enjoy its freedoms, I believe with the proper approach we would be able to reduce the use of cigarettes and gradually eliminate the habit so as not to upset too drastically the economy of the tobacco industry in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice that quite a few of our distinguished colleagues are anxious to participate in this debate, but unfortunately the hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has expired.
It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock on Monday afternoon.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. March 27, 1972.