1972-04-25

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege arising out of information given to the House by the Minister of Fisheries on a matter within the administrative responsibilities of the government. The facts are these: On April 13, 1972, as recorded in Hansard, pages 1294 and 1295, I asked the minister if he could tell the House whether it was his intention to announce new salmon fishing regulations to become effective during the forthcoming salmon season. The minister replied that no new regulations were to be announced. The government would, he said, be repeating those made last year to make sure that the fishermen fully understood the announcement made in 1971 with regard to 1972 and future years.	-
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, ten days later, the minister announced the closure of the commercial salmon fishery dependent on salmon runs returning to the Saint John, Miramichi and Restigouche rivers and to the south coast of Newfoundland. This closure is to commence next month and continue for about six years. This statement was made to the House on motions.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the scheme proposed at great length by the minister was not thought up instantaneously. It must have preceded, in its formation, his answer to my question of ten days before. It would have been quite simple for him to reply then that he preferred not to answer my question as he expected to make an important announcement respecting the salmon fishery in a few days. Instead, Sir, he chose to mislead the House.
With your approval, Sir, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan):
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections forthwith inquire into and report upon the matter of the information given by the Minister of Fisheries upon behalf of the government relating to the salmon fishing regulations in the Atlantic provinces on the 13 April, 1972, to the House and the announcement made by the minister in the House on the 24 April, 1972, respecting the closure of certain salmon runs in the Atlantic provinces to commercial fishing over a period of years.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West has [DOT]given, the required notice under the Standing Orders. I am sure that the hon. member, as a member of long standing in .the House of Commons, knows the rules. He knows, as all hon. members do, that a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of fact does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege. I refer the hon. member to citation 113 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. If the hon. member is making a charge against another hon. member,
citation 127(2) would apply. Briefly, it reads in part as follows:
Unless discussion is based upon a substantive motion drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of . . .
I drop down a few lines.
.. . members of either House of Parliament-
In other words, if the hon. member wants to make a charge against another hon. member of the House he must do so in the usual way by drafting a motion which may be the subject of a discussion and vote. The hon. member knows what the usual implications are for the member who is making a charge. The motion as proposed at the present time cannot qualify as privilege and cannot be put.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I hereby propose to lay upon the table of the House an economic review, being a general review of recent economic developments.


Mr. Baldwin:: It should be edged in black.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been agreed that the motion I wish to propose under Standing Order 43 will be discussed as the first item of business after the question period has expired.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would indicate for the guidance of the Chair and of other hon. members what the motion is. Perhaps it might be put now under the terms of Standing Order 43. It would be helpful if the hon. member were to indicate the content of his motion.


Mr. Fairweather:: The motion proposes that the Canadian House of Commons speak to the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries which is meeting in Washington in May. It was my hope, and I think I have
25104-42}

April 25, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
the agreement of House leaders and others, that there could be a unanimous declaration by the House of Commons of Canada.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to state that the hon. member was good enough to circulate his proposed motion. Certainly the government is agreeable to having the motion put. It is suggested that when the motion is put after the question period a spokesman for each party might be permitted to speak to the motion for a maximum of ten minutes. Under those conditions we would be happy to have the motion put at that time.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is in conformity with what has been agreed to among us.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. He is not in the House, even though he is on the roster to be here today.


An hon. Member:: Here he comes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize what power I have in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Trudeau:: See what you can do with your own members.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to ask the minister who has just arrived what response he or the government has received from the provincial governments to the changes he has proposed in the National Housing Act, and can he state when these amendments will be introduced in the House?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is too early to indicate any response. A little while ago I indicated to the provinces some general proposals we have for the development of a housing policy and asked for their comments. That process of consultation, which I believe the Leader of the Opposition is committed to as we are, is still going on. Therefore it is really too early for me to indicate any response. As to when the legislation will be introduced, this to some extent will also be determined by the nature of that response.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It sounds as though the minister has received some response but is not prepared to indicate what it is. In the field of rehabilitation grants which the minister is suggesting and which are to be matched by the provinces, can the minister say what specific response he has received to this proposal, particularly from some of the less well-to-do provinces which might have difficulty in matching these proposed grants and thereby be unable to get the benefit of this rehabilitation program?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there has been no response at all on any of the proposals because the process of sending teams to talk to the provinces is a process that is going on right now. When we receive that response we will be introducing legislation which I am sure will be the most progressive and reformative housing legislation ever introduced in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish the minister would not indulge in this kind of understatement, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask him whether he is considering giving a somewhat better deal to families in the middle-income group whose incomes are such that they cannot qualify for low-income housing and yet are not high enough to enable them to take advantage of CMHC loans? Has the minister any plans for families within this gap? Is he, for example, proposing to take any action with regard to land banks? Does he contemplate measures to reduce the price of serviced land which seems to be in very short supply in many areas?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Last year, of course, we produced houses in record numbers and the record will again be broken this year. The government is familiar with the problems the Leader of the Opposition mentions and we are certainly endeavouring to introduce policies and legislation aimed at correcting some of them.



SUGGESTED INCREASE IN FUNDS FOR HOUSING FOR INDIANS

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Bearing in mind the interest taken in low-income groups as far as housing is concerned, I should like to ask the member of the government who is replying for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether it is intended to increase government assistance toward the funding of housing for Indians. I ask this question in light of the article by Mr. Stan Bailey in the Globe and Mail last Saturday calling attention to the frustratingly limited resources available for Indian housing at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member a supplementary question to ask?


Mark Willson Rose: Since no one is speaking on behalf of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister?
April 25, 1972


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take note of the question on behalf of the minister who I am sure will be glad to look into it.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON LOW-INCOME HOUSING

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: In
view of the fact that the Charney report contradicts the glamorous statements being made on the direction of moneys to low-income housing, and since the minister said yesterday that it is part of a larger report, would he table that larger report so that we can ascertain what the difficulties and weaknesses are?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I indicated the other day, Professor Dennis is still working on the editing of all of these reports.



CHANGES IN NATIONAL HOUSING ACT PROPOSED TO PROVINCES-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in charge of the most expensive housing in the world. Since the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act have been communicated to the provinces and to the housing authorities of the provinces as a basis for consultation and possible legislative changes, would the minister make the same proposals available to the general public, more especially to municipal governments and citizens groups, and would he refer the subject matter to a committee of the House so that we might study the ideas put forward and call on experts to give evidence relating to this matter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: am following the course which was proposed by the leader of the hon. member's party when we last discussed housing. He indicated that before any amendments to the National Housing Act were introduced they should be submitted to the provinces for discussion and comment, and that is the course of action we are following. I have indicated to the municipalities that they are free, within the terms of their relationship with the provinces, to be consulted by the provinces on any proposals we shall be making or have made. I understand that some of the provinces are arranging to consult with municipalities accordingly.


John Gilbert: Will the minister assure hon. members that the intended legislation will constitute a comprehensive housing program embracing a wide range of income groups rather than a program which will segregate people into ghettos whose occupants are to be determined on an income basis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is argumentative.
Inquiries of the Ministry



STEPS TO REDUCE COST OF SERVICED LAND AND RELAX NHA MORTGAGE CONDITIONS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Would the minister tell us what steps the government proposes to take to reduce the cost of serviced land, especially for people in the middle income bracket? What steps is the government prepared to take to relax the conditions of NHA mortgages, again for the benefit of people in the middle-income group?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the minister can reply briefly to this question which is of a very general nature and normally should be replied to by way of a statement on motions. The minister will be recognized for the purpose of making a brief reply.


Stanley Ronald Basford: have received representations from the housing industry in connection with some of these problems and they are being considered. I hope to indicate my response very shortly. Also, other steps will be taken in the legislation which will be introduced in the House.



ACTION TO INCREASE ACCOMMODATION FOR SENIOR CITIZENS AND MODERNIZE BUILDING CODE

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister advise whether the lack of accommodation for senior citizens, which seems to be becoming widespread across the country, has been taken into consideration, whether it is high on the minister's priority list, and what steps he is about to take to alleviate the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Again I think this is a very general question, but the minister might be allowed to reply briefly.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is very high on the government's list of things that need improvement, though the record of accomplishment is very high. This is one of the areas in which legislation will be introduced.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will have to recognize the hon. member for Abitibi in a moment. Perhaps the hon. member for Hamilton West might be allowed his supplementary, then the hon. member for Greenwood, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Abitibi.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of housing I would ask the minister whether the government is going to take any action in this session to reform and modernize the building code to take into account climatic and other differences between various regions of the country? If so, will legislation in this regard be introduced shortly?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, this is not a legislative matter. A great deal of work is being done on modernizing and keeping modern the building code, and co-ordinating it between the different jurisdictions, but this is not a matter of legislation.

April 25, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry	*



SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL TO PROVINCES RESPECTING REHABILITATION GRANTS

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the minister in charge of housing. In light, of the fact that the proposals made by the government to the provinces emphasized the importance of loans and grants for the rehabilitation of the existing housing stock, would the government reconsider its proposal to make [DOT] this conditional upon matching grants from the provinces, some of which may not be able to afford to enter into this program?	[DOT]


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, all of these proposals-I am not sure to which ones the hon. member is referring-are in the process of consultation and deliberation with the-provinces for the purpose of the formation of legislative policy. We are asking the provinces to comment on the various proposals that have been put to them.



MANPOWER


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could he tell us if training and farm management courses are still being offered to farmers for next year and if any negotiations are being carried out with the province of Quebec concerning the purchase of these courses?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of courses held by the provinces, including the province of Quebec, is now under review by the appropriate officials, and I shall probably be able to make a more meaningful statement in a few weeks' time.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In order to allow the farmers' wives to contribute more to the success of the farm business, would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration try and negotiate with the province of Quebec the purchase of these courses for them?	.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will certainly take that suggestion under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Can the minister explain why his department or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is riot involved in the recent'national program of awards in the use of unit masonry sponsored by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the National Design . Council, a technique which might cut building costs for homes?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Because the'Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is involved, Mr. Speaker.
* Mr. McCleave: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since this program has the title of BEAM within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, would the minister direct some of that beam in the direction of his colleague?	[DOT]
*



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to' the Minister of Finance. With the tabling of the document called "Economic Review", has the minister decided in his short 'period in office to change the traditional method of budget presentation in this House? Since this document is not yet available to hon. members, will the minister tell us whether this is the equivalent of the financial accounting as was part I of the economic papers?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, a decision was taken some months ago in the Department of Finance, which I confirmed shortly after taking office, to replace the economic white paper which for many years has been tabled at the time of the budget. It was decided to replace the white paper with a new annual publication which is entitled "Economic Review". It will be issued regularly and independent of any budget. The publication of this first issue today is the result of that decision last fall and has nothing to do with when the next budget may be presented to parliament. That date will be announced to the House in due course.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: (Edmonton West): Mr. Speaker, removing this operation from certain local smokescreens that are prevalent at this time, will the minister advise the House whether this document is now an in-house document of the Department of Finance to compete with the annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, to which certain officials of his department have taken exception when it has been critical of the policies of the Minister of Finance?


John Napier Turner: No, Sir, it is not. It deals with an economic review of the past fiscal year and some prospects as to the next fiscal year. In no way would it impinge upon the authority of the Economic Council of Canada to deal with medium and long-term economic prospects.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a last supplementary question. Will the minister advise the House why the notice that this document would be released at twelve o'clock today to the press gallery was withdrawn summarily, with the indication that the document was not to be published today?


John Napier Turner: I can answer that question quite easily, Mr. Speaker. I believe a document ought to be tabled in the House before it is published anywhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO INCOME TAX ACT

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Finance is backing gently into a budget, will he advise the House whether it is his intention to table in the House those amendments to the tax reform bill which his predecessor guaranteed to the Senate would be brought in at the time he pressured that body into rapid passage of that bill, in order that we may decide whether they are clarifying or only cosmetic?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I consider myself bound by the commitments of my predecessor and I hope I will be able to fulfil them at the appropriate opportunity.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is in charge of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. It relates to a legal strike at Wire Rope Industries of Canada Limited, where steelworkers refused to cross a picket line. Yesterday a Supreme Court injunction in the province of British Columbia sent them back to work. Now they are being laid off by the company. Will the minister give an assurance that these people will not be declared ineligible for unemployment insurance? They have obeyed the law and gone back to work.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now arguing the case. The minister should be allowed to reply to the question itself.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady makes a very eloquent advocate. She knows I cannot give her such assurance and she knows there is a procedure whereby we do not supply unemployment insurance to people who are on
Inquiries of the Ministry
strike. The question of when a picket line interferes with a person's legitimate right to work is one that has often been referred to the board of referees. It is quite possible and conceivable that this would happen in this case, and I would not want to jeopardize the outcome by anything I might say in the House.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, will the minister investigate this matter himself with a view to seeing that fair procedures are followed?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, fair procedures are always followed in these matters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is he aware of the apparent outbreak of tapeworm infection in herds of cattle in southwestern Ontario?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and we have taken action to try to resolve this problem quickly.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, will the minister make a statement on motions at the earliest opportunity, informing the House of the nature, the danger and extent of the disease, and the compensation to be paid owners of condemned animals?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if that appears to be an appropriate thing to do. I should advise you, Sir, that we have to deal with outbreak of disease problems all over the country that are extremely important to the locality, and it has not been the practice to make a statement on motions as to how we have dealt with them.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which is related to the proposed new airport in Pickering Township. As many of those who wish to appear before the hearing officers under the provisions of the Expropriation Act are anxious to know the time frame available to them for preparation, is the minister able to inform the House when notice of expropriation will be published in the Canada Gazette, which marks the first day of the 120-day expropriation period?

April 25, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: No,
Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the specific date, but as for assuring there will be adequate time for intervention of any sort by any interested party I think I can assure the hon. member that we will certainly bear that in mind.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the time frame at the moment could extend to as much as two or three months and considering the fact that this is causing uneasiness on the part of people in my riding, would it be possible for the minister to check this matter out with the Minister of Public Works, under whose responsibility the preliminary investigations are taking place, with a view to giving us an announcement at least indicating-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked the question and perhaps he might allow the minister an opportunity to reply.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think I got the gist of the question. The answer is yes. I will consult with the Minister of Public Works and we will try to get a specific date as quickly as possible.



PICKERING TOWNSHIP SITE-PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister, together with the hon. member for Ontario and the hon. member for York North, is meeting a deputation tomorrow morning from the neighbourhood of the proposed side of the new international airport and in view of the fact that the project eventually will cost several billions of dollars and will affect the whole region and indeed the whole of Canada, will the minister make sure that the information provided by him to the delegation tomorrow is made available to all hon. members as soon as possible?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member would suggest anything to the contrary. If I recall my words of Friday last, they certainly indicated that it is my intention to make it available, of course, to all members.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has there been any application, or does he have any knowledge of an application, by the railways for an increase in grain haulage charges in view of statements by senior railway officials that tariffs on grain haulage are not large enough to cover the cost of rolling stock?


Mr. Speaker:: While the question is being considered by the government-the Minister of Finance.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member meant the Minister of Transport and he turned off when he heard my name mentioned. Perhaps the hon. member would repeat the question.


An hon. Member:: He has been turned off for a long time.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. Has there been any application, or does he have any knowledge of an application, by the railways for an increase in grain haulage charges in view of statements by senior railway officials that tariffs on grain shipments are not large enough to cover the cost of rolling stock?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think that claim was first made about 1890 something in respect of rolling stock and the cost of carrying grain. To my knowledge no such formal application has been made, but I will take a look and find out for the hon. member.



UNITED STATES POSITION REGARDING CANADA AS SOURCE OF SUPPLY

['will take notice of that question on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.']
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. When he was in Washington recently consulting with the United States Secretary of the Interior, was he informed that the United States administration did not regard Canada as being nearly as bright a prospect for oil imported by the United States as it did two or three years ago, as announced by Secretary Connally last week? If so, what reasons were given?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker. Secretary Morton did not have the viewpoint of his colleague.



Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the House and his deskmate why Air Canada has reduced the number of flights departing for Europe from the port of Winnipeg from two to one per week, thus inconveniencing western Canadians and increasing the congestion at the already overcrowded facilities at the ports of Toronto and Montreal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, a question of this sort I have to take as notice and get a reply from Air Canada.
April 25, 1972


FINANCE
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Finance. If and when the minister brings down his budget, will he give consideration to providing a significant incentive to encourage Canadians to invest in our own resources?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously that is a representation.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Yesterday, replying to a question about investment policy, he said that announcement of this policy would come sooner and clearer than anything said in this House so far. Well, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether his government intends to restrict powers of provinces wishing to contract certain loans outside Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is something we cannot do without changing the constitution itself, but it is common knowledge that the previous Minister of Finance had suggested that the provinces, in so far as possible, restrict their external loans because of their effect on the rate of the Canadian dollar. By and large, the minister, I believe, reported to the House that the provinces were being co-operative in this field. The government has no intention of forcing the provinces into any action whatsoever in an area which comes under both provincial and federal jurisdiction.


UTILIZATION OF BANK OF CANADA TO ASSURE DEVELOPMENT -DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question.
In view of what he has just said concerning the financial problems of the provinces and increasing provincial and federal debts, I would like to ask him whether he intends to consider before long with provincial authorities the eventual recourse to the credit of the Bank of Canada to ensure the normal development of the country and reduce our rising foreign debt?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this question has already been asked and, if I am not mistaken, no constructive and relevant solution has been put forward even from Creditiste provincial premiers.
Inquiries of the Ministry


POSSIBILITY OF PROVINCES BORROWING FROM BANK OF CANADA
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, a
supplementary.
Does the Prime Minister mean that if the provinces asked to be allowed to borrow from the Bank of Canada, the government would agree?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have just said that that theory, of which we only have a glimpse here, is not even applied by the government elected to apply it. I therefore cannot answer about a hypothesis as remote from reality as is that of the member.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Social Credit provinces have already asked, and the federal government stated the possibility was ultra vires, that the provinces have their own credit to ensure their own development.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a debate between the hon. member and other hon. members.


SUGGESTED REVAMPING OF EXHIBIT IN JAPAN TO PROMOTE CANADIAN EXPORTS
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the prime importance of expanding Canadian trade with Japan, can the minister inform the House whether, after the dismal performance of Can Ten in Japan, the whole program will be revamped to emphasize Canadian business opportunities rather than pop art figurines and psychedelic art?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts regarding the form of the question, but the minister seems anxious to reply and perhaps he should be allowed to do so.


Hon. lean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: I am trying to reconcile the different parts of the question and to answer the constructive ones and not the others. With respect to the exhibit in Japan, the question should be addressed to another minister. I am not passing the buck. The buck has already been passed because the Exhibition Commission is no longer under the jurisdiction of my department; it has been under Information Canada for a couple of years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not know about the exhibit because I have not seen it. It was not a trade exhibit but a cultural exhibit, I understand.
On the subject of trade with Japan, I think we are experiencing difficulties now with our exports to Japan because production in Japan is undergoing a slowdown. It is expected that things will pick up in Japan in the coming months and that consequently our exports should too.

April 25, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Harold Warren Danforth: In view of the prime importance of demonstrating in Japan every availability of'business opportunities for Canadians and for industrial output to Japan, will the minister, since his department is involved financially, look into the matter to see whether this exhibit cannot be used for more useful purposes?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Since my department is not involved financially, I will have to pass the buck to whoever is responsible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in connection with his responsibility for matters relating to the national- capital. In view of the interest of the National Capital Commission in preserving at least a part of the Rideau Street Convent as an historic site, is the minister taking steps to assist the National Capital Commission in achieving this goal?


Stanley Ronald Basford: There was an attempt to work with the owner of the property for the preservation of the building and that failed. That is where the matter stands now, except that I understand there have been some discussions with the Historic Sites and Monuments Board.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: My question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister. In light of the initiative taken by the Secretary General of the United Nations in making available his good offices in the settlement of the regrettably escalating conflict in Viet Nam, can the minister advise the House whether the Canadian government was consulted on this matter and whether it is lending its support and encouragement to the Secretary General in his efforts toward bringing to an end this tragic and. long continued conflict and, if so, have the views of this government been conveyed to the government of the United States?	[DOT]


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: will take notice of that question on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



FINANCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the upward movement of the Canadian dollar with respect to the United States dollar despite the assurances given to the contrary by the previous minister of finance-


Mr. Benson:: Be careful.


Gerald William Baldwin: He heard you.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I should like to ask the present Minister of Finance whether it is his policy to continue to maintain a free floating dollar, to maintain the clean float followed by the previous minister?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the policy followed by my prodecessor was clean and it remains a clean float.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



POLLUTION


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: My question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, and I regret that I have not given him notice of it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Walter Groos: Observing that operations were commenced yesterday by United States authorities to survey the waters in the approaches to Bellingham, Washington, and off the Cherry Point refinery to a depth of 90 feet to allow for the safe passage of 500,000 ton oil tankers, and observing that these tankers would be four times as large as those now being built for the possible servicing of the Cherry Point refinery from Valdez, Alaska, will the Prime Minister make known once again to the United States government the Canadian government's increasing concern and apprehension over the possible use of the Juan de Fuca route for massive shipments of oil and at the same time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate, I am sure, that a question such as this one is so long as to qualify more as a speech than a question. I would invite the hon. member and others who ask questions which in my estimation are too long to attempt to shorten them to reasonable limits.


David Walter Groos: I apologize for the length of the question but I felt that perhaps some explanation was necessary. The nub of the question is whether the Prime Minister would make known our concern over this matter, and in particular would do his utmost to persuade the United States

April 25, 1972

government to set a maximum limit on the capacity of tankers permitted to use this route?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. member for drawing this very important matter to my attention. He might be relieved to know, and so would his constituents, that in the meetings I had with President Nixon a couple of weeks ago we did discuss this matter of shipping on the Pacific and indeed on the Atlantic coasts, and the desirability of referring that subject to the International Joint Commission. The Secretary of State for External Affairs also discussed the matter at some length with his opposite number, Mr. Rogers, and I am sure these considerations will be percolating down from the top of the American administration to other levels of government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister in view of the absence today of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the increased hostilities in Viet Nam, is any effort being made to assess the situation of Canadians in Viet Nam and the possible need for an evacuation program, and more specifically the situation with regard to Canadian aid projects such as hospitals and the like in Viet Nam? I wonder whether the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be in a position shortly to give a detailed report on this question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be happy to take notice of this important question on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.




Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to . the one asked by the hon. member for Victoria and I wish to direct it to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether as a result of his meeting with President Nixon the International Joint Commission will be instructed to expand its role to deal with pollution problems on both coasts and whether it will be dealing with the possible pollution danger from the TAPS tanker route should it proceed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Some parts of the question may have escaped me but I think I got the gist of it. What I said was that I had discussed the subject with the President and made the suggestion from the Canadian side about the International Joint Commission. There was no American response to that particular suggestion beyond the one that they would look at the
Inquiries of the Ministry
matter. On the general subject of pollution, I repeat that the President shared the concern that we have and indicated that his own government was looking into all these matters. Indeed, this was demonstrated the next day by the signing by the President himself of the agreement concerning pollution in the Great Lakes.


Mr. Speaker:: We will be running short of time in a few moments. The hon. member for Athabasca will be recognized on a supplementary, and then we will move on to the hon. member for Brant. [DOT]



THREAT FROM PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-APPROVAL OF POSSIBLE APPLICATION TO BUILD PIPELINE DOWN MACKENZIE VALLEY

Paul Yewchuk: My supplementary question is for the Minister ' of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the Canadian government has indicated a preference for the Mackenzie Valley route, can the minister indicate whether, on the basis of the research information that has been collected, he is now in a position to approve an application for the construction of a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley and, if not, how soon he expects to be in a position to do so?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Under our system, application for a pipeline approval is made not to me but to the National Energy Board. The chairman has been responding to questions on this point in the standing committee dealing with my departmental estimates. I have indicated in previous statements that as soon as this season's field studies have been completed in the north we would anticipate that by about the end of 1972 the board would be in a position to entertain applications. That is to say, we will have been able to put the board in possession of all the requisite information. I would refer the hon. member to the details of the over 30 studies which are now being carried on into the various aspects of the pipeline, which were tabled in the House several weeks ago.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact the minister is reported between quotes in the Globe and Mail as having said last Saturday in Elliott Lake that the government policy on foreign ownership of resource industries will be announced "in about seven weeks", and in view of the fact the Prime Minister yesterday informed the House that the minister made no mention of seven weeks, would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources care to search his memory and clarify this issue for the House?

April 25, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have done so and I can confirm that the report was mistaken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What did you say?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Whatever date might have been mentioned by the minister, would he care to inform the House whether the policy on foreign ownership of resource industries will be a part of the over-all government policy on foreign ownership?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I made no reference to a policy on the foreign ownership of resource industries. I made reference to a policy which has already been announced in the House several times with respect to both an energy policy to come forward later this year and also a mineral policy. I also made reference in the same interview to the fact that my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, will undoubtedly be bringing documents before the House in the near future on the question of foreign ownership. My surmise is that the reporter put the two statements together.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and then the hon. member for Bellechasse.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Now that a month has passed since the expiration of the contract with the postal unions, will the hon. gentleman be making a progress statement to the House on the matter in order to ease the tension referred to by the president of the Letter Carriers' Union recently?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: A report on the negotiations?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is my question-in view of the growing tension referred to by the president of the Letter Carriers' Union recently.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: No, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Has the government yet made a specific offer on job security and wages to the postal unions in the negotiations?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think it was the desire of the postal unions that this problem not be discussed in the House.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since milk production will be inadequate for the requirements of this country during the next season, will the minister recommend to the CDC some changes in the standards governing the allocation of subsidy quotas?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have already announced that later this year, when we get into the heavy production season, if the demand level and the production level are such that it would be possible, we will consider re-introducing the 10 per cent overquota threshhold before applying the holdback.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Several months ago the minister indicated he was going to establish in Canada a list of criteria and regulations for the compulsory installation of crash position indicators. We never heard any more of this and I would like to know whether the minister is ready to table that list of regulations at this time?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not
the regulations, Mr. Speaker. I met last week with the Canadian owners and pilots association who undertook within a matter of a few days to give me a statement on how this might practically be advanced. I would hope to have that information fairly soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling orders of the day the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my question is really for the Minister of Justice but as he is not here and because of its importance I would refer it to the Prime Minister. I refer to the press release by the Native Council of Canada who are quite perturbed at how quickly the provincial government moved regarding a Justice of the Peace and how slowly the federal government is moving regarding Judge George Collins who apparently has insulted the entire native population of

April 25, 1972

Canada with his description, "just another stupid Indian"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, who I am sure is aware of the peculiar anomaly that exists, if he would advise the Minister of Justice to deal with this matter immediately so that we can be informed of the government's thinking regarding Judge Collins and the statement that he made, particularly in view of how quickly the province of Ontario moved in similar circumstances?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to comment on the circumstances described by the hon. member but I shall be glad to remind the Minister of Justice about this matter and have him pursue it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal will now propose a motion.



SPECIAL ORDER


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, as provided by Standing Order 43,1 move:
Whereas the Atlantic salmon is the most threatened fish in the North Atlantic,
And whereas only by a concerted international effort can an agreement be reached to protect salmon from being over-fished,
And whereas it is the position of the government of Canada that Canada has the exclusive right to harvest salmon that spawn in Canadian rivers,
This Canadian House of Commons calls on all the nations participating in the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Meeting in Washington, D.C. in May, 1972 to agree that the survival of the Atlantic salmon as a species is of paramount concern and to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure such survival.


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for South Shore, and without getting involved in any way in the procedural difficulties, I think I ought to point out to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) that the "whereas" clause in the motion should not properly be part of the motion itself. The motion should begin with the word "that" and that would be the last paragraph. The hon. member's motion would be "that this Canadian House of Commons etc." I do not mention this in order to cause any difficulty but merely by way of guidance in the drafting of motions.
Survival of Atlantic Salmon


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in support of the resolution moved by my colleague the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). As stated yesterday, many of us on this side of the House were surprised and concerned at the announcement made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) which outlined the unilateral action being taken by this government to close the commercial salmon fishery in parts of Atlantic Canada. I say we were surprised, Mr. Speaker, because this action can only create further unemployment in Atlantic Canada, an area which has already suffered greatly as a result of the actions of this government.
This action, which will affect, according to the minister, some 900 commercial fishermen in Atlantic Canada certainly leaves them in grave doubt concerning their financial future. Quite frankly, I am concerned over the timing of the minister's announcement. I say this because he is well aware of the meeting to be held by ICNAF, the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries in Washington in May. At this meeting there will or should be delegates from Canada, from Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Spain, the U.S.S.R., Great Britain, the U.S.A. and Japan, the 15 nations who are members of the international commission.
These countries are all members of ICNAF or the Northeastern Atlantic Fisheries Convention known as NEAFC and should all be there. Under these conventions, the North Atlantic fishing nations are pledged to co-operate in protecting and conserving the fish stocks of the North Atlantic. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the representations which have been made by Canada, by the United States of America and by other concerned countries, should have served notice on all ICNAF members that not only were our own salmon stocks in danger of extinction but that this danger applied to haddock, sole, cod, herring and many other species as well. However, today, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a motion concerning our salmon and salmon fishermen, and I cannot help but wonder why this government and this minister took unilateral action against our own Canadian salmon fishermen when we are so close to the date of the international meeting in Washington. Hopefully, at that meeting we can obtain an international agreement leading to the use of common sense in conserving one of our basic resources.
As was said in the House yesterday and as is well known, the Danes are the worst offenders with regard to overfishing, followed by the Norwegians and the Swedes. Ever since the whereabouts at sea of our Atlantic salmon became known in the late 1950's and the early 1960's, because United States atomic submarines went under the ice in Davis Strait between Greenland and Baffin Island, on their way to the North Pole and saw millions of salmons suspended like icicles on the bottom of icebergs and iceflows, feeding on small shrimp, the fate of the Atlantic salmon has been sealed.
In 1965, the first year of the deep sea fishery, a total of 50 metric tons was caught in Davis Strait. By 1971, the catch had risen to 2,050 metric tons, or more than 4 million pounds. The impact of this excessive fishery on Canada is great. Our angling catch is down by 50 per cent.

April 25, 1972
Survival of Atlantic Salmon
Between 1966 and 1971 it declined by 50 per cent. Of great importance is the fact that between 1967 and 1971, Canadian commercial fishing, which accounts for almost 94 per cent of the total catch, has gone down by 60 per cent. The Danes claim that this is due to normal fluctuations; however, the constant decline in this resource would indicate otherwise. The development of the northern fishery and the steady decline of salmon stocks should indicate to Canadians and to other countries that this decline is simply not a coincidence.
We, as Canadians, have suffered in other ways, Mr. Speaker. We have suffered from the overfishing by the Danes, which has led to a loss in our own commercial fishery. This has lowered the incomes of our own commercial salmon fishermen. We have lost in yet other ways.
In Atlantic Canada, we can no longerhold out the hope to tourists, whether they come from the United States or central Canada, that in Atlantic Canada they can catch salmon, the king of North Atlantic fish. The salmon was a great tourist attraction in our area, and the government's failure to act ever since the whereabouts at sea of the salmon became, known in 1964-65 has cost us quite a penny in more ways than one, Mr. Speaker.
As the situation continues to deteriorate, another problem has come strongly into focus. .Obviously, the Canadian taxpayer is subsidizing the.Danish fishing fleet, at a -time when other tax dollars are being spent'to overcome threats to salmon while they are'in Canadian waters. We [DOT] are spending our tax dollars on.pollution abatement, dam removal, surveillance and on the installation of fish ladders around natural and man-made obstacles. In addition, large amounts are being spent on continuing salmon research facilities. Since the Danes have no salmon rivers of their own, it is obvious that they are catching our salmon because without-the enormous cost that is being paid to protect and improve our rivers, there would simply be no salmon.
This government must recognize that the Atlantic salmon is a very valuable natural resource. It must point out to all nations fishing in the North Atlantic that this fish is unique. It is entirely dependent on its river of origin for survival. This, Mr. Speaker, is a characteristic that is found in very few species of fish. We should-actually, we must-take the stand, unilaterally if necessary, that ana-dromous species such as salmon belong to the country of origin. We plead with the government to take that stand and we recommend that the minister make that position known forcefully when he attends the conference, which I hope is his intention, which is to be convened in May.
It is my understanding that a ban on high seas salmon fishing has been thoroughly examined by all the governments represented in ICNAF since Canada first raised the proposition in ICNAF during the 1967 meeting. A two-thirds majority of ICNAF and NEAFC members found the ban to be justifiable in terms of the powers of the two conventions, and the ban has been in legal effect for 12 members of ICNAF since early 1970. A few governments, namely, the Danish, the Norwegian and I believe the Swedish, continue to oppose the ban. This brings into question the over-all effectiveness of these two commissions and their ability to protect adequately our declining fishing resources.

It simply does not make sense for a few nations to make virtually all of the investment required to conserve and protect the Atlantic salmon while others reap a harvest from this fishery to which they have made no significant investment. In my opinion, if the Danes or any other country continue to fish our salmon on the high seas, we shall have to consider making a charge against them on a tonnage basis for salmon resource development as long as that resource lasts. It is my understanding that the Danish government has already given Canada a token contribution to help in salmon research, which indicates that their actions are already weighing heavily on their consciences. However, we have passed the stage at which we can talk of international quotas on our salmon. Only a total ban on international salmon fishing is acceptable to Canada. Only with the co-operation of Canadian anglers, anglers from other countries, the commercial fishing industry and all other users of our rivers can the king of fish be saved.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I feel the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has given an excellent summary of our position regarding the Atlantic salmon situation today. I am happy to join him in saying a few words in support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather).
* Perhaps I should preface my remarks, particularly for the benefit of those who live on the Pacific coast of Canada where the salmon fishery is also of very great importance, by saying that when we talk about the Atlantic salmon we are talking about a different kind of fish than that usually referred to as salmon in British Columbia. I remind hon. members of the House that the fish- on the Pacific coast that is most like the Atlantic salmon .is the one we call steelhead, or the Pacific steel-head trout. -
The question we are discussing today has been brought forward in a unique way. I hope the significance of this motion, after it has been passed unanimously by this House, as I hope it will be, will not escape the international community of nations that is concerned about the North Atlantic fishery. According to my recollection, what we are doing today in dealing with fisheries matters constitutes a "first". The things that are happening in the oceans of the world are coming more to the fore. I hope that responsible ministers and representatives of Canada who will attend the forthcoming meeting of the International Commission in Washington will not only draw attention to this resolution but draw to the attention of the other members of the commission eyerything said on this subject in this House yesterday and today.
In my hand I hold the most recent issue of International Wildlife, published by the National Wildlife Federation of the United States. In it there is an article by Thor Heyerdahl which, although not referring specifically to salmon as such, is pertinent. Referring to the Atlantic ocean and his impressions on crossing, the author says:
Crossing the Atlantic on a papyrus boat, one is impressed not so much with the vastness of the ocean as by the fact that it is so very much smaller than we usually think it is ...
Although we are living in the era of moon travel, we cling to the pre-Columbian concept of an endless ocean running into the blue space of the universe. We do not admit to ourselves that the oceans are "landlocked" with all the sewers and all the refuse of the world constantly running into them, without any outlet. We have
April 25, 1972

almost destroyed Lake Erie and Lake Michigan, yet the Indians who lived on its shores centuries ago would have believed this impossible.
We hold political discussions on whether we should be permitted to dump waste inside or outside territorial waters. But there is no "territorial water" in an ocean; it is constantly rotating like a boiling pot.
As I said, that quotation does not directly refer to the situation of the Atlantic salmon, but it at least gives some picture of the body of water we are discussing when talking about a ban on the high seas fishing of salmon in the Atlantic.	. ..
The International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries is in many ways a rather unique organization, particularly as far as fisheries international organizations are concerned, because of the number of nations that are participating in it. I hope that the crisis which has developed in Canada with regard to the salmon fishery as a result of the minister's- announcement yesterday, will impress the members of the commission with not only its uniqueness but its weakness. I suggest that very pertinent to the forthcoming meetings in Washington to discuss the salmon question may be an analysis of the weaknesses in the operation of the commission.
While the number of nations participating in some fishing conventions for the Pacific is smaller, nevertheless in actual practice they are in some ways much more effective because of the agreement on the actual take of fish. If one has any familiarity with the operation of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission and its work in restoring very severely damaged runs of Fraser river salmon, and any knowledge of the fact that at one time the North Pacific halibut was being fished almost to the point of extinction, both of which were brought back to fisheries that yielded major sources of food, he can understand the basic weaknesses of the North Atlantic set-up which has sparked the situation which is the subject matter of-this motion.
I hope that as a result of the passage of this motion, which involves agreement that the survival of the Atlantic salmon as a species is of paramount concern and refers, to taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure such survival, there will be, some real down-to-earth discussion by members of the commission meeting in Washington that will lead to the kind of revision of the North Atlantic Fisheries Convention that is necessary if it is to be an effective operating vehicle for the preservation of the resources of the North Atlantic.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) announced yesterday the radical decision which he made unilaterally regarding commercial salmon fishing in the great Saint John, Miramichi and Restigouche rivers.
In fact, the minister has banned salmon fishing for a six-year period to be determined with the fishermen themselves. This is fine and it provides enough time for a complete cycle in order sufficiently to replenish stocks in rivers so that commercial fishing may be resumed.
Survival of Atlantic Salmon	.
Over 900 fishermen will thus lose their employment and their income. The problem is extremely serious.
Mr. Speaker, the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF), of which Canada and Denmark are members, was to watch the situation. But nothing has been done and this commission has been an utter failure; meanwhile, the federal government has failed to intervene to assure the conservation of marine resources under a short- and long-term planning policy. It has done nothing essentially, although it was aware of the situation. The minister himself admitted it yesterday when he said, and I quote:
* Historically, the total mainland take accounted for approximately one-half of the over-all catch of Atlantic salmon by Canadians. This volume has been sharply reduced. It has fallen by more than 80 per cent since 1967. On the Miramichi, where escapements formerly were measured in the tens of thousands of large fish, they are now measured in the hundreds.
- Why then did the minister not foresee this, since he was aware of the situation, and why did he not act for the conservation of our resources? Why also did he not propose a sensible policy to ensure the development of those resources?
On the other hand, Danish fishermen are operating in our fishing grounds. What is the government doing? Nothing. Has it protested? Not to our knowledge. What does it intend to do? It is taking a unilateral decision and saying to the fishermen: "Commercial fishing will no longer be allowed in our waters, but compensation will be paid to you."
Mr. Speaker, a meeting will be held in Washington in May 1972 about that problem. My colleagues from the Social Credit party of Canada and myself strongly support the resolution introduced today and we encourage the minister to take an extremely firm and clear stand at the meetings of that Commission.
It is time that foreigners learn that the Canadian people believe in natural resources and intend by all possible means to protect them, especially the huge marine resources which are wasted, due to our lack of a conservation or development policy.
Mr. Speaker, Canada must again protect the runs and the minister knows it. Indeed, I would like to hear the minister, as the situation is serious, state the means which he intends to take to assure the future protection of runs.
We must, on the other hand, compensate adequately fishermen whose income is now almost wiped out.
Third, we must in Canada, in view of the length of this period during which fishing will be banned, provide assistance and retraining for these 900 fishermen, namely the breadwinners, so as to enable them to provide for their own needs. To sum it up, this new measure will create 900 more unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, this question is too important to become a matter of partisan politics. I will conclude my remarks by urging strongly the minister to take a firm stand at the meetings to be held in Washington in May, so that foreigners will realize that Canadians intend to take every possible means at their disposal to ensure the respect of international agreements.

Survival of Atlantic Salmon
Denmark had signed this treaty, but did not respect it. And salmon fishing on the high seas has contributed directly to a loss of employment for 900 individuals in the Maritimes, which is extremely serious.
I would therefore urge the minister to take an extremely firm stand in Washington in order to create awareness of what Canadians want, what they need. I ask him to see that studies are set aside and that a very explicit policy is adopted for the preservation of our resources. First of all, they must be assessed, after which a policy of short and long-term preservation and adequate operation should be adopted so that future generations do not face the same problems we have today.
If the minister and his precedessors and the government had taken the necessary action as soon as it became known that the existence of salmon was at stake, and if at that time they had insisted on observance of the treaty, we probably should not be faced with the present problem.
Mr. Speaker, I trust that the minister will take a firm stand in Washington so that, once and for all, foreigners may become aware that Canada possesses immense resources. There is no reason why in Canada, with such vast resources, some of our citizens should suffer unemployment or poverty just because of our failure to preserve our resources by adequate operation.


Hon. lack Davis (Minister oi the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to second the motion put forward by the member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) which, in effect, condemns the harvesting of salmon on the high seas. Canada's position for 20 years, has been that the harvesting of species like salmon, which return home to spawn, should take place in or near the rivers themselves. Unless a policy of that kind is followed there is no incentive to maintain the stock, to keep the species alive, and to keep it alive and in a healthy state.
The Atlantic salmon, in marked contrast to the Pacific salmon, is now in the category of an endangered species. This is true particularly of the large Atlantic salmon which spawns in our mainland rivers, in the Maritimes and in Quebec. At one time the Atlantic salmon ran in great numbers in all of the rivers of Europe. Now, few streams see salmon returning to their numbers diminish every year. Salmon used to run in the rivers of New England, including the Hudson. They used to run up the St. Lawrence, up the Ottawa past Parliament Hill, up into Lake Ontario. They vanished from those areas decades ago.
The remaining rivers to which the large Atlantic salmon return in quantity are those of New Brunswick and Quebec. We have taken an important step in recent days by closing these fisheries. The main purpose is to ensure that the endangered species survives, and that these rivers are brought back into a condition as near as possible to that of their original state. It is possible for this to be done. It has been done with respect to rivers on the west coast of Canada. I might add that on the west coast we have been able to maintain salmon runs at or about the level of the 1920s. Now, they are actually increasing,

despite heavy fishing and industrialization. Clearly, it is possible to bring our runs back in the Atlantic region as well.
For the benefit of the hon. members from Newfoundland, most of the salmon that return to the streams of Newfoundland and Labrador are one year fish. They don't go to Greenland. The ones that do go to Greenland are two year fish from the mainland. There, they are fished in large numbers by the Scandinavians, the Danes, the Norwegians and the Faroese. The big mainland salmon are the ones which concern us most. This is why we are concentrating on the Saint John, the Miramichi and the Restigouche. This is why the Province of Quebec will have to take similar measures on some of its big rivers as well.
There has been a dramatic decline in the return of large salmon to those mainland rivers, a drop of more than 80 per cent since 1967. This cannot be allowed to continue.
There are two reasons for this decline. First, there is the greed of Scandinavian countries, principally the Danes, but also latterly the Norwegians and to some extent the Faroese. They must stop fishing on the high seas. And after they stop, we still have the problem of bringing the stocks back. We will have to interrupt our own commercial fishery at the mouths of our rivers. There is no way in which we can allow dozens of boats, each dragging a half a mile of netting behind it, to cruise backward and forward across the mouths of those rivers, and still expect these runs to come back quickly. This is why we have taken the decision, one which was discussed with the ministers of fisheries from the maritimes and Newfoundland, and with fishermen's representatives over recent weeks, to close the fishery for a period of years. We are going to pay compensation. We are going to make funds available in an amount which is greater than the recent annual earnings of commercial fishermen to those who are affected by our ban. We shall be establishing committees of fishermen and river management committees to help us bring back these stocks. We shall employ fishermen who want jobs as river guardians in the policing of the waters. We shall pay others for their gear, or make cash settlements. We will help all fishermen to participate in other fisheries as long as the ban lasts.
The main note I wish to strike is one of optimism with regard to the long term future. We intend to get these salmon runs back, and this is the only way to do it. Had we simply curtailed the length of the season, we should merely have cut the income of fishermen. Their incomes would have been cut back without compensation. Actually, the compensation which we are offering will offset the loss of income of the fishermen during the period in which they are not allowed to fish, and when the runs revive, these men will have the opportunity to go back and fish a new, much larger run of large salmon. This is an approach which the fishermen themselves prefer because they will be much better off in the short term and long term, than they would be if they were allowed to fish the salmon to extinction.
I think the behaviour of Denmark is reprehensible. We have had meetings with the Danes both within the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries and bilaterally. In 1970, in the ICNAF meetings, an agreement
April 25, 1972

was reached with the Danes that they should hold the 1971 catch at their 1969 level. They were not to put more gear into the water, for example. In 1971 their catch went up by approximately 30 per cent. There are a number of reasons why this was so. My officials tell me that they used more gear and they fished more frequently. The mesh they used was finer, they improved their fishing methods. They changed over to monofilament yarn in the nets and were better informed last year-they knew more about the fishery. These are the reasons their catch went up by 30 per cent. The Danes landed more of these large salmon than all our mainland commercial fishermen combined. Obviously, we have to stop the Danes from fishing on this scale. We have to stop Norway getting into this fishery as it has done in the last few years.
I might tell the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) that Sweden is not in this fishery. The Faroese are. Through ICNAF we must convince them, through the pressure of public opinion we must prevent them-


Mr. Lundrigan:: In what year?


John (Jack) Davis: This year, 1972. From now on. The United States has, for some inexplicable reason, decided to enter into an agreement with Denmark for the Danes to phase out by December 31, 1975. Well, four years is three years too many. They have got to stop now.
As hon. members know, our next opportunity to sit across the table from the Danes is in Washington toward the end of next month. At that time 14 nations assemble, all of them nations that fish the North Atlantic. At that time, we will be talking to the Danes. Last time round the vote was 12 to 2 in our favour, but the Danes, supported by West Germany, decided to go against our resolution, the traditional Canadian resolution, to ban salmon fishing on the high seas; in other words, to limit the catching of salmon to those countries that look after their rivers. We were proposing to look after those countries that clean up and police their salmon streams, that build hatcheries and ensure their spawning grounds are kept in good condition. This has been our policy for many years; all hon. members know that. But we have not yet managed to convince the greedier nations of the world to go along with the protection of what is really an endangered species.
To give some idea of the decline of the salmon fishery, the total salmon fishery on the east coast is only about one-twentieth the size of the salmon fishery on the west coast. It has reached that condition because of man's greed, yet there are still greedy people around who want to eliminate the species altogether. At least, that is the likely effect of their actions if they are allowed to continue their current practices.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, we will be meeting the Danes in Washington along with the representatives from another dozen countries. We hope that we will be able to convince them to stop fishing this summer, not next summer or the following summer, but this summer. We have managed through FAO to arrange an international meeting, a meeting of all the world's fishing nations, in Vancouver next February. We will be talking primarily about the management of the world's fishing resources, and we
Survival of Atlantic Salmon
will be talking about salmon again. We will be underlining our case for salmon to be fished only by those countries that look after their own rivers.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize the fact that we have been in touch with the fishermen, and the fishermen agree with our approach. It is the only approach that will save the Atlantic salmon, and I hope that the Danes, the Norwegians and the Faroese get the message spelled out in this unanimous resolution of the House of Commons of Canada.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The order of the House was that 10 minutes would be allowed each member to speak on behalf of his political group. This time has now expired.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Speaker:: That could be done with the unanimous consent of the House, otherwise we would be contravening the order made by the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened with interest to the minister's statement, and I am wondering whether he will put on the record the three countries in ICNAF who have not followed the request of the entire convention to desist from fishing salmon on the North Atlantic.


John (Jack) Davis: In actual voting, Mr. Speaker, only Denmark and West Germany opposed Canada's resolution last year and the year before. Of the two, only Denmark is fishing for salmon. The West Germans say that there should be freedom to fish on the high seas as a matter of principle, so they voted with the Danes though they do not fish for salmon. The Norwegians voted with us, even though they fish for salmon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is it my understanding that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal was to be seconded by the Minister of Fisheries? Is that the agreement among hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
April 25, 1972
Family Income Security Plan


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-170, to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and the amendment (Mr. Lewis) p. 1448.
Mr. A. P. Gleove (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, when I was discussing this particular motion the other night, I was pointing out to the House that there were two important considerations here. One was that universality-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has the floor. It is my understanding that we have completed the previous debate and that we are now on a new item of business.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the concerns of the members of this party is the loss of universality under the provisions of this bill. The second concern we have is the unworkability of the proposals before us. We realize we are in the computer age, and that calculations can be made today that a few years ago would never have been undertaken on a mass scale affecting 20 million Canadians. But even with this change, it is very probable that the bill will be unworkable because of the calculations that will have to be made in connection with the incomes of Canadian families. Incomes vary a great deal from family to family, from one year to the next year, and even within the course of one year.
A matter that gives me great concern is this: We have recently been experiencing the repercussions of the new Unemployment Insurance Act which introduced some new concepts. One was the provision of sickness benefits, while another related to the taking into account of holiday pay and severance pay. When one realizes how badly these provisions fouled up procedures and settlements that were due to people who had paid their insurance, one understands what can result from a bill such as this.
Those individuals who apply for unemployment insurance are people who have paid money into the fund. They are not asking for charity; rather they go to the unemployment insurance office to claim benefits that are due to them. I have at different times received reports from people who have made a claim for benefits but have run into difficulty, either because those administering the system have not adjusted to the changes, or because there is real difficulty in calculating benefits in certain areas. In addition, those who apply for benefits sometimes find themselves treated as mendicants, as people who are asking for a grant or a gift from the state. This should not be, but the proposals in this bill could very well put a number of people in the same position.

There is no question about it, all families will have to establish what their income was in any year in order to collect, and the responsibility will fall on them to do so. The bill reads, in part:
Where at any time during the first eleven months of a benefit year, other than the fourth month, or during the eighth month period next before that benefit year a parent
(a)	ceases to hold an office or employment previously held by
him or ceases to carry on a business previously carried on by
him, or
(b)	for any other reason suffers a loss or reduction of income, as a result of which event or occurrence it is reasonable to expect that the income of the family for the calendar year in which the event or occurrence took place or for the next following calendar year will be substantially reduced, the parents may, in such manner and within such time as are prescribed, file a statement of the estimated income of the family for the calendar year in which the event or occurrence took place, in which case the income of the family received during that part of the calendar year after the month in which the event or occurrence took place divided by the number of months in that part of that calendar year and multiplied by twelve shall be deemed to be the income of the family for the base calendar year.
If anybody was able to follow the sense of that section after the first sentence, he should stand up and take a bow. The clause provides that parents may, in such case, file a statement, but what happens if they do not? When they ask for their payments will some clerk or other person in the department say, "you did not file a statement"? Is this compulsory or is it not? Will the individual have to establish what his income may have been or is going to be? He is supposed to file a statement outlining what the reasonable expectations are for the family income for the calendar year. There are many people who have no basis upon which to make a forecast of their income. This is just not possible for many people who are self-employed or farming, about which I know something. You cannot reasonably expect them to forecast their incomes within close enough limits to serve the purposes of this bill, yet this is what they will be asked to do. Somebody must have drafted this bill. Did that person or the minister not realize it would not be possible for these people to forecast their incomes within reasonable limits?
I had been in this House for only a year and a half when the minister responsible for the post office adopted a policy of closing a number of rural post offices and a five-day work-week. I spent the better part of two years, off and on, fighting to keep open certain rural post offices in my constituency, which in my opinion, and the opinion of those people who lived there, were essential to the needs of the people. My batting average was about 25 per cent. For every one I persuaded the postmaster and those concerned at that time to keep open, probably two or three were closed. Now, the minister says this was a very bad mistake. The department should not have closed so many rural post offices, and should not have gone to a five-day week. He says some action will have to be taken to correct this mistake. Let me suggest to the government that the injustices it visited upon those people will not be corrected by this government. The injustices done to those people who received as little as $2,500 or $3,000 annually for running a post office in a community, and who were let out will not be corrected.
April 25, 1972

It is about time the government became aware of human factors, that it is not dealing with statistics but with flesh and blood people, who think, run, walk, sit and eat. They are not puppets that which, when the strings are pulled, bob up and down. It does not matter how many times you jerk the string of a puppet, it will bob up and down. However, if you are dealing with people and you jerk them around, it hurts. You might hurt them to the extent that the injury cannot easily be remedied. This might be the effect of the legislation now before the House.
Let me read you another part of this bill:
Where payment of a benefit is approved in respect of a benefit year, the benefit is payable for each month in that year commencing with the month following the month in which the application therefor is received, but if a benefit would have been payable before that month if an application therefor had been made, then the benefit is payable for each month commencing with the latter of
(a)	the 11th month preceding the month in which the application was received; and
(b)	the month in which a benefit would first have been payable if an application therefor had been made.
If hon. members were able to follow the sense of this bill, they must be pretty good. I have seen similar provisions in other bills proposed in respect of agricultural matters. As a result, we get programs like Lift. After these programs are in operation for a little while, we see a repetition of the post office scheme. A farmer or businessman operating a farm will say that the program is not working and ask that something be done about it. The government then begins to work its way through a tangle of bureaucracy to straighten out the program.
Let me say in all honesty to the minister that this is an unworkable proposition. I would be much better for Canadians if we continued to use the method we are now using. We should have universal payments which are tied to the cost of living in order that family allowances can keep pace with whatever degree of inflation occurs. If it is thought that this is a good method of supplementing income, two principles should be observed. Universality and the rate of inflation should be taken into account in respect of family allowances and old age pensions. The government should, when setting the tax rate, keep these principles in mind in order to take back the surplus at the upper end as well as look after the needs at the lower end.
I do not understand why there is such great concern to limit payments of this kind. The people who get them spend the money in any event. It goes into the stream. They are taxed on the money they receive. These payments are not like the dividends and earnings of corporations which go to Washington, London or Paris. This money stays in Canada and keeps working around through the stores, the service stations and the garment manufacturers. It goes the whole circle, and the tax collector, the wholesaler, retailer and the service station operator grab off their 5 per cent, 7 per cent or 10 per cent. This keeps the economy running. I think that instead of this miserly, penny-pinching attitude which has become so prevalent with this government in respect of our low income people, our senior citizens and so on, the government should adopt an attitude which would put some
Family Income Security Plan
purchasing power in the community. Perhaps then the government would not be plagued as it is now by the unemployment problem.
If the government would get the economy rolling so the people would have some purchasing power, we would not have the extremely high rate of unemployment we have now. One of the real problems is that we are getting fewer and fewer people with purchasing power and more and more people at the barest subsistence level which makes it necessary to pinch every penny. If someone could persuade the financial thinkers on the other side to turn their thoughts around a little bit and change their approach, then I believe perhaps we would do better. But, in closing, I suggest the only thing I can do is plead with the minister to withdraw this bill before he does irreparable harm to the total Canadian community.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak again on Bill C-170 by virtue of the NDP amendment. It has now been 17 months since the government revealed its intention to improve the family allowance system in Canada. For each month that passes $14.2 million is withheld from the poverty-stricken people of Canada. The delay has already been too long; to delay any longer would be intolerable. Poverty in Canada affects about a quarter of our population, and increased family allowance cheques will be of great value to them. Adjustment to the payment levels of family allowances has not been made since 1957 and is therefore long overdue. For these reasons, the Progressive Conservative members in the House of Commons will support the Liberal government's FISP bill at second reading.
This is not to say that we are satisfied with the bill as it stands. We are not. There are gross inequities, ambiguous clauses and costly provisions contained in Bill C-170 and our party is determined to make every effort to have Bill C-170 greatly improved during the committee stage.
In the first place, we dislike the fact that it is no longer stipulated in the legislation that family allowances are to be paid to the mother for the care and education of her children. The principle of Bill C-170 is not the principle of the Family Allowances Act, it is not the principle of the Youth Allowances Act and it is not the principle of the predecessor Bill C-264 of last session which was introduced in the House in September, 1971. Between that date and 15 March, 1972, when Bill C-170 was introduced, an entirely different principle, a totally different philosophy, a distinct legal concept, has been silently substituted.
The Family Allowances Act, the Youth Allowances Act and Bill C-264, all have one principle in common. That principle is that the benefits are established, paid and administered on the basis of a right that is vested in our children. The people of Canada, acting through their government, are the donors; the parents are the trustees, and the children have been and are the beneficiaries. Through Bill C-170, the government proposes to take away that right. Nowhere in his explanation of the bill on second reading did the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) confess to the purpose of Bill C-170. Indeed, he implied that the rights of Canadian children, as established by parliament, will be maintained and even

Family Income Security Plan
enhanced. As can be seen from a reading of page 1133, first column, of Hansard for March 24,1972 he said:
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.
He might have added that neither does FISP. Section 5 of the Family Allowances Act, as enacted by this parliament, provides that the allowance shall be applied by the person receiving it exclusively toward the maintenance, care, training, education and advancement of the child.
Section 5(1) of the Youth Allowances Act, as enacted by parliament provides:
An allowance payable to a parent in respect of a dependent youth shall be applied exclusively for the care, maintenance, education or advancement of such youth.
Clause 5(2) of Bill C-264, the Family Income Security Plan of last session provided:
That a benefit shall be applied:
a)	in the case of a child referred to in paragraph 3(1 Xa) exclusively toward the maintenance, care, training, education or advancement of the child in respect of whom it was paid, and
b)	in the case of a person referred to in paragraph 3(l)b) exclusively toward the maintenance, care, training, education or advancement of the person in respect of whom it was paid in such manner as prescribed by the regulations.
Those trust provisions for the benefit of the children of Canada do not appear in Bill C-170. Instead, that bill takes away the vested right of the children, a right which the minister said was the only right they possessed. And what does Bill C-170 propose to substitute? It proposes outright grants to adults. The children become part of a formula upon which the right of the adult is based and calculated. I hope the minister might be able to clarify this.
Clause 5 provides that the recipient of the allowance shall be the parent or other authorized person. The definitions of "family" and "parent" mention the child as being in the custody and control of such person. Clause 3(1), page 3 and Clause 4(3)(a) and (b) on page 4 mention that such person must be wholly or substantially maintained by such person. No mention is made of the fact that the child must be cared for, trained, educated or advanced. The child is merely a hook upon which to hang a grant.
Another weakness in the bill, Mr. Speaker, is the cut-off levels. There is certainly an obvious inconsistency among government departments in their assessment of when families need government support. The Minister of National Health and Welfare takes into account the fact that it costs more to raise a child once he reaches the age of 12 years, whereas the Minister of Finance in his new Income Tax Act, did not recognize that children are more expensive until they reach age 16. Similarly, the Minister of National Health and Welfare believes that any family with one child and a gross income of $4,500. or less should get maximum assistance from his department, yet the recycled Minister of Finance continues to impose a substantial tax on the same person.
In fact, there is a wide range of problems associated with Bill C-170's treatment of cut-off levels. Family income security penalizes working wives, particularly in

the lower and middle income classes, through its cut-off levels being based on gross family income. If a wife goes out to work to supplement her husband's meagre salary, it is quite likely that her added income will push total family income above the cut-off level, and she will therefore forfeit part or all of her family allowance cheques as a result. For a family struggling to make ends meet, the loss of a baby bonus cheque hurts. Consequently, FISP has a built-in provision which discourages working mothers because they know they will probably lose part or all of their family allowance cheque as a result.
The importance of this to middle income earners cannot be underestimated. A March 23, 1972 publication by Statistics Canada on the indebtedness of Canadians showed that in the income group from $7,000 to $10,000 per year, only 37 per cent had no debt, and the average debt of debtors was a whopping $1,668. Cut-off levels should be based on net income after deductions rather than on gross income. In this way, personal income tax exemptions and child care deductions will have their full effect for working wives. Benefit cut-off levels can then still be scaled to ensure that poverty stricken families benefit most from family allowances.
Because of the provision that family allowance payments made under the authority of this piece of legislation are based on gross rather than net income with no automatic cost of living escalator, more and more lower and middle class Canadians will find themselves progressively cut off from family allowance payments over the years as their incomes rise, even though inflation may increase proportionately. Although Bill C-170, unlike its predecessor Bill C-264, has a clause providing for an increase in benefit levels and payments because of cost of living increases, the procedure involved is not automatic but is left to the whim of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for proposing the increase to the cabinet. Then, at the whim of the cabinet, the proposal may or may not be accepted. It is subject also to delays in the House of Commons, where a resolution is necessary to approve the order of the Governor in Council. The lack of an automatic cost of living escalator clause in FISP means that neither benefit levels nor benefit payments are scaled to take into account the erosion effect that inflation will have in the future.
Since 1961, personal income per capita has almost doubled, rising from $1,613 to $3,092. This does not mean that many fewer people are living in poverty as inflation has considerably eroded the relative buying power of the dollar in the interim. While personal incomes are rising, though, cut-off lines for both maximum and partial FISP benefit payments are stationary. Consequently, if personal incomes double again over the next ten years, for example, more and more people would find themselves disqualified to FISP payments because their incomes had risen above the stationary cut-off lines. Yet, many of these disqualified people may still be defined by Statistics Canada as living near the poverty line.
There should, therefore, be an automatic cost of living escalator clause, not just a discretionary cost of living escalator clause as there is in Bill C-170. Use or non-use of this clause can be subject to political abuse. This escalator
April 25, 1972

provision in Bill C-170 is out of step with other federal legislation, such as the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act which guarantee some, even if too little, increases each year in line with cost of living increases. Therefore, it is wise to insist now before the FISP bill is first enacted, that benefit levels be automatically subject each year to a cost of living increase commensurate with the rise in the consumer price index.
With regard to the gross income levels provision in Bill C-170, I ask the minister to clarify the criteria for establishing the gross or net income for the farmer, the fisherman, the sawmill operator or the independent trucker. If their family allowance payments are based on their gross income, then the government is being grossly unfair since these people have necessary capital expenditures to maintain the equipment essential for their livelihood.
In addition to all these problems connected with the gross income provisions in Bill C-170, there is another glaring weakness which has been noted more than once by many speakers. I refer to the administrative load that will occur as a result of some sections of the bill. Changes in income of families who work seasonally are going to cause utter confusion, since they are required to submit periodically increases or decreases in their earnings. Let us take for example the family with one child earning $4,500 a year and receiving the maximum benefit. The wife might go to work and earn enough in a few months to put the family beyond that income ceiling. According to the experts, even if the combined family income reaches beyond that level, the family will continue to draw the maximum benefit for that year. However, if their income is above that ceiling again the next year, even though they continue to draw the maximum benefits, they will have to repay 33 cents for every $100 they earned over the basic income ceiling in the previous year.
It has been estimated by the Department of National Health and Welfare that administrative costs during the first year of FISP's operation will rise to about $13.5 million, and when FISP is fully operational, it is likely that administrative costs will escalate very rapidly. The Liberal government anticipates that when FISP has been fully implemented, the staff involved in processing FISP will number 1,477, more than twice the current staff of 730. Undoubtedly, this will push annual administrative costs much higher in the future.
There are many who argue, quite justifiably, that the combined administrative costs of many income security programs represent a sizeable total sum, and that this sum would be more effective given directly into the hands of the poor. According to this argument, the consolidation and rationalization of our welfare structures could significantly reduce the costs currently involved in administering a profusion of welfare programs. The money recouped from such a streamlining of the welfare structure could then provide additional money for actual welfare work. An income security scheme administered entirely through the income tax structure would accomplish this end by decreasing the number of administrative bureaucracies for welfare now scattered through several federal departments. The question is: can we therefore justify the increased administrative costs of Bill C-170
Family Income Security Plan
over the present plan, when such costs may be unnecessary?
A further problem connected with the present bill concerns the provision that children in institutions across the country will receive only half of the maximum FISP benefit payments. This is contrary both to the old family allowance plan, Bill C-264, and the Quebec provincial family allowance scheme announced in 1971. Just today, the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) passed me a telegram which came from the Hon. Mrs. Brenda Robertson, minister of welfare for New Brunswick. This telegram is worth reading in full. It reads:
In reviewing Bill C-170 as proposed by the government of Canada it has been noted that subsection 2 of section 6 makes provision to restrict by 50 per cent the amount of FISP benefits payable to children whose maintenance costs are shared under the Canada Assistance Plan. My government expresses strong opposition to this provision and urgently requests that it be reconsidered. If FISP were to be paid solely on the basis of family size with the payments of benefits commencing with the third or fourth child, then it might be logical to state that children who are the responsibility of government departments are not affected. However, this is not the basis of FISP benefits. The concept that FISP is income related and therefore provincial governments require less financial assistance to maintain children in care is hardly valid in relation to the Atlantic provinces. The current provision in Bill C-170 will mean that children who are in care will receive virtually no increase in the amount of money available for their maintenance while children in their own homes will be significantly better off. I believe this is very unfair. My government urges you to reconsider the implications of subsection 2 of section 6 of Bill C-170. As it stands it is discriminatory to a large number of children.
Another fault with Bill C-170 as it is presently constituted-and I will end my recital of the bill's errors here, although I could continue indefinitely-concerns the Trudeau government's failure to include a date on which the new scheme would become effective and benefits be paid. The government's family income security bill of last session, C-264, was to come into effect this May 1, a date a few days away. That provision has been removed. The government has adopted instead a drafting gimmick to delude the public. Clause 2(1) defines benefit year as "any period after August 1972, consisting of twelve consecutive months commencing with the first day of September". How many families awaiting these increased benefits promised under the bill have assumed they will get them as of September 1, 1972? In fact, that provision means only that no benefits can be paid before that date. Again, Bill C-170 will become effective on Royal Assent. This is only another gimmick to give the appearance of action by the government to pay out benefits as quickly as possible, presumably in September of this year.
Although this bill will become law on Royal Assent, that assent will be subject to section 3(4) which provides that no benefit is payable under the act for any month in a benefit year for which an allowance is payable under the Family Allowances Act. Section 24 will provide that the Family Allowances Act will only be repealed at the discretion of the government. When will that discretion be exercised? The Minister of National Welfare has remained mum on this aspect. Is he afraid that this measure will join the Hazardous Products Act and other acts, of which only parts were put into effect?

April 25, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
I have elaborated at length on the faults of Bill C-170, Mr. Speaker, for a very important reason. That reason is that the Progressive Conservatives consider the bill to be loose and sloppy in its conception and in its drafting. Although we have agreed to support the bill on second reading, for reasons on which I have already elaborated, we make no commitment to support any further stage of the bill unless substantial changes correcting these faults are agreed to by the government. We reserve the right on third reading to take action as we see fit, depending on how the bill comes out of committee.
One of the ways in which the inadequacies and faults of the family allowance plan of Bill C-170 could be rectified is through the formula offered in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). Our party is supporting the principle of the NDP amendment because it is an umbrella under which substantial improvements can be made such as increased payments, a better break for middle income earners, less administrative costs, etc. However, we believe that the drafting of the amendment is quite as loose as the drafting of the bill. We can assure the House that our amendments on the family allowance plan, to be submitted in committee, will improve the bill and not be merely vague, meaningless phrases.
The reasoned amendment put forward by the leader of the NDP is so general and broad in scope as to encompass any scheme of increased family allowances, provided only that the principle of universality of payment is retained. I say "universality of payment" because the "universality of benefit" is in doubt. It is quite possible to grant "substantial" payments under the scheme and yet tax every cent of those benefits away by making related changes, as the amendment calls for, in the Income Tax Act. On the other hand, it is equally possible, within the terms of the amendment, to establish a plan of family benefits that is far preferable to the government plan proposed in Bill C-170. It is for that reason we propose to vote for this amendment. In spite of our agreement to support this amendment, however, we do not support many of the ill-advised statements that the hon. member for York South made in introducing the amendment to the House.
The first thing that I have to take issue with, and that I find difficult to understand, is why he should deliberately alarm the low income and "no income" earners of the country. He intimated that his reading of the act is the only way in which it can be read, when he stated very emphatically that all citizens of this country who are receiving social assistance will only receive half the benefits provided under this bill.
He used these exact words, Mr. Speaker, and I quote from page 1445 of Hansard:
What the bill says is that not only children in institutions will get half the benefit but that children of all families on social welfare will get only half the benefit.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members seem to be disposed to allow the hon. member to continue his remarks but this can only be done by consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. member not have 40 minutes? This is an amendment to a second reading motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair understood that the hon. member had taken his 40 minutes, unless I was given the wrong advice. The hon. member commenced his speech at 25 minutes to four o'clock. I guess the simplest thing would be for the hon. member to obtain unanimous consent. This might clarify the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Many of the clauses referred to by the hon. member for York South are ambiguous, I agree, and even ridiculous. This fact was pointed out very clearly by George Bain of the Globe and Mail in one of his columns. But it is irresponsible for the member for York South, merely for the sake of political advantage, to read these clauses as he wants to read them and, again I say, to deliberately alarm the people of Canada who have been waiting for years to derive some benefits promised to them. Why not take his grievance out on the supposed legal advisers who concocted the bill, those supposed experts who sit and try to make things as complicated as possible, but do not know the meaning of the words, "human being" or "poverty"?
The Minister of National Health and Welfare tried to rise in his place last Wednesday and put the record straight. Instead of allowing him to do so, the rules of this institution prevented him, so that the words of confusion could go out to the poverty stricken of this country who wonder now just how much benefit they will get under this bill. The minister, who was listening, made mention that this provision applied only to the children in institutions. This interpretation is confirmed by members of the Department of National Health and Welfare, who indicate that only children who are in the complete care of the parent would lose half the benefit under the present provisions of the bill-I should say who are not in the complete care of the parent.
In another part of his speech, the Leader of the New Democratic Party wondered aloud whether members of the House, and especially those from Newfoundland and Quebec, had even read the bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am one of those members, and I can assure him that I have read the bill. And I can tell him that I have read the white paper on income security that was issued back in 1970 containing the government's ideas on family income security and the promises to the poverty stricken in Canada. I read Bill C-264, too, when the government introduced that bill which promised low income families that they would receive increases by May 1, 1972. I read the Throne Speeches since 1968, when I first came here, promising equality of opportunity, and indicating what the government owed to the poverty stricken of this country. I have read and watched and listened, with frustration and
April 25, 1972

confusion to the deliberate political strategy that this government has been using since 1970, using the poverty stricken families of our nation for political advantage and building up their hopes falsely with utter and contemptible disregard for human beings. I do not need anybody to tell me what I have read or missed.
I read thousands of letters from my constituents who sent me here to represent them, letters telling me they do not have enough money to feed their children and have to send them to bed cold and hungry, letters from mothers asking me to help them because they have to go to court for failure to pay their school fees and have to deny their children the right to an education. I read more hundreds of letters from mothers telling me that they cannot send their children to school because they cannot afford to buy them clothing. I read more hundreds and thousands of letters from mothers and fathers asking me for help from the government to buy them enough materials to fix holes in the roofs of their homes, or for bedding or for a stove to heat their homes, because they cannot afford to give these necessities to their children.
Here is one letter from a doctor who says that a certain constituent of mine is mentally defective, is an epileptic and is also suffering with nerves, anxiety and tension while living in a house which is unfit for human habitation. That was on August 10, 1971 and now, almost a year later, the husband writes to me and asks how he is to get a better home for his wife and children when he cannot get anybody to answer his letters.
I read these letters coming into my office at the rate of a couple of hundred a week. I answer each and every one of them myself because I am concerned. I tell them to have a little hope because I want to have a little faith that perhaps the government still has some humane consideration for our children. But after four years I, like these many thousands of mothers of children, am becoming more and more frustrated at the lack of sincerity which exists here. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the words come out from the Trudeau government and everybody else. They flow like water- the millions of words, and the hundreds of bogus promises-but that is where it ends.
I read everything, Mr. Speaker, everything that I can in the time allotted to me. I hope when the minister has the opportunity to speak he will clarify the serious inequities in the bill so that with sincerity we can consult and put the bill in proper order at the committee stage for the greatest benefit of all Canadians.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party are going to vote against passage of this bill at second reading stage, are going to oppose this bill in committee and I presume, unless the government changes its basic philosophy, will vote against this bill on third reading. The reasons are simple. We shall vote against this bill because not only is it wrong in principle but it reverses and wipes out a basic concept established in this country, not by a radical socialist government but by a Liberal government led by Mackenzie King.
Family Income Security Plan
The Family Allowances Act, when first introduced, provided for the payment of family allowances to all families with children entitled to receive benefits, regardless of income. Speaking in connection with suggestions that the old age pension should only be paid to those in need, another former Liberal prime minister, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, made it clear that he believed in universal old age pensions and that he believed those few old age pensioners with incomes so high they did not really need the old age pension would be relieved of their surplus income by the income tax. We may be old fashioned; however, I suggest to the Liberal Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) that we are not so radical when we continue to stand for the principle of universality, a principle which was not first proposed by a Liberal government but which was first implemented by a Liberal government in connection with the Family Allowances Act and the old age pension.
Under the provisions of this bill, payments will be made on a selective basis. The universal principle contained in the Family Allowances Act and the old age pension legislation will be, as I have already mentioned, wiped out. This, I suggest, is not only a regressive step; it is an unjustifiable step. The payment of benefits will be based on a sliding and complex formula which will make the major difficulties recently experienced by people unfortunate enough to be unemployed seem trivial. I am talking of the difficulties of those people who have had to file claims for unemployment insurance benefits. Their claims have been pushed from pillar to post. They have had to wait six, eight, ten and even 15 weeks for their claims to be processed, the reasons for delay being that the computer broke down, that the people in the Unemployment Insurance Commission did not understand the provisions of the act, and so on. Many reasons, it is alleged, were behind these difficulties. I am certain that the situation in Winnipeg not only can be duplicated, but has been and is being duplicated every day of the week in the home city of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I say that the difficulties experienced by those who could not obtain their unemployment insurance benefits will seem simple and trivial compared with the difficulties which will occur after this bill becomes law.
It has been estimated that the effects of this bill will divide people and neighbours, group by group. Let me attempt to give some concrete illustrations to show how this bill will operate and have that effect. First, 25 per cent of Canadian families will be better off. We have never questioned that. Those who will be better off certainly need the extra assistance they will get under this bill. However, over 40 per cent of all families will receive only partial benefits, and half of this group will get less money than they are getting now. One third of all families will be cut off from all benefits.
I said, when I began, that we oppose this movement away from the principle of universality. We think that principle is a sound one. That principle found favour with the overwhelming proportion of the Canadian people and there is no reason, aside from political reasons which I will speak about later, for the government to wipe out in this legislation the basic principle of universality. As I

April 25, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
said before, let us consider some concrete illustrations. Let us see how this bill will work.
The family with an income of $5,001 per year and one child will not receive any baby bonus at all. Does the Minister of National Health and Welfare really believe that a family of three with an income of just over $5,000 has an income so large that it does not need the family allowance? The family with two children under ten years with an income of $9,001 will be cut off. There are many people in Hamilton, many workers in the steel works and other plants, who now earn $9,000 a year. That is the family income, particularly if the wife is working part time. Considering today's cost of living, the cost of food, which is rising every month, the cost of fuel for heating homes, which is rising regularly, and taxes, which are constantly going up, does the minister really believe that a family of four in this country with an income of $9,000 is doing so well that it does not need even the level of assistance being given to it by the family allowances plan at present?
Let us consider the family with five children under 12 years of age with a total income of $11,001 per year. There you have a family of seven, Mr. Speaker, and it will not receive any family allowance under the new act. An income of $11,000 may sound like a pretty fair income. Does the minister think that a family of seven living in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver or Hamilton does not need the assistance it is getting under the Family Allowances Act at present? If he thinks that he has moved a long way from the people he represents since coming to Ottawa in 1962.
My party has always supported the principle of universality in programs of social security. I ask, why has the government party, which introduced in legislative form universal programs, abandoned the principle of universality which it first introduced? The reason is not that it does not believe in universality. The reason is that the government intends to phase out the program of family allowances altogether, because it does not think that program is a successful tool for fighting poverty. The family allowances program, Mr. Speaker, was never introduced for the purpose of fighting poverty. The payments were never considered, by the government which introduced them, by the opposition parties or by the general public, as welfare payments. And they were not welfare payments. If the government wants to help the poor people of this country, goodness knows, there is much that it can do and that needs to be done.
I put some figures on record yesterday which show that the bottom 40 per cent of income earners in this country get just under 16 per cent of the total incomes earned in this country. There is no question about the bottom one third of the population needing assistance. If the government wants to mount a war on poverty, there are much more effective ways of doing it than taking away the family allowance from people in the lower income group. That is what this bill does.
Why does the government not stop the massive giveaways which in the past few years have amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars as the result of programs

of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which supposedly foster the establishment of industries in slow growth areas. Grants have been made of hundreds of millions of dollars. To whom have they been made? They have been made to the most affluent, largest corporations in this country, most of them multi-national corporations in the United States. If the government really wants to fight poverty, why does it not wipe out these give-aways and give the money to those who need it?
If the government wants to fight poverty, it should do something about plugging the loopholes in our tax system. I am not going to repeat the arguments put so well by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), but the facts are as he put them in his famous speech to the Canadian Economic Association. Some of the largest corporations in this country, oil companies such as Imperial Oil and Shell Oil and mining companies such as international Nickel and Noranda, to mention just a few, are legally evading paying the major share of the taxes which they ought to be paying. I do not even want to compare the taxes they pay with what individuals pay, but if they paid their fair share of taxes as other corporations do, they would pay approximately a 50 per cent corporation tax. In fact, they are paying taxes on probably 10 per cent or less of their earnings. Why? Because this government has continued the policy under which this country has suffered for many years by giving special tax concessions to oil and mining companies as well as others.
If the government wants to do something to combat poverty and help the people who are in real need, it should not take away the family allowance from the middle income bracket. It should take money from those who have it. This government will not do that because it is dependent on the 95 largest corporations in this country for the major share of the campaign expenses of the Liberal party at the time of elections. That is why this government will not take that very sensible and equitable step.
This proposal of the government will take away benefits which the moderate income group has had since 1944 and give increased benefits to those who are really poor. We have stated many times that we will support every proposal to increase the economic wellbeing of people in the lower income bracket. However, that should not be done at the expense of those working people in the middle-class group.
The government's proposals will divide the people in this country. Some will not receive anything under the new FISP program. Some will receive less that at present and others will receive more. Neighbors with relatively similar incomes and circumstances will be treated in different ways. I cannot think of a better way to divide the citizens of this country than the plan devised by the minister-I was going to say the minister and his department.


Mr. Munro:: What are you doing right now?


David Orlikow: I have too much respect for the ability and social vision of the officials of the minister's department to believe they had anything to do with the formulation of this bill. I think this bill was drafted by the politicians to meet their political ends. If the minister had the courage to table and publish the white paper prepared by his
April 25, 1972

deputy minister, the charge I have just made would be proven conclusively.
Implementation of this bill will create an administrative jungle. The minister estimated that the number of employees required to process FISP cheques will more than double. I am certain that is a gross under-estimate of what will actually happen. Costs of other departments will be as great if not greater than the direct cost the minister outlined when he introduced this bill. The Tax Appeal Board, the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Supply and Services and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will need extra staff. The Department of Manpower and Immigration will be affected. Statistics Canada will also be involved in this. All this will cost money and will create bottlenecks which will mean that people will have to wait for their cheques.
What about the potential recipients of the benefits under this plan? They will have to provide the department with the necessary information, and that is not going to be easy. Every time there is an increase in income, a layoff or a change in the age of a child, the potential benefit will be changed. All this will have to be understood and calculated by the people involved. After the information is gathered, the paperwork must still be done.
Let us look at how this bill operates. As an example, I will refer to a steelworker in Hamilton whom the Minister of National Health and Welfare represents. It is not unusual that in negotiations at the end of a contract a steelworker, a member of a building trade union or of any other organized group in Hamilton, will receive a 25 cent an hour increase in their wage rate. According to my calculations, and I think my arithmetic is correct, an increase of 25 cents an hour in terms of a 40 hour work week in a 52 week year means an increased annual income of just over $500. So, Mr. Speaker, if a worker obtains an increase of just over $500 a year, his income category is changed and he has to recalculate the amount to which he is entitled under the new plan. He has to fill in a new form; it has to be processed and checked. If the wife of a steelworker works full time and earns more than $500, that too, changes the category. If a steelworker is laid off for three or four weeks he will lose more than $500 in pay. He will then be entitled to more money under the plan. Every time there is a change in family income, new calculations will be required and new forms will have to be completed. How can the ordinary citizen be expected to handle all this? Even on the unlikely assumption that citizens follow all these instructions correctly, the work of administering these constantly changing records will create a chaotic jungle.
I am sure no member of parliament who represents ordinary working people can stay long in his office without receiving calls or letters from constituents who are encountering difficulties in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act since the recent changes came into effect. I am not complaining about these calls; I regard attending to them as part of the job of a member of parliament. But the number of calls members of parliament are expected to deal with in connection with unemployment insurance will amount to a minute trickle com-
Family Income Security Plan
pared with the enquiries which every member will receive should this new plan become operative.
There is no need, Mr. Speaker, for this administrative jungle to develop, except perhaps, a political need. And what is the political need? It is not difficult to explain. The government understands quite well that people in the lower income brackets are no longer able to manage on the incomes they are receiving, because of the increased cost of living and other factors. It realizes that substantial improvements are needed in the incomes of these people. However, as I indicated earlier, the government is not prepared to get the money necessary to increase the incomes of those in the lower income bracket from those who have it, from those in the higher income brackets and from the corporations which are not paying their fair share of taxes. So, the government is proposing to take money which has been given to people who are, really, poor people in that lower and middle income brackets, and redistribute it to people who are desperately poor. We reject an approach of that kind.
I want to be fair to the government. I do not intend to do what a number of my hon. friends have done by outlining in detail once again what our party thinks should be done. I know the minister would say, with some justification, that I was being partisan. I am partisan, but I try to be fair. I suggest to the minister that he look again, if he has not done so already, at the policy statement issued by the Canadian Council on Social Development in April, 1971. This Council is not a wide-eyed radical organization. It is not an organization whose purpose is to destroy this country and rebuild it on an entirely new set of principles. It is a council of organizations which deals with, and occasionally represents, people who need assistance. Its policy statement amounts to a fundamental rejection of the proposals which the minister is making in this bill.
Let me take just a few minutes in which to put on record what the Canadian Council on Social Development says.
The Council fully endorses the family allowance goals of help to all families with dependent children, and a greater measure of equality of opportunity for all children, i.e., special emphasis on the needs of low income families. However, it believes that it is needlessly costly and cumbersome to attempt to include these aims and a meaningful attack on poverty for all people in one income maintenance measure, as appears to be the ultimate goal for FISP.
In relation to the attack on poverty, a comprehensive and integrated income security program is required which takes account of the costs of child-rearing.
The Council believes that the feasible and desirable 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, and the balance of the child-rearing costs should be completely covered for low-income people through a separate but integrated guaranteed income program as part of a comprehensive approach to income security.
Let me point out that the Council rejects the government's proposal to cease paying family allowances to all families with dependent children, and that it calls on the government to inaugurate a guaranteed income program. Dealing with the basic elements of any family allowances program, the Council enunciates the following guiding principles. I will quote again:
The Council believes that:
1616

April 25, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
(a)	Family allowances should be universal, paid to all families
with dependent children as a social right thus avoiding divisiveness among families and any element of stigma. The present
program has this feature but FISP would eliminate it.
When I was talking earlier about the divisiveness of this program, the minister suggested, in an interjection which was probably not recorded in Hansard, that my speech would promote division. I would point out that the Canadian Council on Social Development agrees with what I said, and I agree with them that the minister's program will divide the people of Canada. The Council goes on to say:
There should be equity in relation to family responsibilities and to the financial and other resources of families. Three criteria cited by the federal white paper, Income Security for Canadians, are size of family, age of children, and family income. Of these, the present program only takes age into account and FISP only considers income.
There should be the maximum feasible simplicity and efficiency in administration. These features are virtues of the present family allowances program but FISP would undoubtedly be considerably more complicated and costly to administer.
The program should be as fully compatible as possible with long-term social and fiscal policies. This is not evident in the FISP proposals.
The program should have a burlt-in escalation clause to meet the full amount of annual rises in the cost of living. This feature is not included in either the present program or FISP.
There should be integration of all programs of allowances for dependent children, i.e., youth allowances should be integrated with family allowances as proposed ill FISP.
There is the analysis of the minister's proposals made by what I think is a most representative and knowledgeable organization, one with a membership encompassing the vast majority, if not all, of those organizations in Canada, both government and vol intary, that have as their task helping people in need. It is obvious from the short summary that I have put on the record that the Canadian Council on Social Development has the gravest reservations regarding these proposals. When I say that, I am being very cautious and conservative in my estimate of what they say. I really believe they are rejecting out of hand the basic principles on which the minister has based his FISP proposals.
I urge the minister to take the time to consider these basic objections to his proposals by the Canadian Council on Social Development. These are objections made by an organization which cannot, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, be termed a partisan organization, one with any political axe to grind. It has no objective other than to help the people of this country who are in need. The minister may believe that the Canadian Council on Social Development is wrong in its analysis. If so, he ought to take the time at an early date to explain in what way the objections raised to his plan by this very important organization are unacceptable to him.
The minister may believe that the implementation of a program such as that proposed by the Canadian Council on Social Development is financially impracticable. This is the usual reason given for rejecting proposals made by members of the New Democratic Party. In this respect, I would point out that the members of the board of the Canadian Council on Social Development are, in the

main, pretty responsible businessmen and civil servants at the federal, provincial or municipal level. There are also one or two representatives from the labour movement, and there may be one or two representatives from what is now commonly known as poor people's organizations. But the overwhelming majority of the members of the board and committees of this organization are responsible, knowledgeable, well informed citizens. If the government is rejecting their proposals and criticisms of its plan because it believes that the country could not afford to adopt them at this time, then the minister ought to say so.
I suggest that the criticisms and suggestions made by this organization ought not to be dismissed as summarily as they have been dismissed by the minister and the government. As I said earlier, in face of what I consider to be the virtually unanimous rejection of the proposals in this bill by those organizations best able to assess the needs of the people that we hope to help through this type of legislation, I can see no reason why the members of this party, indeed why any member of this parliament, should vote for the bill on second reading, at committee stage, or on third reading. Like the other members of this party I intend to oppose this bill.


M. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Post Office; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-external affairs; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)- transport.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills, notices of motions.
April 25, 1972



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


David Orlikow: that Bill C-13, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (floor penalties, criminal joint tortfeasors, and moieties), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have proposed this bill in view of my long held conviction that the laws of this country ought to apply with some degree of equality to all citizens of this country.
It is not uncommon in this country on any day of the week for one to pick up a newspaper, whether it be in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg or Vancouver, and read about a person who appeared in a magistrate's court charged with the theft of an article worth a relatively small amount from a store or supermarket. If it is a first offence, the person in question may be let off with a reprimand or a fine. But we can be certain that if it is a second or a third offence, the person so charged will get a jail sentence. It is usual to find in the jails and prisons of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and also in northwestern Ontario that a large percentage, 50 per cent or more, of the inmates are of Indian or Metis origin. Many of them were convicted of some offence which was committed as a result of excessive drinking. Many of them are in jail because they could not pay the fine which the magistrate or judge imposed as an alternative to the jail term.
Recently, in the province of Quebec, there was a strike by Public Service employees. It is certainly not for me to discuss here this afternoon the reasons or justifications for that strike. Suffice to say, for the purpose of my discussions today, that a dozen or more of the people involved in that strike, who did not heed an injunction order that the strike be terminated, were sentenced by a judge to six months in prison. I do not know about other members of this Chamber, but I was struck by the pictures I saw in various newspapers of a group of young women in their twenties being carted off to jail for six months because of their involvement in the strike. I am not going to discuss this afternoon what I consider to be too severe sentences, but I give these illustrations in order to compare this kind of sentence on the part of Canadian judges with the kind of sentences handed out to some of the most prominent and highly respected corporations of this country after convictions under the combines act.
We have had this kind of legislation on our statute books in Canada for more than 50 years, during which time there have been perhaps more than 100 prosecutions and convictions, with something in the neighbourhood of hundreds of thousands of dollars paid in fines following the conviction of the offending corporations. In many cases, in spite of the conviction, and in spite of the fact that a number of the largest corporations in this country have been found guilty not just once but more than once
Combines Investigation Act
and ordered to cease and desist, the courts have never in any of these cases imposed a penalty other than a fine.
The purpose of my bill is to strengthen the penalties for crime committed in violation of the combines and monopolies act. It will amend a present section of the act which contains no floor for the penalty. The bill does not interfere with the penalty for a first offence, but provides that on a second offence there shall be a mandatory minimum jail term of one year and, on conviction of a third or subsequent offence, a mandatory minimum jail term of two years. The maximum jail term remains at two years.
Before spending a few minutes discussing the history of one of two of these cases, let me refer to a case which was reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail last Saturday, April 23, 1972. The headline reads "Ready-mix firms fined $245,000". Let me quote a few paragraphs of the story as follows:
Twelve firms that admitted conspiring to prevent or lessen unduly competition in the production, manufacture, sale or supply of ready-mixed concrete between 1961 and 1968 were fined a total of $245,000 by Mr. Justice John Osier yesterday.
In total, the fine is the largest so far imposed in Ontario for breach of the Combines Investigation Act-considering the number of firms involved and the fact that all are first offenders. Heavier fines have been imposed in the past on other corporations, but they involved companies that operate in more than one province or across Canada.
Later on, the story reads, in part:
Mr. Justice Osier said the offences were committed over 7i years, and that not all the firms were in existence for that time or had participated in the combination for the whole period. The firms advertised themselves as suppliers of ready-mixed concrete in the Metro area.
Representatives of the offending firms met often and discussed prices, Mr. Justice Osier said.
A fine of $245,000 sounds like a lot of money, but when members compare this kind of offence and penalty with offences and penalties in respect of someone who steals $10 worth of groceries or a $50 suit, they must ask themselves how much the people of Metro Toronto overpaid because of the illegal combination by these companies to keep up prices.
It has been estimated by one magazine article recently that the over-payment in the Metropolitan Toronto area by those who have built homes, by municipalities which built roads and by the province which built highways, amounted to something in the neighbourhood of $30 million. I suggest to hon. members that the payment of $245,000 in fines is a pretty small price to pay in comparison with the illegal profits in the neighbourhood of $30 million. That is why I think legislation outlining and regulating combines needs to be strengthened.
Let me put on the record in the few minutes I have left at my disposal some illustrations of companies which have been guilty of violating our laws dealing with combines more than once. In 1960, the Abitibi Power and Paper Company was fined $15,000 for an offence under this legislation. The company's net profit in 1962 was $15.5 million; $13.7 million in 1961 and over $12 million in 1960.1 ask again, of what importance is a $15,000 fine to a company which has the kind of profits I have outlined? The St. Lawrence Corporation was fined $3,000 in 1958 and
1618

April 25, 1972
Combines Investigation Act
$20,000 in 1960. Its profits in 1959 were over $6 million; in 1960, over $7 million and in 1961 they were over $7 million again. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company was convicted twice in 1953 and paid a fine of $10,000 on the occasion of each conviction. In 1959, that company made a profit of $2.3 million; in 1960, a profit of $2.9 million, and in 1961 a profit of over $3.5 million.
I could go on with innumerable similar illustrations. However, let me speak for a moment about the kind of people who are involved in these transactions, because after all corporations are not operated by some kind of faceless individuals. They have offices and directors. Let us see who some of these people are. Bathurst Power and Paper Company has been convicted of violating the anticombines laws. Then, we have the St. Lawrence Corporation which was convicted in 1959. Who were some of its directors? One was Mr. R. H. Winters.


Mr. Bechard:: It is very important to mention the name.


David Orlikow: I think it is. It is very important for the people of this country to compare how ordinary citizens are dealt with when they appear in the courts. I suggest to the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), if he has not done so, that he should take a look at the reports of how two citizens in metropolitan Toronto were dealt with recently as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail and compare their harsh, brusque, insensitive, discourteous treatment by the Justice of the Peace or the judge who dealt with them with the kind of treatment meted out to the officers of corporations such as those to which I have referred. This is precisely the point I am making and the reason I have raised this matter.
The St. Lawrence Corporation which was convicted in 1959 had on its board Mr. McCutcheon, Mr. E. P. Taylor and a host of others. Members will say quite justifiably that writing into the legislation a provision which would make mandatory a jail sentence on the occasion of a second or third offence will not stop illegal combinations. Certainly, members on the government side will say that the new competition act will deal much more effectively with illegal combinations in the future than the combines legislation has up until now. Well, the people of this country have lived for 50 years with anti-combines legislation brought forward by Liberal governments. We have seen the largest corporations of this country ignore the law. We have seen them combine to break the law to illegally maintain prices at an exorbitant height. We have seen governments, both Liberal and Conservative, do virtually nothing about the constant and repeated breaking of a law which is just as important to the people of this country as the laws under which poor people in the cities and Indians in the villages and reservations are sent to jail.
I do not believe the enactment of the provision I propose will make the corporations suddenly live up to the law, but I think it would go some distance towards making the ordinary citizens of this country believe that the law treats the rich in the same way it treats the poor, which in my opinion it does not do at the present time.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, a bill in

identical terms has been introduced by the hon. member at nearly every session of Parliament since 1963. It has been debated three times, namely, June 5,1964; November 4, 1966, and March 15, 1968. The references to sections of the Combines Investigation Act in this bill are to those in the act as found in R.S.C. 1970, Chapter C-23, which came into force on July 15, 1971.
The principal part of the bill, sections 1 to 6, is taken up with providing for mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment of one year and two years for second and third breaches respectively of prohibition orders, and for second and third offences respectively against the provisions relating to conspiracy in restraint of trade, merger, monopoly, discriminatory and predatory pricing, discriminatory promotional allowances and resale price maintenance. A court may now impose a sentence of up to two years' imprisonment for a first offence. By virtue of section 646 of the Criminal Code, however, a fine in the discretion of the court may be imposed in addition to or in lieu of imprisonment. The intent of the provisions of the bill, however, is that on conviction for a second or third offence the Court would be required to impose a sentence of imprisonment.
The proposed changes would not affect corporations which, of course, cannot be imprisoned, and under section 647 of the Criminal Code a fine in the discretion of the court may be imposed. To some extent, the proposed amendments are impractical in that corporate officials or employees are not necessarily in one position for too long, so that officials or employees concerned in a second offence could quite likely be different from those convicted in the first instance. The proposed amendments might, therefore, have little practical effect. Also, if the offence concerns a different product line, for example, paperboard, pulpwood, containerboard or fine paper as in the paper industry, the courts do not always appear to have considered an offence, involving a different product line from that in respect of which the firms were first convicted, as a second offence.
Actually, what is intended to be raised by this bill is the perennial question of whether corporate officers, officials or employees should be prosecuted in addition to, or in lieu of, the corporation itself. In the past there has been a practice, when charging corporations, not to charge the particular officers and directors. In recent cases, however, where corporations have disappeared by surrender of charter or amalgamation, it has been decided to proceed against the officials of such corporations who were concerned in the offence. Also, with relatively few exceptions, counsel have recommended that corporations only be charged.
Since requests for opinions normally ask who should be charged as principals, and in conspiracy cases named as co-conspirators, the usual answer to a question of this nature is that the parties prosecuted are those in accordance with the recommendation of counsel. Quite apart from any reluctance there may be to recommend prosecution of individuals, there frequently are sound practical reasons for prosecuting corporations only; for example, evidence of a particular officer or official may be necessary in the prosecution and this would not be available to the prosecution if the individual were charged as a princi-
April 25, 1972

pal in the same indictment and, if his evidence were necessary, there would be little point in preferring a separate indictment against him. Also, a prohibition order is applicable not only to the corporation convicted but to its directors, officers, employees, servants and agents. Since it is a perpetual order, it applies to persons occupying such positions at any time the order is in force. Orders against individuals apply only to that individual, and if he is transferred from his position the order may be of no practical value-for example, if he is transferred from a line to a staff position.
Now, let us examine very briefly the proposed provision for double damages on conviction. This is a very unusual device which presumably appears to have been used in an effort to avoid impinging upon provincial powers. It does not confer any civil right of action for a breach of such a right. The Supreme Court of Canada in Direct Lumber Company Limited versus Western Plywood Company Limited 1962 S.C.R. 646 has held that the then Criminal Code sections 411 (l)(c) relating to conspiracy in restraint of trade and 412 (l)(a) and (2) relating to price discrimination give no cause of action in damages to a person alleging a breach of these sections by another. It would appear that the same holds true for the successor provisions, 32 (l)(b) and 34(l)(a), and (2) respectively, and the other paragraphs of these provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. There may, however, be a right of action for common law conspiracy and also a right of action in Quebec under the civil law, but these points were not dealt with by the court.
The analogy to section 159 of the Excise Act-not section 158 as stated in the explanatory notes-is not an apt one. Section 159 refers to recovering double the amount of the excise duty and licence fee which should have been paid, a definite and readily ascertainable amount. Likewise, section 652 of the Criminal Code, also referred to in the explanatory notes, provides for recovery by civil proceedings of a fine, penalty or forfeiture imposed by law which is not only definite and readily ascertainable but is of course different from damages. The practicability of the section proposed in the bill, I submit, appears to be open to question.
It should be remembered that section 55 of Bill C-256, to enact the Competition Act, which was introduced at the last session of parliament, provides that a person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of a violation of any of the criminal provisions or a breach of an order of the Competitive Practices Tribunal may recover double damages. Also, section 80 provides that at the time sentence is imposed following a conviction the court may order the accused to pay to a person injured by the offence double the damages suffered by such person. This is an alternative to civil proceedings. Bill C-256 is presently being revised and representations have been received with respect to these provisions.
Section 8 deals with the personal liability of corporations, officers and agents. This clause provides that, where a corporation has committed an offence under the Combines Investigation Act or has failed to comply with an order made under the act, any director, manager or officer of the corporation who does or fails to do, or
Combines Investigation Act
acquiesces or assents in, any act constituting an offence or any element of such act or neglect, is guilty of the offence personally and jointly with the corporation. As the explanatory note in the proposed bill states, the principle of this provision is already contained in section 38 (e) which applies to refusal to permit entry of premises and examination of documents and failure to file returns of information. This section was first enacted as part of section 22(1) of the Combines and Fair Prices Act of 1919 and in similar form has been in the present Combines Investigation Act since 1923. There does not appear to have been any debate whatever on the provision, and therefore no indication why it was made applicable only to the foregoing provisions and not to others of a similar nature such as failure to make and submit affidavits when required. There is no other provision of this nature in the Combines Investigation Act.
In Bill C-256, the Competition Act, subsection 73(7) deals with the liability of officers or directors, where offences against the criminal provisions have been committed by a company, as follows:
(7) Where a company has been convicted of an offence under this section
(a)	every director of the company, and
(b)	every officer, servant or agent of the company who was in
whole or in part responsible for the conduct of that part of the
business of the company that gave rise to the offence,
is a party to the offence unless he satisfies a court that he had no knowledge of any of the acts constituting the offence and could not reasonably be expected to have had such knowledge and that he exercised reasonable diligence to prevent the commission of such an offence.
This provision in its present form has been subject to strong objection as imposing too heavy an onus, and imposing the same responsibility upon directors as upon officers responsible for the day to day operations of the company. In the revision of the bill this provision is being considered in the light of these objections.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, since as much work has and is being done on the whole question of the combines legislation, I would suggest that the questions raised by the hon. member would be better considered in the context of the legislation itself rather than as a separate entity. It is fair to say that the subject of the Combines Investigation Act is one that touches on the very fabric of our commercial structure. As a result, I feel that we owe it to the business community to review it as it relates to business law as a whole and not as an isolated aspect of business.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to say that I agree with most of what the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie) has had to say on this bill, but I think he is going a little too far when he asks that we attempt to solve these problems by approving the proposed competition bill. While some of the things the hon. member had to say concerning the problem in the context of that bill may be all right, like so many other things that are proposed by this government the bill contains some provisions that would make the price too high to pay.
In reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), the sponsor of the bill, I should like to point out that while it is regrettable that

April 25, 1972
Combines Investigation Act
companies do combine to the detriment of the public and there have to be laws and punishments to deter such combinations, the examples that he mentioned did not seem to indicate that there was very much recidivism involved.
The hon. member did not produce any examples which would indicate that a jail term, as proposed by this legislation, would ever have been imposed. He referred to the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company having two convictions registered against it in one year, but I would suspect that the offences arose in the same time-frame or in more or less the same transaction. No examples were given of a company committing an offence, say in 1960, another in 1965 and another two or three years ago.
I think one of the biggest problems in this area lies in the fact that the government does not seem able to secure as many convictions as are probably needed. There are many examples of municipalities putting work out to tender where the bids have been identical. This indicates there is something wrong, if not in the administration of the law at least in the manner in which it is framed. I say that the law must be more efficiently administered or adjustments must be made to it. There does not seem to be any evidence of the same people committing the same type of offence over and over again, and therefore there does not seem to be the need to increase the statutory penalties as proposed in this bill.
It is interesting to note that the hon. member who proposed the bill seems to have a different attitude toward this area of the law than he and his party have toward other areas of the criminal law and punishment. I refer particularly to the area of capital punishment and offences against existing drug laws. I am not convinced that jail terms are much of a deterrent; perhaps they are even less so than the mere fact of a conviction registered against an accused person or corporation in the area of law under review.
I am more concerned with clause 7 of the bill than the rest of it, because that clause would appear to allow an injured person to share with the Crown an increased monetary penalty; it appears to propose a 50-50 split. What is much more important here, Mr. Speaker, is that the law be changed to follow the practice in the United States where private prosecutions or private actions are allowed against offenders or monopolists or people who combine to increase prices to the detriment of the public. It may be said that this is a provincial matter, but such actions take place in federal courts in the United States.
Our confederation is slightly more centralized than confederation in the United States, so I do not understand why this practice could not be adopted here. We would probably have much more efficient administration in this respect if private enterprise were given a chance to enforce the law and if provision were made for people who have suffered as a result of unlawful combinations to bring action on their own behalf and to be rewarded for doing so by being awarded double or triple damages. I think the social ill we are striving to cure would be eradicated sooner if this type of incentive were provided to private enterprise.

In summary, I would say that no evidence has been produced that people repeat the offences referred to in this bill and therefore what is proposed by way of jail term will not be put into force. There is no evidence that it is needed. If damage is done to members of the public, they should be allowed to bring action to recover the damage caused by illegal combinations.


Mr. Keith Hymmen (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to Bill C-13 I think it would be fair to say, as has already been said, that it appears to be merely a repetition of similar bills introduced by the hon. member over the last number of years. It has not changed in its proposals in any substantial way, so arguments put forward in past debates which have refuted any possible usefulness and adequacy of the bill and its forerunners are clearly pertinent and applicable now.
I say this particularly in view of the comments made a short while ago by the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie). He has explained quite well, I believe, that this bill has no particular importance at this time because the whole question of combination law in Canada is under comprehensive review and has been since the introduction at the last session of Bill C-256. Business organizations and consumer groups have, I believe, had admirable opportunity to make their views known in regard to the provisions of Bill C-256, the so-called competition act. I believe they have done so both publicly and privately to the present minister and to his immediate predecessor and departmental officials.
Perhaps, however, it would be a good idea to restate some of the arguments put forward in past-debates against the hon. member's proposals. The gist of Bill C-13 is that it would be mandatory for the courts to impose a sentence of imprisonment on a representative or representatives of a corporate entity for a second or third offence under the Combines Investigation Act. On June 5, 1964, the Honourable Mr. Marvin Gelber pointed out that the Criminal Code then provided for the kind of penalties for which the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) was asking. He quoted a decision of Mr. Justice Judson in the case of Direct Lumber Company, Limited v. Western Plywood, Limited in which the justice said that section 21 of the Criminal Code provided as follows:
(1) Every one is a party to an offence who
(a)	actually commits it,
(b)	does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any
person to commit it, or
(c)	abets any person in committing it.
Mr. Gelber pointed out that this made redundant the bill then introduced by the hon. member.


David Orlikow: Have the provisions of the present act ever been used?


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: On November 4, 1966, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), speaking to the bill introduced that year by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, said:
Mr. Speaker, it is time we focused our attention more sharply in this country on our anti-combines legislation. I think there is much concern about the practices of the past. I think the government is
April 25, 1972

indicating that it wishes to concentrate its efforts more and more on this aspect of public policy.
Mr. Speaker, this has now been done through the medium of Bill C-256. While I admit that with the termination of the third session of parliament and the commencement of another session, technically Bill C-256 has no status, I understand that the minister at an appropriate time intends to introduce-


David Orlikow: After the next election, or before?


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: -an improved and amended bill.


David Orlikow: Before or after the election?


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: May I refer again to the remarks of the hon. member for York-Scarborough in 1966. At that time he made the following further observations which are undoubtedly applicable today:
Surely the net which Bill C-30-
That was the bill's number in 1966.
-attempts to cast to make all directors liable is too broad. For instance, certain conscientious officers might actively seek to prevent breaches of the combines act by their company's policy and would take great care to avoid any participation in or condonation of illegal activities.
The hon. member, who is now Minister of Communications, proposed a little later in his speech that the government be more venturesome in this type of legislation. He said:
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the government of Canada could be much more venturesome in attempting to provide some real deterrent in respect of a breach of the law in this field and in providing some protection for consumers. This is something which I do not think Bill C-30 accomplishes at all.
I think that these words also apply to Bill C-13. The hon. member went on to say:
I believe our principal concern should be the protection of the consumers. Under its powers in the field of trade and commerce this parliament should be able to enact legislation which would make it possible to impose a civil liability on offending companies under the Combines Investigation Act.
I think Bill C-30 tends to be impractical in the accomplishment of the aims which it seems to have. Its minimum penalty provisions are not consistent with the trend of thinking in the whole field of criminal law. I believe the remedy, in the field of a deterrent, lies in better trained judges and perhaps prosecutors. I feel this is an area which has been neglected and should be examined most carefully by the new Department of the Registrar General with a view to obtaining some recompense for consumers who have suffered damages as a result of offences under this act.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is precisely what the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, which absorbed the Registrar General's department, is now attempting to do. A couple of years later when the hon. member's bill came forward again as Bill C-27, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford) spoke to it. That was on March 15, 1968, to be exact. The hon. member for Elgin said:
Few sections of our Criminal Code make such sentences mandatory. There are some, for offences such as theft from the mails. But there are reasons for laying down minimum sentences in such cases. Under the Combines Investigation Act these reasons do not exist. I feel the judge trying the case is in the best position to judge
Combines Investigation Act
what sentence should be awarded, according to the merits of each case.
There are many reasons for believing that the amendments put forward in this bill will not work. For example, charges are usually laid against corporations-and corporations cannot be imprisoned. The provisions of Bill C-27 would have no effect on the corporations themselves. Moreover officials change, and those concerned in a second offence might well have had no connection whatever with a previous offence. And if the directors or officials of a corporation had changed a judge would hardly be able to sentence them at the time of a second offence, as outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Then again, an offence by a company which had previously been convicted might involve an entirely different product line, and a court might not consider that an offence involving a different product line from that of the first offence did, in fact, amount to a second offence. It can easily be seen that many difficulties would arise and that the law might be much worse if these amendments were agreed to.
I believe I have shown, Mr. Speaker, or should I say the past record has shown, that provisions similar to those of Bill C-13 standing in the hon. member's name have been thoroughly debated in the House on many occasions. The proposals of the hon. member's bill are certainly not substantially changed and have been answered quite adequately, at least to my satisfaction. Furthermore, one hon. member who spoke earlier outlined some of the proposals of the competition bill which will, I feel, cover quite adequately the principles which the hon. member for Winnipeg North has for so long attempted to have enacted into law.
Also, as has been said, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is treating this very far reaching legislation with the delicacy it merits by giving all groups who wish to comment an opportunity to do so. This can only have a beneficial effect on the ultimate legislation, to the advantage of business and consumers alike.


Mr. Steven Otto (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I will not say that this subject does not need refreshing comment. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has again brought forward the subject, and I do not object. He reminds me of an old-time socialist who has not kept up with events in the last few years and does not know what has happened to the corporate structure. In his mind, large corporations are like the robber baron entities of 1910. He has never tried to bring himself up to date on how corporations act, and so on. Let us ask, what is the purpose of this bill? Let me say that I am not an apologist for corporations.
In the field of corporations a great deal must be done by this government that has not been done, and by provincial governments. Both levels of government must enact measures in connection with corporate structures, since these structures by and large are not really fulfilling the functions they are supposed to fulfil. Directors do not give a darn about what is going on in the business; they want to make money on the stock exchange. Stock exchanges are vying one with another to be the centre of the great con game. Shareholders no longer seem to carry much weight and the officers who run the company are divorced from the directors in regard to responsibility. The entire corporate structure should be reformed.

April 25, 1972
Combines Investigation Act
However, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with that subject. I feel that the hon. member for Winnipeg North does not actually know how a corporate body functions. I wonder if he can tell us exactly how combines come into being. If he can bring forward evidence, I am sure the Department of Justice would be only too pleased to listen to it. That department would like to know exactly which people in which corporations make deals with people in other corporations, and so on.
Suppose, for a moment, this bill were enacted into law. Do you think for a moment that the directors or officers would ever make a decision? Do you know what they would say? They would say, "Since we are only the representatives of shareholders, let them make the decision." The directors and officers would be afraid to do anything on their own. They would say, if charged with making a bad decision, "We did not make the decision; the shareholders made it". I ask, can you prosecute all the shareholders of a company? They may run into the thousands.


David Orlikow: Will the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Speaker? Is the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) not aware of a very well known case in the United States involving electrical companies charged with and convicted of combining to increase the price of generators? I think one high-ranking official of General Electric, and there may have been more, went to jail for six months. If the American courts can do that, why cannot the Canadian courts?


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the case to which the hon. member refers. Do not forget that in this country we have prosecuted officials for doing things they were not supposed to do. In this bill the hon. member wants to merge the responsibilities of directors and shareholders. He suggests that a corporation, if convicted, should go to jail. Of course, you cannot send a corporation to jail.


David Orlikow: Who makes the decisions in a corporation?


Steven Otto: I remind the hon. member that despite his great plea against combines, he nevertheless favours monopolies as they exist in Saskatchewan. If an enterprise is nationalized-in other words, if there is no free competition-a monopoly is created. The hon. member supports that kind of monopoly; it is in line with his political convictions. In that kind of monopoly an industry is in the hands of very few people and there is no competition of any kind.
Let me put this to the hon. member. At the present time, a corporation guilty of acts which may tend to raise prices or result in a combine can be put out of existence. No individual can be put out of existence. If the court feels the crime is sufficiently important, and if the corporation has $5 million in the kitty or $5 million in assets, there is nothing to prevent the court from imposing a fine of $1 million for each day of every infraction, and that corporation is dead so far as business is concerned.


David Orlikow: Have they ever done it?


Steven Otto: I said if the court thinks it is advisable, not if the hon. member thinks it is advisable. We hear a great many complaints about corporations being nasty, and everything else; but when it comes to jobs, the hon. member is the first to say corporations should not be firing but should be hiring more people. The hon. member cannot have it both ways.
If the hon. member presented a bill which contained constructive ideas about how the whole corporate structure can be improved-and I dare say it can be improved, even recognizing some of the American concepts which have been adopted in regard to corporations-I would support it. However, to say this bill will prevent combines is nonsense. Before any legislation or ideas are presented we should find out why we have this state of affairs. Why do corporations try to combine or maintain a certain price level? By and large business is still very competitive. A business, corporate or otherwise, does not like to get into a position where there is no competition because there is no room for growth. It is a matter of distribution.
In most cases where there is any evidence of an attempt to hold a firm price, such as for cement and concrete as the hon. member mentioned, it is because the structure for tendering has broken down. I have been involved in business. A great part of business is tendering. When submitting a tender to a municipality or a large group where the money is secure you tend to reduce your price below that which is profitable. Invariably there is a company or concern which has a big staff and they do not want to get rid of that staff. They decide to put in a low bid for a city contract because it is large, even though they will lose money. They will then be able to continue in business. When the next contract comes along they will be able to tender a higher price because someone else will be underbidding. Then before you know it, everybody is underbidding.
Many companies which have tried to fix prices have gone out of business even with the fixing of prices. Many large corporations such as Perini and McNamara have suffered a great deal under our system of tendering because it is presumed that every corporation or company that tenders a price is thinking of a regular, normal price with a profit mark-up. They are not; in many cases they are in desperate straits or want a contract for some other reason. They make bad decisions just as other people do, with the result that they tumble one after another.
There are many cases presently before the courts where municipalities are being sued by suppliers and labourers in order to make up the difference when a contract has gone down under the tendering system. In effect, what we now have is a faulty system of tendering. For that reason some corporations try to get together. They feel that since they are all going to go down, they should see if they can come to terms. An individual or a corporation might try it but if they are caught, they are dead. The question, is why did they do it?
Should we not be thinking of a different method of tendering? For example, in the construction business in Italy, the lowest tenderer does not necessarily get the contract; there is an arrangement by which a tender which is closest to the estimate orginally made by the department or municipality is successful. Other countries
April 25, 1972

have other methods. The construction industry in Canada and the United States has been examining this problem, trying to find a new method by which the most able and most responsible person will get a contract to sell goods and services. We have a problem, but it is not as vast as the hon. member makes out. If we are to do anything about this problem, this bill will certainly not do it.
The hon. member referred to a recent decision of the Quebec court in connection with a contempt of court charge. I would like to refresh his memory. There is a vast difference between a contempt of court decision and a decision under the combines act.


David Orlikow: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Steven Otto: I will in a moment. If there is a court order against an individual within a corporation not to do something, and he does it, he will receive exactly the same punishment. That is the decision of the Quebec court. That case concerned an individual who by his actions displayed contempt of court. If this type of conduct were allowed we would have anarchy. The hon. member cannot on any ground refer to that type of decision and say, "Look at what they are doing there. This is a corporation doing the same thing again." However, it is not doing the same thing again. If there was a court order applying to a corporation executive or officer, and it was disregarded and the officer showed contempt of court, he would receive exactly the same punishment or jail term as in the case in Quebec.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-170, to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and the amendment (Mr. Lewis) p. 1448.
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speaK on the amendment submitted by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). We will readily sup-
Family Income Security Plan
port that amendment. I would like to be able to support also Bill C-170 introduced by the hon. minister. Unfortunately, I could not congratulate the hon. minister, although we are not against an increase in family allowances, we want them at all costs.
I for one have been asking an increase in family allowances since I was elected as a member of this House in 1962 and family allowances have remained at the same level since then. In fact, the family allowances program did not change so to speak, since its establishment in 1945, except for a few scraps given just before an election to meet families' needs, to get the people's votes. Yet the cost of living increased by almost 300 per cent and all the sectors of the economy followed that increase; Parliament members' emoluments were increased as well as public servants' salaries, judges emoluments and employees salaries, but family allowances were not. Therefore it is about time we do something about family allowances.
We welcome the amendment of the hon. member for York South because we are opposed to a selective family allowance system.
I would like to speak of the right of Canadians to share in the profits derived from the goods of the community at large, a right which every citizen has.
Every citizen in every country, Mr. Speaker, is entitled to a share of the profits derived from the productive capital. Everyone has to be granted this right. This is distributive justice. We talk of the just society. In order to have a just society, you have to distribute its profits. According to distributive justice, profits have to be distributed to the society mostly within a family allowance system.
The objective of distributive justice, Mr. Speaker, is to insure that everyone shares in the collective wealth, for there is a hierarchy in any well-organized group, precisely because of the existence of the group, whose members have to receive their fair share.
This life in society, Mr. Speaker, has allowed for the passing on from one generation to the next of acquired knowledge, of technical advances. In our modern world, family allowances in Canada are still paid, at present, in an outmoded way.
According to the provisions of Bill C-170, payment of family allowances will certainly be made again on the former basis, because no consideration has been given to the needs, rights and prerogatives of every citizen.
The main feature of this bill is that the principle of universality will be replaced by that of selectivity; in other words, we shall cease to pay benefits to children irrespective of family revenue and allocate the amounts thus recuperated to the more disadvantaged.
Will this famous Bill C-170 stand out as a victory or a step backwards? I am convinced that it is rather a step backwards, since the enactment of this bill would be detrimental to families. Our heritage, amassed and increased through successive generations, is being trampled on. Real capital constitute an important factor in contemporary society. If members of this society do not share in the fruits of this capital, in productivity increase or in this vast heritage, they very well deserve being branded as deprived citizens. They are defrauded and
1624

April 25, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
dispossessed of their share of inheritance. They are being made outcasts. Distributive justice, Mr. Speaker, will consequently be vioated and brutalized.
This is the case today with family allowances and it is more blatant still, since it is an integral part of the economy of developed countries. This inequity is obvious to the naked eye if we look at the facts as they are and not through the lens of regulations. Such is also the case on a world-wide scale because the people of under-developed countries also belong to the human race.
But our planet and its resources, Mr. Speaker, have been intended for all mankind. Therefore, there is already a certain common wealth, a gift of our Maker, in which everyone should somehow share. We are toying with a fundamental right, that of family allowances. It is more than fundamental; it is a common right given to each member of our society.
Therefore, man as a reasonable being, derived from nature itself the fundamental right to make use of the material riches of the earth, although the practical implementation of this right is left to the human will and to the judicial structures of nations. A basic right is always vested and need not be subject to any other principle; it proceeds from the very nature of man. A basic right cannot be questioned; what we must seek is the most effective means of granting this right more easily in practice.
Any legitimate and perfectly adapted government must offer a choice to its people. It must, however, establish adequate methods of distributing the goods, either domestic or imported, which are available on its territory.
It is neither in an unlimited production nor in the impressive statistics of trade and commerce that one must look for the true image of the actual prosperity of a people. One needs only consider the standard of living of each and every family and individual to determine the adequacy of material possessions. But does this adequacy exist?
Mr. Speaker, the economic wealth of a country does not really consist in abundant goods, measured by a simple appraisal of their actual value, but rather in what such an abundance represents as an adequate material basis for the individual and proper development of its citizens.
If a fair distribution of goods is not or is only partly achieved, the real objective of the national economy would not be attained. However abundant the goods may be, the people are poor because they are deprived of them.
Even though such a fair distribution may be effectively and lastingly achieved, the people will become poor, despite the large amount of available goods. Besides, it is a wrong to say, in our country with its large production, real or potential, that some people's wealth makes others poor.
Mr. Speaker, the rich do not eat all the bread nor do they wear all the clothes. Neither do they keep for themselves all building materials that the country may produce. Some people are ill-fed, poorly dressed, badly housed, but not because the rich are rich. Part of the population is deprived of essential goods taken from

Paul's plate, to put something in Peter's empty plate. This does not help at all, when one knows that the larder is full.
Mr. Speaker, this is the ridiculous and disastrous situation we are in. We are against such a legislation that goes against principles or condones the unfair distribution of material goods among the people and the families. However, it is no substitute for civil authorities when it comes to choose formulas or enact nonsensical laws and regulations.
Bill C-170, Mr. Speaker, does not meet the needs of the people.
There are surely some defects that must be eradicated from our present form of capitalism, such as the concentration of wealth and the faulty distribution of its abundant production. But this does not entitle me to replace it with the economic and political formulas of the Communist regime with its tremendous criminal record.
One must be incurably blind not to see them or dishonest to excuse them.
In itself, it is easier to distribute than to produce, when artificial obstacles are not raised. These exist in the economy of wealth of capitalism. They are of a financial order, and nobody can deny it, since this is where governments at all levels are stumbling.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-170 is a violation of familial liberty since it is aimed at a degrading control of income which, rightly so, belongs to the family. It is time for the government to give back other people's property. We should give to anyone the right to distributive justice through national family allowances based on facts and reality.
Mr. Speaker, the facts prove that each citizen is entitled to the necessities of life. When national product goes on increasing, the Canadian standard of living should also rise. Both guaranteed minimum income and guaranteed salary should exist. Trade unions are uttering all kinds of protests demanding guaranteed salaries for workers. Financiers gained recognition of a guaranteed right to interest on their money.
In our society, many properties are so guaranteed but we have not yet given any guarantee to Canadian families and children, so that our country may reach the highest level of affluence and that our population may increase, because we know that in view of our tremendous responsibilities resulting from national, provincial, municipal and educational debts there are not enough citizens to distribute these debts conveniently. We must increase our population at all cost. Are we going to do it by depriving Canadians of their inherent right to justice?
Already we are depriving the Canadian people of their main right, a right to life, to usufruct, to discharge of justice and to distribution of property hoarded over generations. All that property hoarded over generations belongs to the citizens of this country. We know that Canada's population is not large enough. We know that on account of our debts, we would need at least 50 million inhabitants.
Now, Mr. Speaker, everything has been done to restrict the size of our population, to prevent people from developing, to prevent citizens from being born in this country.
April 25, 1972

We should grant every newborn child a dividend of at least $1,000. We should offer a gift to each father on the birth of his child, since a child means much more than an animal.
This afternoon, we had discussions with representatives of l'Union des cultivateurs. We were told-and we knew it, since a legislation to that end was passed in the House- that the farmers were to receive a $5 dividend for each weanling, whatever the number of weanlings.
But, when human beings are concerned, their number has to be restricted. Family allowances are being limited. Family allowances are being withdrawn from those who build the country, from the most valuable workers in the country, those who build homes, work day and night, develop themselves and our national heritage as well, who indirectly strengthen our economy. We are taking away from them what they are entitled to, that is family allowances. Family allowances are being withdrawn from those who pay the largest share of taxes, who are the biggest consumers, for, devoting most of their time to construction, they are constantly buying all kinds of materials.
We should finance Canadian families since they are the largest consumers within our economy. The larger the family, the higher the consumption. And, at the present time, there are surplus products in our country. This year, we have produced goods worth $95 billion, yet we hardly used up $54 billion. There remain some $40 billion surplus production in warehouses, on counters, that were capitalized. Individuals will have capitalized about $7 billion and corporations $30-odd billion.
Some hon. members say, like the member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme) for instance did last Thursday: Where are you going to get the money? You ask for higher family allowances but you do not even wonder where you will find the money. They find it dreadful to grant an additional $150 million to the population for a most noble and endearing cause. If we had no families we would not need any government. If we had no families we would not need any institution. Institutions are set up to serve families.
So let us put the family allowances at the service of the family, at the service of the nation. Let us give the nation all the encouragement required. The finest, most social, most human investment should be found within the family, within society. We should not subsidize piglets only but human beings as well because they really constitute our society's capital.
And if this society is going to the dogs, where shall we go, Mr. Speaker? Certainly, we need to increase our population, and it is up to us to take the necessary measures. If we have a surplus production of about $40 billion, we can find there all the financial means to help our families, to contribute to their development and we can make available to them the technology we have. We can also help the schools, universities and citizens to develop intellectually and morally, fully, in a word, because we have all the resources needed.
Although we have a surplus proauction of $40 billion this year, 50 per cent of the population is unemployed and, therefore, does not share in the increase of the national assets. If we were to put all these citizens to work and the
Family Income Security Plan
necessary capital in the hands of our consumers, of our large families, of all those who have children, so that they may spend and consume more, there would be an upsurge in our economy. Our economy would develop more and these citizens could pay more in taxes and returns to the state, while at the present time the less we give to our society, the more our society declines and our institutions deteriorate.
Mr. Speaker, I beg the hon. members and especially the minister to open their eyes. I beseech the minister to discard this famous bill and to bring out something new which will insure the necessary well being of our people. Our people have needs which we are in a position to meet since we have the necessary resources. At present the resources benefit some 20 per cent of the population at the very time when 80 per cent of that same population has a great number of needs. Therefore we must organize our economy so as to meet those needs, and allow our society to expand further and our families to get bigger and bigger through aid and encouragement.
This bill will deprive those who work in order to give something to those who work less. Generally speaking, those who will produce an income will pay for the others although they are the ones who really work and who do not spare their efforts in order to give the economy the impetus it needs.
I urge once more the minister to thoroughly revise his bill, to introduce a social measure that will be fair for all families, because it is the national distribution of goods which is at stake here. National resources do not belong only to a few individuals, but to all members of the community. And if this distribution is not done as it should, it is unfair, antisocial, inhuman, and it will result in a class struggle, already more pronounced than we suppose it to be.
This must stop, because we are here in order to give justice. We shall do this through an honest administration. The one that the minister proposes to us is not honest, because it is contrary to natural law, according to which each and everyone is entitled to his share of the heritage.
If some people are better off than others, or if they owe any dues to the state, the income tax people will see to it that these are collected. Vast surpluses, if any, could thus be reached through a reasonable system of taxation and basic exemptions.
But to deprive families earning $7,000, $8,000 or $10,000 from the bare necessities of life when they have mortgage payments to meet and other debts to pay, amounts to depriving them of the aspiration to have more children. By so doing, we would deny them the most sacred and important right, that of raising a family.
Families should be given incentives in accordance with the available surplus in our society. A just society should distribute this surplus, and by means of family allowances, we are distributing the value increase of society to everyone and every family and to those really in need.
There is much to be said in respect of Bill C-170. Let me simply mention, at this point, that we are in favour of the
1626

April 25, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
amendment moved by the New Democratic Party which partly reads as follows:
-legislation amending the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act to provide for a substantial increase in the allowances paid thereunder, for continuing the principle of universality, and for related changes in the income tax legislation.
We strongly support that suggestion and we congratulate the leader of the New Democratic Party for having presented it and we shall vote for the proposed amendment to give justice to every citizen, to every Canadian family, to provide the family with the necessary development so that it may progress for the good of the nation and that we may be able someday to reduce our national debt.
If society does not grow larger, obligations will be heavier for the taxpayers. Therefore, all necessary encouragement must be given to the family, to a logical and Christian point of view, so that it may develop; our society must take headway. Therefore laws must be just and must enable the family to develop normally. Our legislation should enable the family to take advantage of progress and science. All we have should serve society instead of subduing it.
We would still have much to say but I will not go through all particulars because many other members will do so. We must at all costs give our families the development they need to provide for their maintenance, in so far as the land enables them to get what they need. Land never refused to produce. Right now we have nothing but troubles: too much wheat in the west, too much grain, too many products of all kinds. We have to put restrictions on everything, we have to pay subsidies to prevent citizens from producing.
We realize, for instance, that there is an egg surplus. We have too many products of all sorts to spare. Therefore, we are not faced with a production problem in this country, where we own a hundred times more resources than we need. We could therefore increase our production.
Nearly 35 p. 100 of our population is now unemployed, living at the, expense of this society, because we have too many products to spare, because we do not want to increase our production. Since Providence has blssed us with plenty, it is up to us to manage our resources in such a way that all our people may benefit from them. Instead of boarding this glut, let us distribute it. We live in a land of plenty and we are paying farmers to refrain from producing, and we do it in every way possible. Therefore, let the family enjoy its prime rights, the right to live, and the right to develop, fully and freely.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this amendment, I suppose the first thing that we must consider, is the failure of the present legislation to provide the same level of buying power that was provided when family allowances were first introduced by Mr. Mackenzie King in 1945. If my figures are correct, this bill would provide about 75 per cent of the amount that was provided by the legislation brought forward by Mr. King-and the plan that he introduced was universal. One wonders how far the present government has held on to the principles of what was called the government of

reform at one time and is now the government of the so-called just society.
When speaking to this bill originally I brought to the attention of the House the sliding scale of payments under the legislation. At that time the minister was in the House, as he is now. I disagree completely with this type of thing, as I am sure the minister does, because he knows that the cost of administration will increase if the bill ever becomes law. Taking $4,500 as the base, the allowance will be $15 a month for a child up to age 12, and $20 a month for a child between 12 and 17 years of age.
This bill is difficult to interpret, and I do not know how the lay person who has not had the advantage of being in parliament or who does not have the legal talents of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) can understand it. It seems to me that a couple earning $9,000 a year, with a child up to 12 years of age, would not receive any family allowance. This would also apply to a couple earning $10,000 a year, with a child between 12 and 17 years of age. In my opinion, this legislation will open up a bureaucratic nightmare for the civil servants who will have to administer the plan. I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the government understand this, and that when the bill goes before the committee it will be changed.
This bill will entail a tremendous interlocking of bureaucracy. Let us consider unemployment which last year affected a great many Canadians. Many members of parliament are familiar with the jungle of complexity in which the bureaucrats administering the unemployment insurance scheme were involved. They were so far behind in making unemployment insurance payments that in many cases people went hungry. Many of them have come to my office and complained. This is not an isolated experience; it is the experience of members sitting on both sides of the House.


An hon. Member:: You are so right.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The same thing applies to the family allowances plan. In parts of this bill you will note there are provisions requiring the extraction of information from other departments of government. I remember well- those who were in the House at that time and are here today will probably remember it also-when Mr. Pearson was prime minister and everybody was given a social insurance number. These numbers were not to be transmitted from one government department to another and Mr. Pearson gave his word that they would not. When the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked for such an assurance, Mr. Pearson vowed that this would be so. Now we see this information being handed over from government department to government department.
At one time we were assured that information relating to our income would not go beyond the Department of National Revenue. What a change there is now. Now we see that the Department of National Health and Welfare has access to information regarding our income. The same is true of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Department of Supply and Services and other government departments. We are becoming
April 25, 1972

more and more like robots with a number, and the time may not be far distant when we shall be fed and treated as if we were machines and given just what is required to operate us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: I think every member of the House has known individuals who have completed the wrong income tax return form because of lack of knowledge and inability to understand this type of document. Even lawyers and accountants do not understand these forms. .


An hon. Member:: Wait until you see next year's.


Philip Bernard Rynard: When my accountant asked me what a certain clause meant in the Income Tax Act I told him, "I sit in the House but I do not know." He said, "God knows who does, but we have paid $50,000 to study the act that this government in Ottawa has brought in." A terrible malady has overtaken this "just" government: it is quite a disease. According to the bill, if anybody makes an error it is a criminal offence and he is liable to conviction carrying a penalty of imprisonment up to six months or a fine of $1,000. In order to gain this information the Minister of National Health and Welfare would have to enlarge his Gestapo. The cheque may not necessarily go to the mother now, but to the head of the house or anyone else. The minister says that it will not go to anyone else, but that is not what the bill says.
This legislation will be very difficult for the ordinary person to understand. I should like to read the following excerpt from the bill:
18. (1) Every person who knowingly
(a)	makes a false or misleading statement in any application or statement required or permitted by this act or makes any such application or statement that by reason of any non-disclosure of facts is false or misleading,
(b)	provides any person employed in the administration or enforcement of this act or appointed to make an inquiry under this act with any statement or information that is false in any material part...
is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding-
Well, they are going to let him out in six months, or he may be fined $1,000. He may even be faced with a prison sentence and a fine. I do not know whether the minister has read the bill or not. He is not a bad fellow, but I think he must have had bad associates somewhere along the line in order to bring out a bill like this.


An hon. Member:: He is too busy putting turf on the Hamilton stadium.


Philip Bernard Rynard: When an application is submitted for family allowance a statement of income will have to be attached, and as soon as there is any change in income another form will have to be submitted. Benefits will be reduced by 33 cents for every $100 of family income above the basic $4,500. I would point out to the minister that by the time one buys stationery, takes the time to write a letter and puts an eight-cent stamp on it, the cost will be about 50 cents. Perhaps the minister will tell us about the
Family Income Security Plan
economics of spending 50 cents to chase 33 cents. Incomes vary enormously in Canada. They vary amongst trades and professions, between doctor and doctor and farmer and farmer, and every time there is a variance the department will have to be notified. This makes a laughingstock of this bill.


An hon. Member:: It is not funny.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The needy people will be hounded by governments, inspectors and government workers. Investigators will travel from place to place checking on the amount of money in the bank account and where the money is being spent. Most welfare officers have done their job as gently and as kindly as it is possible to do a snooping job. This question deals with the frightening bureaucracy and Gestapo which we are gradually setting up in Canada. Imagine having your family allowance reduced by 33 cents per month for every $100 of additional income! If that is not trying to ruin the computers, I do not know what is.
When you consider that it costs eight cents to send a letter, plus the cost of stationery and secretarial services and the difficulty in making your case clear, and what it costs the government to write back and send out the bills, you wonder where this is going to end and how much of the money will go to the people who need it. I see that the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) is not in his seat tonight. He made the statement that nine cents out of every dollar is all that goes to the welfare recipient. I see that the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not like that, but let him refute it.


Mr. Paproski:: Come on John, we are waiting.


Philip Bernard Rynard: There is also a problem when the father and the mother in the family go to work. Their total income is to be considered. This may put them in the income bracket where they will receive no family allowance. Actually, FISP takes the baby bonus away from one-third of our families and only those at the lower income level will receive the $15 or $20 per month. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, 30 per cent will receive no benefit, 18 per cent will receive less, 17 per cent will receive the same amount, and 35 per cent will receive more. This means that only 52 per cent will benefit to some degree.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how Mr. Mackenzie King, who ran this country in days when it was not so affluent, could come up with a universal program and 25 per cent more payments than the present government. This government claims to be doing something for the people when it is actually depriving them of benefits. The Economic Council of Canada has said that 20 per cent of Canadian families are poor. Many of these families under our present system, would be receiving provincial welfare assistance.
I think the minister said that there are over 100,000, or
200.000	mothers in Canada but an article I read stated that there are over 300,000 mothers in Canada, raising over
700.000	children. These mothers are either unmarried or have been deserted by their husbands. I am putting these figures on the record, and if the minister has a better source of information he can correct them. At the same

April 25, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
time, maybe he can tell us how many other people across Canada are on welfare. In the province of Ontario, as I believe is the case in other provinces, the increased baby bonus is deducted from the welfare payment.


John Carr Munro: You had better talk to Mr. Davis about that.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Some time ago the minister and I made an agreement. He told me to go and see Mr. Davis. We were to go together. However, the minister has never phoned me about this. I would be happy to go with him to discuss it.


John Carr Munro: Why don't you just phone him yourself?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I thought this minister had some communication with government departments across Canada, but apparently he does not and maybe that is what is wrong. To return to the statement that there are 300,000 mothers in Canada, raising over 700,000 children, I followed that by asking the minister how many other people are on welfare. Apparently he is unable to tell me. Maybe he will have that information tomorrow so we will know exactly what is being done.
Under the present baby bonus scheme a mother with children aged 6, 8 and 12 would receive $20 a month. Under FISP she will receive approximately $50 per month. The catch is that it will be immediately deducted from her welfare cheque. If this is not true, I wish the minister would say so In effect, that woman will lose the extra $30 she is given under this plan. She will remain in the same category as before and her financial position will not be improved one bit. Is this how the government is to treat the poor? Is this how the minister is to help the poor with this bill?


An hon. Member:: Don't tell us you are going to vote against it.


Philip Bernard Rynard: This is how state control operates. An hon. member to my left seems to be having a hard time making out what I am saying. He cannot understand me now, any more than he could the last time I spoke. Clearly, some people in this House are confused. The provincial governments will save some money because of this cut in welfare payments, and so will Ottawa because it now pays one half through the Canada Assistance Plan. Both levels of government are shaving their costs.
If this is supposed to help the poor, that is not the way it is understood by most of the poor who are supposed to be beneficiaries. Welfare recipients will not be allowed to keep the money they receive, while those in the $30,000 to $40,000 a year bracket, people like the minister, will keep the money they receive, perhaps not in cash but because of the $300 income tax deduction allowed for a child.
An hon Member: That is a good point.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Let us take another look at this bill. The minister said that li million families will receive full benefits under family allowances. This in my opinion is subject to question and I have already shown why. If the minister can refute my contention, let him do so and let

his remarks be on record. Let him tell us how many welfare recipients are in that position. I tell him right now that my figures are different from his. The figure I have given includes those who are on welfare and will not receive the maximum benefit. So in effect 850,000 people will receive benefits which are not as great even as the benefits that were given by Mackenzie King back in 1945, when this program started.
About 1,300,000 families now receiving family allowances will be cut off entirely. Yet this same group will be paying taxes to provide this crossword puzzle trickery of family allowances. As I said before, a couple with one child 12 years of age or under, earning $9,000 per year, will receive no family allowance. A couple with one child between 12 and 17 years old, earning $10,500 a year, will not receive any family allowance. There is also the group earning $7,500 a year and up, which does not make them rich in today's society. These people have families and they are also taxpayers, with all the implications that that carries. These people will receive less in family allowances than they are now.
I never did like the means test, Mr. Speaker. It tends to create stratas in society, the haves and the have-nots, the rich and the poor. The middle-class is being eliminated. Factory people, farmers and office workers are the backbone of this country. They are the people who buy goods and supplies and pay taxes. With inflation running at about 7 per cent in housing and food, these people are poor at $7,000 a year. They are poor at $8,000 and poor at $9,000, and they are being discriminated against.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that this bill must be changed radically. In some respects the Minister of National Health and Welfare is a reasonable man. I hope that in committee the bill will be changed radically in the way that is necessary. The money supply this year has been greatly increased. I know this is an election year and the government wants to inflate everything; it wants everything going well so that it can say to the people, "You never had it better." This year the money supply has been increased by 30 per cent. It was increased by 21 per cent last year. By and by, if inflation is not running wild, something will be radically wrong, Mr. Speaker.
The government keeps changing its policies and monkeying around with the system. True, they did a little better with the old age pension system when they introduced the guaranteed income supplement and the 2 per cent cost of living escalation feature. The people affected by this bill will not get a nickel to compensate for the effects of inflation; they will not get one cent extra. Inflation this year is likely to run at 5 per cent. Why does this bill not take inflation into account? With inflation running wild, salaries will go ever upward. Consequently, fewer and fewer people will qualify for benefits. The minister will find it hard to say, "This is your manna from heaven," because hardly anyone will qualify.
Also, think of the cost of the bureaucracy that will be necessary to run the program. The demeaning means test must be swept out, Mr. Speaker. An increasing number of wage earners will be disqualified from benefit because of the hungry hands of inflation. Surely an escalator clause to take care of the effects of inflation could be included in the bill. We must also consider, as I have said, the great
April 25, 1972

number of bureaucrats who will be necessary to administer all the necessary services. Why not channel all these services into one service so that administration will not cost as much and so there will be fewer bureaucrats living like parasites on the backs of the people of this nation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear'


Philip Bernard Rynard: The minister himself admits that a much larger staff will be needed to administer this legislation. If Parkinson's law holds true, 5,000 additional employees will be taken on in the next couple of years.


An hon. Member:: That is how the government will fight unemployment.


Philip Bernard Rynard: This is like the front-end loading practised by some companies, only this time the government will be doing the front-end loading. Let us provide benefits for those who really need them. That is the only way to do it. It seems that we are to build a huge bureaucratic jungle to oversee our social programs. We are giving a bit here and a bit there through various departments of government. Why should not all this be done through one department? Let all benefits be paid by one cheque. Let there be one form to be filled out. In that way we could avoid creating the large bureaucracy which apparently is to be created and the people of this country could get value for their tax dollars.


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak at this stage in the proceedings on the motion of the New Democratic Party to the effect that Bill C-170 be not read now but that the government rather give consideration and I quote:
... to the introduction of legislation amending the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act to provide for a substantial increase in the allowances paid thereunder, for continuing the principle of universality, and for related changes in the income tax legislation.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I call this motion of the NDP the joke of the century. Firstly, the proposal to substantially increase family allowances is made without any specific figures being given, while the government precisely proposes in Bill C-170 to double and even, in somes cases, almost to triple the amount of family allowances.
Therefore, I ask members of the NDP whether they do not think this to be a very substantial increase already, and I ask them why they refuse to accept and acknowledge the effort made by the government to substantially increase family allowances.
Secondly,-


Henry P. Latulippe: Because it is an unfair legislation!


André Ouellet: I will come to the remarks of the hon. member for Compton in a few minutes.
Secondly, I would like to say that the proposal of the NDP to preserve the principal of universality is an
Family Income Security Plan
unbelievable position which seems to me particularly revealing at this time.
That socialist party which has always claimed to be the champion of oppressed and poor Canadians, now that it is given the opportunity to support a measure which is precisely going to help oppressed and poor people in Canada, proposes that this measure not be passed and that consideration of it be deferred.
I think this is completely inconsistent with what they have always advocated. Either they are hypocrites or they have betrayed the cause on account of which this party was created several years ago. And I should like to say that this attitude on the part of the New Democratic Party is very indicative of the fact that its members, under their new leader, are perhaps more concerned about the rich and the people with higher incomes who can afford high legal fees, than about the less privileged classes in our society.
I think that in recent years this government has clearly shown by introducing a whole series of measures and more particularly this proposal to substantially increase family allowances that it wants to bring about a more just society, that it wants to ensure a higher share of income and more generous government subsidies for the underprivileged. And when we ask the opposition to support this legislation, this party which is the self-proclaimed champion of the oppressed, objects to the bill. We shall remember this position and I am sure that the people will remember this reversal of attitude.
I would point out that social security in Canada is quite costly and amounts to about one quarter of each tax dollar. We have found it essential to help the lower income people and the poorest in our society. This is why we endeavoured to take steps to help those people but, while so doing, we recognized that we could no longer increase the burden of the Canadian taxpayers. To correct a situation which we deplored, we needed a better distribution of government expenditures and apply the principle of selectivity.
However, in the proposed motion, we are asked to perpetuate the principle of universality. This means simply that the opposition parties-the NDP supported by the Progressive Conservative Party and the Creditist Party- are prepared to keep on spending considerable amounts of money on people or families who do not need government assistance. In so doing, they are prepared to deprive the have-not families and people of a substantial increase which the present government wants to give them.
When one scrutinizes more closely the NDP's proposal, supported by a number of Social Credit members, one finds that while insisting on universality those members are in fact proposing selectivity. Indeed, they are suggesting universality of payments while in the same breath mentioning selectivity of allowances. This would be achieved by taxing these allowances on a basis which would allow for the recuperation of the total allowances paid to those enjoying a certain level of income. That is to say that the solution considered by the opposition parties only gives the illusion of universality and nothing more.
Moreover-and I think that the hon. members' attention should be drawn to this possibility-this suggestion

April 25, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
involves a considerable increase in disbursements and visible expenses. These excessive payments would create a whole series of reimbursement problems.
The recovery of overpaid benefits will unfortunately distort the relation between benefits and needs at the time of recovery.
Universality, Mr. Speaker, engenders excessive diversion of money to the benefit of families that are not poor. According to a recent survey on family and youth allowance programs, only 25 per cent of payments under those programs are paid to families whose income is under $5,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a shameful situation. I believe it has lasted long enough and the government precisely wishes to correct it so that from now on Canadian families earning less than $5,000 may receive family allowances, at least 75 per cent of the money spent for that purpose.
Now the opposition parties' proposal aims precisely at perpetuating that shameful situation. Their objections to the bill as drafted seem unacceptable to me. Their habit, Mr. Speaker-and I cannot help mentioning it-of always unduly prolonging the work of this House through unending and useless debates is unacceptable. The two members who spoke before me tonight spoke for the second time during this debate; they both spoke on second reading and they just told us the same thing again. Only one of their speeches would have been enough, I think. The fact that opposition parties are perpetuating this debate shows how much they are afraid that the Canadian people may see this government proposal accepted and applied. They want to delay passage of that measure because they know it will benefit millions of Canadian families that need such a substantial increase in family allowances.
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the attitude of the Progressive Conservatives who are against this bill. Their philosophy is such that they are devoted to the protection of the interests of the richest people in Canada. They have never accepted and will never accept that the steps taken be profitable to the smaller interests to the prejudice of the large ones they are protecting.
However, I should say that the position taken by the Social Credit surprises me enormously. The Social Credit party, through its representatives, has made several interventions in the House. Among others, the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe), who is here tonight, spoke on two occasions. When examining their interventions in the House, one can see that they have failed to understand this legislation, for each of their speeches contains five or six monumental errors that we will take care to explain in due course to their constituents. Their speeches in the House in no way reflect the feelings of their constituents. I had an opportunity to visit the ridings of those Social Credit members, and the large majority of their electors support the legislation introduced by us.
The people they represent is a rural population, comprising large families with low incomes. Now, the legislation that we are proposing today will considerably help those large families make both ends meet. Therefore, the position taken by the Social Credit members in the House is unspeakable and only shows that they are a gang of

people unable to understand a bill. When opposing this one, they err considerably and we will make it a point to return in their ridings and explain to their electors that their Social Credit representatives were against higher family allowances.
I would like to go back to certain allegations made by members of the New Democratic Party to the effect that the tax system and the guaranteed family income supplement tend to favour the better off rather than the needy.
I wish to state, Mr. Speaker, that low income citizens will receive, within the framework of our new plan, vastly increased benefits due to the implementation of new exemptions provided for by the recent Income Tax Act. Moreover, their net income will increase. If we want to evaluate the impact of the government's program in relation to income, we must consider the changes that might affect net income, in other words, the amount of money available to a family for its expenses once benefits have been paid and taxes deducted and taking into account the relative importance of supplementary benefits in regard to current family income.
As regards the number of people who will actually benefit from this new plan, we would say that it is appreciable. Almost 70 per cent will receive maximum or partial benefits: 36 per cent will receive maximum benefits and 34 per cent partial benefits. Therefore, only 30 per cent of families will cease to receive benefits, that is families with an only child and earning around $10,000, through and up to those whose income exceeds $14,000, if they have ten children.
It is not true therefore, as some hon. members of the opposition have suggested, that this legislation will penalize families earning $7,000, $8,000 or $9,000. I suggest that they have not understood this bill at all or that they deliberately want to mislead the people.
I would like to point out a statement made by the hon. member for Compton and tell him that it is absolutely false to pretend that a family with six or seven children and earning $7,000 will not receive any benefits. Not only will it continue to receive them, but it will receive increased benefits.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) also made the same mistake in his speech of last Thursday on the same matter. This proves that members of the Social Credit party have not understood a thing about this bill or are deliberately trying to deceive the people.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere, as shown at page 1479 of Hansard, gave the example of a head of a family who has eight children and who gets an income of $8,000 per year. I quote:
His neighbour, another head of a family who lives on welfare, supports three children. The latter will get the maximum allowance.
But according to the member from Lotbiniere, the first one will no longer get any allowance. Now, this is completely wrong.


An hon. Member:: They are not educated.


An hon. Member:: They do not know how to count.
April 25, 1972


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I suggest such comments are quite unacceptable in our debate.
I would think that the members of the opposition, studying such an important measure for thousands of Canadian families, would have found it important to pass this bill quickly, in order to allow the Canadian government to put it into effect and to send, as soon as possible, larger family allowance cheques to families who badly need them and are anxious to see this legislation passed.
I should like, in closing, to point out that several members of the opposition believe that the administrative process we are suggesting will be extremely sophisticated. They say that very competent people will be required to understand and administer this legislation. I am under the impression that they are the only ones who did not quite understand it.
The basic principles of this legislation are quite simple. This program provides for a maximum allowance of $15 for each child under 12 and of $20 for all children from 12 to 17 inclusive for a family whose income does not exceed a strictly defined ceiling. This is quite simple! We want to help the families with the lowest incomes with maximum allowances. The families whose income will exceed this ceiling will be paid partial allowances computed on the basis of a very simple formula also, which the opposition members are trying to make complicated but that surely our citizens will not find hard to understand.
For most families, the family allowances are computed on the basis of the income reported for the calendar year preceding the year for which the allowances are paid. Where there has been a decrease in income and the family suffers also by a substantial decrease in benefits, certain options have been provided in order that the amount of the benefits may remain in keeping with the changes in the financial position. These basic principles are exactly the same which are now applied to the guaranteed income supplement and Canadian senior citizens are quite aware of them. These principles are the very ones we hope to implement for Canadian families.
Therefore, I shall put it this way: I am sure we can have as much confidence in Canadian mothers as in senior citizens who adequately submit their applications for benefits and obtain them promptly.
The arguments of the hon. members of the Opposition are beside the point and groundless. But, over and above all these objections and in spite of the useless extension of the present debate, I am satisfied that the government will pass this bill shortly in the best interests of Canadian families.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks by making a prediction. That prediction is that the next addition to the cabinet will be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Ouellet).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Rowland: He has shown a complete mastery of the most important qualification necessary for one's inclusion
Family Income Security Plan in the cabinet, that is, he talked a lot and said very little. He began by charging members of this party with hypocrisy because we posed as being the defenders of the oppressed and the poor. Here is a bill designed to assist the oppressed and the poor, he said, and we are opposed to it.
I should like him to show me how the oppressed and the poor are being helped by being labelled oppressed and poor, which is what a means test does, a test that is required by this bill. If the government wishes to say that there are some people in this country whose incomes are high enough that they do not require the amount that their family allowance represents, then the proper way to get the money back is through the taxation system, not through a means test.
Secondly, he gave us a big story about how the cost of welfare in this country is rising and how the government must master the problem. All this bill does is increase the cost of welfare assistance even more by adding to an already burgeoning bureaucracy. I shall go into that matter in detail in a moment in order to demonstrate how much it will do so. Finally, he indicated that our claim that the fiscal system, plus FISP benefits the rich rather than the poor is incorrect. If he will listen I shall present him with some figures in a few moments which prove conclusively our contention that it is the rich who benefit from this combination of legislation and not the poor.
I can understand the parliamentary secretary's irritation, because by now hon. members on the government side of the House must be thoroughly sick and tired of New Democrat after New Democrat rising in his or her place to criticize the income security plan on the ground that it is abandoning the principle of universality established in the Family Allowances Act of 1945, on the ground that it creates an administrative nightmare and that the benefits payable, even to those who qualify for the maximum, are in no way consistent with today's needs.
I suggest to hon. members opposite that if they wish an end to this repetition they have two options open to them. Firstly, they can advise the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to call an election and we will fight the issue on the hustings, and then they will have to listen to only one New Democrat in their ridings repeating the same arguments rather than 25 of them in this House. Secondly, they can persuade the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) to withdraw the bill and have it redrafted by someone other than the character from Dickens, who obviously put the present bill together, so that it is consistent with life in the twentieth century. Otherwise there is no prospect of relief for hon. members opposite.
Let me deal with the three major objections that this party has to FISP, but in reverse order to that in which I originally listed them. First, the benefits provided in the bill, even at their maximum levels of $15 per child under 12 and $20 per child 12 years of age or over, are unequal to today's needs. Let me say at this point that such criticism is entirely justifiable in relation to a scheme which applies a means test before benefits are paid out.

April 25, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
Obviously, even the maximum benefits do not approach the cost of raising a child, but beyond that at rough estimate only approximately 25 per cent of Canadian families will receive the full benefit. Another 42 per cent will receive only partial benefits, and about half of them at a lesser amount than they now receive. Another one-third of our families will lose the family allowance completely. Moreover, the actual impact of FISP on family income cannot legitimately be considered in isolation from recent income tax legislation. What, for example, are the combined effects of the 3 per cent tax cut and FISP on family income?
Let me cite some figures-these are the figures to which I referred earlier in my remarks regarding the speech made by the parliamentary secretary to the minister- which show the net benefit derived in 1972 from FISP and the 3 per cent tax cut by a family with two children under 12, which is a fairly average family. Combining the 3 per cent tax cut and FISP, for a family with an income of $3,000 the total net benefit will be $216. For a family with an income of $4,000 the total net benefit will be $218.19. If the income is $5,000, the total net benefit will be $225.06. With a $6,000 income it drops to $206.19. At the $8,000 level it drops further to $169.47. At $10,000 it drops even further to $146.07. Then it begins to rise, so that at $15,000 the net benefit is $185.55. At $20,000 the benefit is $260.58. At $30,000 it is $400.68. At $50,000 it is $776.25. At $100,000 the net benefit is $1,611.39. That puts the finish to the parliamentary secretary's argument that these measures combined do not benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. Once again the middle income group in this country carries the can.
All of us have received a letter from Mr. William L. Clink of Willowdale, Ontario, denouncing another defect of FISP in relation to income taxation. I think it is worth while reading his letter into the record. I have had the figures mentioned in his letter checked and to the best of my knowledge they are accurate. The letter reads:
Dear Sitting Member:
If Parliament were asked to consider a measure to increase personal taxes, based on a scale increasing with the number of infant dependents in a family, there would be a vigorous outcry from the people, the newspapers, and your fellow members. But this is what is now being proposed in changes to the family assistance act and there is not a whisper of dissent.
Until now, anyway.
As background, may I bring out a few points:
Family assistance was introduced in the 1940s to ensure that young residents would have a minimum level of sustenance for healthy growth. To direct this assistance where it was most needed and to avoid the difficulties associated with a means test, the Income Tax Act was amended to reduce by $250 the deduction allowed for each dependent "qualified for family assistance". This had the effect of giving to the poor, taxing the rich, and the middle income taxpayers merely exchanged money from one pocket to the other. In this arrangement, the taxpayer who broke even was one whose top tax bracket was either 29 per cent or 38 per cent, depending upon whether the individual dependent was eligible for $6 per month or $8 per month assistance.
This arrangement continued well into the 1960s. Then, the provision in terms of family assistance was dropped and one in terms of equivalent age was substituted, still for the difference of $250 in dependent deduction. This move automatically discriminated against families with dependents not qualified for assistance, as with recent immigrants or citizens supporting non-resident families.
This previously satisfactory arrangement, designed to avoid paying assistance to families not requiring it, is to be continued in the new Income Tax Act but its origins are to be forgotten. Now, additional discrimination is to be layered on top.
Eliminating the present payments to families who do not meet a means test without, at the same time, removing the original tax discrimination is, in effect, a new tax. A tax whose amount is proportional to the size of the family supported.
Then follows a sentence which refers to the actual effect on the person writing the letter and I will leave that out of the record. He goes on to say:
I suggest that there are millions of taxpayers who will be similarly affected and who may not realize the import of the proposed changes until they face them at the next tax period. I also suggest that it would behoove members of parliament to carefully scrutinize this proposed new discrimination and set it right before it is discovered by the affected taxpayers.
I suggest that that is good advice to the government. So much for the adequacy for the proposed payments in relation to today's needs. Let me now turn to our second contention, that the plan is an administrative nightmare, even worse potentially than the new unemployment insurance legislation has been. If this legislation is put into effect, not only will the staff required to administer the plan be more than double that required under the Family Allowances Act-and that figure was supplied by the minister in answer to a question placed on the order paper- but also members of parliament will require extra staff to handle the vast increase in the number of problems that will result. We all know what unemployment insurance cases have done to our workload. But these problems will pale into insignificance compared with the problems that will be generated by FISP.
There are seven distinct circumstances when a statement must be made or a form must or should be filled out and sent to the department, depending upon whether you want the family allowance, whether your income has gone up or down substantially, when in the year your income changed, changes in marital status should they affect income, how many children you have and how old they are. Moreover, a Philadelphia lawyer could not understand the clauses of the bill setting out the circumstances in which statements must be made or forms filled out. How in heaven's name is the average citizen expected to cope with the regulations? But cope he must because failure to do so carries penalties.
False or misleading applications for benefits, cashing a cheque to which the person is not entitled, failing to report that benefits should cease, giving away privileged information all mean a person is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine up to $1,000. For failing knowingly to report a change in benefit status a person may be fined up to $100. I would advise parents to begin taking evening courses leading to a degree in law if they want to know what this legislation is all about.
The bill is given an even more Orwellian flavour by the fact that it provides that any information given to the minister under the act may be communicated to the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Manpower and Immigration, National Revenue, Supply and Services and the Unemployment Insurance

April 25, 1972

Commission. In addition, the Minister of National Revenue may furnish income information on any individual to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This is 1984 in spades!
Look at the additional administrative tasks the bill creates. All applications for family allowances must be checked to determine the eligibility of the applicant. In the case of eligible applicants, the benefit payment must be calculated based on family income and age of children. In the case of ineligible applicants, appeals and explanations must be handled. Appeals on the amount of benefit must be handled, statements involving a substantial increase or decrease in income must be processed, with appropriate adjustments to benefits, divorces, separations and marriages of recipients must be reported if family income is affected, and benefits must be adjusted.
In addition, administrative machinery must be set up to recover benefits from ineligible persons. Some of these will be easy to find because, according to the penalties provided, many of them will be in jail. Administrative machinery must be set up to detect frauds involving misrepresentation of income, misrepresentation of the number of children, misrepresentation of the age of children, failure to report income increases and failure to report deaths and marriages. Administrative machinery for liaison with the provinces will have to be established. Surely that list of complications in itself justifies our claim that the plan should be universal and that the tax system is the appropriate way of recovering payments from families which are not in need of assistance.
We believe the social arguments for universality to be even more compelling than this argument which is essentially economic and administrative in nature. Ending the universality of family allowance payments takes them out of the realm of rights to be enjoyed by children and places recipients of benefits under the stigma of receiving welfare. The community is automatically divided into haves and have-nots. Irritations are introduced into relationships between people of approximately equivalent income who receive different amounts in the way of benefits. Cashing FISP cheques at the local drugstore or grocery store will be a sure way for a woman to disclose her family income to all who know her and her family and who see the amount of the cheque.
I could go on and on but I think I have made my point. This bill is totally unacceptable because of its lack of universality, because of the inadequacy of the benefits paid and because of the administrative labyrinth it will establish. I will vote against this bill without any hesitation whatsoever.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to previous speakers. Basically, the government has attempted to bring in a piece of legislation which hopefully would benefit families in low income groups. Once again it seems to me the government will probably be creating a situation in which the cure is worse than the disease this bill hopefully will cure. It seems to me the government is in fact not only creating a situation which will proliferate greatly the bureaucracy which is growing so rapidly in this country, but a situation which will necessitate the consumption of a significant portion of the tax dollars of
Family Income Security Plan Canadians. The government is also creating problems in respect of the very social fabrics it proposes are desirous of improvement.
It seems obvious that Canadians are going to be judged to some degree by whether they are unfortunate enough, from a social point of view, to require family assistance. Neighbourhoods will be polarized to a certain extent because people who are dealing with their neighbours will know, as has been pointed out, that so-and-so down the street requires family assistance because he is not doing as well as the fellow who does not require it. All in all, this is not a very desirable situation.
The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) brought out some very interesting points, as did the previous speaker, in suggesting that some of the provisions of this bill are objectionable simply from a privacy point of view. The information which will be assimilated as a result of this measure will come back to haunt the people. It will be bandied about from one department to another. A great deal must be done in the committee to shape this bill and make it equitable. The part that concerns me most and the issue I should like to discuss in some detail this evening concerns the situation where children are in institutions or in care, as it is sometimes called. The provinces which look after such children will be worse off than they are at the present time.
I believe the minister is in receipt of correspondence from the Nova Scotia Family and Child Welfare Association and has received representations from children's aid societies and similar organizations in many provinces. From my own province I have received a great deal of mail about this matter. In particular, I received a letter recently from the Nova Scotia Family and Child Welfare Association which sets out some of their objections to the provisions of this bill. Some of the provisions to which this association objects were set out in correspondence to the minister in April of this year. I should like to read part of the letter for the record so it will be placed before the people of this country. It sums up the situation very well, particularly when governments are considering children who happen to be in care in provinces which are not as affluent as some of the so-called have provinces.
This letter is signed by Kevin Burns, president of the Nova Scotia Family and Child Welfare Association. It reads in part as follows:
Dear Mr. Munro:
I wrote to you on September 1, 1971, after the Nova Scotia Family and Child Welfare Association and member agencies had reviewed the Department of National Health and Welfare white paper, Income Security for Canadians. We were concerned because there was no mention in that document that "children in care" would receive federal income security plan benefits.
This was of very great concern to this organization, as one might expect. The writer continues:
By "children in care" we are referring to wards of children's aid societies and children being maintained in institutions. We were reassured with the introduction of Bill C-264 as it included such children for benefits. We had fears that if "children in care" were excluded from the federal income security plan, there were no guarantees that funds equal to current family allowance benefits or the proposed federal income security plan benefits would be replenished by our provincial government.

April 25, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a great burden on some of the provinces, including my province, because of shortages of funds for welfare purposes. The writer continues:
We are again concerned, Mr. Minister, in reading Bill C-170 to learn that only one half of the maximum amounts under federal income security plan will be available to "children in care" because the maintenance of such children is being shared under the Canada Assistance Plan. The end result of this decision will mean, in Nova Scotia at least, that our "children in care" will be little better off than under current family allowances and youth allowance programs, and ironically less well off than many children eligible for federal income security plan benefits in homes of greater affluence.
So, these children who are already disadvantaged and have problems as a result of the situation in which they find themselves will not be helped at all by this so-called enlightened legislation, but will be in fact further disadvantaged. The letter then states:
Further, with reference to the Canada Assistance Plan, our provincial government has pointed out to you on several occasions that the beneficence of the Canada Assistance Plan is one thing to the citizens of Canada's wealthier provinces, but it is quite another matter to a province such as Nova Scotia.
So, again, this is being perpetrated not only by individuals of the state social strata but by the provinces themselves. The letter continues:
Under Bill C-170 which you introduced to the House of Commons on March 15, 1972, "children in care" will receive half the maximum amount, but any supplementation to increase the benefits to a more appropriate level will be dependent on the economic situation in a province rather than on individual or family need. This proposal is consistent with neither the principles of family allowance, which has established tradition in Canada nor the Canada Assistance Plan. Further, it does not seem to us to be an effective instrument to help improve the quality of life of children who have endured much suffering and privation.
Current federal income security plan proposals under Bill C-170 for the most part will help improve the economic situation and the quality of life of many needy and low income Canadian families and children. We endorsed the principle in September of last year and we do so again. However, for wards, for children in our special protection program-juvenile delinquency-and others in care the opportunity to improve the quality of their lives a little will be weighed very carefully against the wishes of an already heavily burdened Nova Scotia taxpayer.
In my province this legislation, which at first glance may appear to be enlightened, has very serious drawbacks when measured against the social fabric and particular economic needs of Nova Scotia. Of course, this goes without saying: it will apply to the provinces in the Atlantic region generally because in the Atlantic region Nova Scotia is perhaps one of the better off provinces. The letter continues:
Unfortunately the lobby for children in Halifax is no stronger than the lobby for children in Ottawa.
So the president of the Nova Scotia Family and Child Welfare Association is very concerned about the implications. He finishes his plea or submission to the minister by saying:
We urge you and your colleagues to review section 6, subsection (2) of Bill C-170, which limits Federal Income Security Plan benefits to "children in care", and we hope that the appropriate change will be made. We appreciate your consideration of our views.

It seems to me that of all the possible recipients of the beneficence, if you will, of the federal government, surely the pre-eminent people should be the children who are presently disadvantaged. Surely, if this government really cares for the principle of social equity and justice it must reconsider this particular section. If it does not do so, it seems to me the whole concept which prompted it to bring in legislation of this type will be nothing but a hollow mockery.
Again I ask the minister, if he has not already done so, to give every consideration to the submissions made by the Nova Scotia Family and Child Welfare Association and to reply to this group at his earliest possible convenience. I hope that when this bill goes to the committee, the minister will take a very good look at what this group has to say and will also consider some of the other very appropriate suggestions which have been put forward by hon. members who preceded me this evening.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this subject at this late hour I have only very few comments to make. After hearing the submission of the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) I am reminded of the expression the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) uses quite often to describe the opposition of others. I believe the expression is "pusillanimous poppycock." This is what my friend from Papineau indulged in tonight. It reminded me of the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with respect to at least 20 Quebec members having to go. The hon. member, on his performance, was a living example of the statement of the Prime Minister.
I was rather surprised that such a young member who I thought had progressive ideas would stand up and attempt to give an essentially cheap political harangue against the principles we have adopted in criticizing the bill. We have enunciated them so often that I would think they would have penetrated even the mind and heart of the minister himself. But I suppose he has difficulty in stopping smoking and probably in appreciating the principles which we have put forward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

["Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hali-\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion fax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) in his question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) last Tuesday raised two distinct and separate matters involving water transport from the mainland to Newfoundland.\nI will deal first with the matter of the reported negotiations for vessels in Europe. The short answer to that question is no. There are no CN officials in Sweden negotiating for vessels for the Newfoundland trade at the present time. What the hon. member may have had in mind is that in January an official of CN and another of the Department of Transport went to Europe to assess an older ferry vessel which was steam driven and capable of carrying a limited number of rail cars. However, as it turned out this vessel was not suitable for operation in the Gulf.\nThe other aspect of the question raised by the hon. member concerned the use of the vessel Travetal and the waiver granted to this vessel by the Department of National Revenue. My understanding of this matter is that CN has neither bought nor chartered the Travetal directly. In order to fulfil cargo commitments with the CNR, Newfoundland-Canada Steamships Limited arranged to charter the Travetal through Trident Steamships Limited of Halifax. They have a specific requirement for a roll-on roll-off vessel, and the Travetal has this facility.\nThe waiver in question is for a period extending to May 8 and it is for the purpose of transporting automobiles and cargo between Halifax and St. John's. The Canadian laws which are being applied are found under the provisions of section 665 of the Canada Shipping Act and section 17 of the Financial Administration Act.\nThe hon. member has raised a number of points which I will not have sufficient time to cover this evening, but I have noted them and will bring them to the attention of the Minister of Transport. Perhaps a written reply to the hon. member on these items would be helpful as well.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:21 p.m.", 'Wednesday, April 26, 1972']
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in recent years there has been a decline in administrative efficiency in many government departments, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and so on, but to no department does this apply more than the Post Office Department. I have been asking a series of questions on
April 25, 1972

this matter and I hope I can bring the situation into focus in the remarks I make this evening.
There have been increased costs and a radical decline in the postal service. Rural post offices have been closed and the six-day delivery service has been reduced to a five-day service. Charitable organizations have been penalized by exorbitant increases in rates resulting in loss of business. Of course, there has also been the inevitable loss of morale among the employees. This has all meant a loss of revenue and mounting deficits with which this House is familiar.
I have even noticed that there has been a decline in the quality of the postal stamps issued recently. A correspondent has written, asking that I raise this subject in the House of Commons-perhaps this is the best opportunity afforded-suggesting that the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) review the membership of the stamp design committee and its cost to the taxpayer as a possible method of decreasing the deficit. The amazing thing is that the Postmaster General recognizes this situation exists because in a recent speech in Vancouver he said, among other things, the following:
The Post Office productivity has fallen by 12.5 per cent since 1965.
He also said:
-to reduce the deficit new measures were adopted including the closing of rural post offices and the reduction in the delivery week from six days to five.
He said, further, that although these steps reduced the operating costs it is possible that they also led to the deterioration of postal service. I think we all agree that he can say that again. He said further:
Several steps are being taken to improve productivity including more consultation between employees and management in connection with new working methods, a better working environment and improved social conditions.
I asked a question today concerning the current negotiations with postal unions, because the results of these negotiations do not bear out the words of the Postmaster General to the effect that a great effort is being made to ensure closer consultation between employees and management. The contract expired a month ago. We have had no statement in the House from either the Postmaster General or the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) as to what progress is being made.
It is interesting that the only public utterance on this matter has come from the president of the Letter Carrier's Union in the wake of the speech that was made in Vancouver when the president, Mr. Roger Decarie, said that the minister had better follow more closely the work of his representatives at the bargaining table than let go with all kinds of statements on matters which could influence to a great extent the content of the next collective agreement.
Obviously, postive leadership is needed in the Post Office Department. The Postmaster General spoke about the problems and now there must be action-and not just the kind of action that was referred to in the speech in which he said:
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
If we are unable to resolve this problem, we might have to reintroduce a Saturday delivery should that be the best solution.
There are many probables in that quotation such as "we might have to introduce the Saturay delivery should that be the best solution". Obviously, the long suffering public of Canada has come to the conclusion that action is needed now. We trust that the Postmaster General will seize the initiative in these matters and will take some concerted and positive action with regard to the negotiations going on, so that we might have a contract and also do the things that are necessary, including the restoration of the six-day delivery, in order that the efficiency of the Post Office might be restored to its former level.


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I assumed that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) would be referring to the question he put on the "late show" with regard to the initiation of postage stamps to recognize our aquatic sports. We received representations in February of this year to recognize aquatic sports by the issuance of a postage stamp. The outstanding record of Canada's athletes in aquatic sports at the international level is very well known, as are the superb facilities of the Pan-Am pool in Winnipeg which hosted the international diving competition on April 8 and 9 this year.
We will certainly give sympathetic consideration to this suggestion when planning future programs. I should note, however, that we review 200 to 300 excellent suggestions each year which must be reduced to ten or twelve for the number of commemorative stamps issued each year. Many must be rejected or deferred for consideration as future programs. It should also be appreciated that about one year is required for design, printing and distribution after a subject is selected and approved.
Our department has consistently given sport good recognition. Hon. members may recall the four outdoor recreation issues of 1957 which, incidentally, portrayed swimming as well as skiing, canoeing and hunting. We have also honoured curling and lacrosse, the Canada summer and winter games, hockey, the Pan-Am games and recently the world figure skating championships in Calgary.
Sport is becoming an increasing part of our culture. All Canadians should become more aware of the values of sport and recreation. We are continuing our study of the possibilities for making contributions through our postage stamp programs.



Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, when on March 20 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) when it was intended to open a Canadian diplomatic mission in Zambia and Barbados, I was repeating an inquiry which I have been making for lo these many months.
I have long been troubled and a bit ashamed that the small country of Barbados could establish in our capital a mission with three very fine external affairs officers, but that this the senior overseas member of the Common-

April 25, 1972
wealth-if I may use that somewhat historic expression- could not reciprocate by opening a mission in Bridgetown. I know, too, that one of the finest diplomats on embassy row today is the High Commissioner for Barbados.
The Barbados High Commission has been in Ottawa since 1967. But apparently austerity has clamped its heavy hand upon the Department of External Affairs and for five years we have not mustered the funds or the interest to open a diplomatic post in the capital of this friendly and charming Caribbean Commonwealth state. The minister in his reply used the expression "the usual financial constraints". But of late we are in an era of big spending, of far-flung largesse. Think of the millions cast about by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier)!
I have long held that our relations with the friendly states of the Commonwealth Caribbean are of tremendous significance to our foreign policy. If Canada cannot carry out a meaningful, useful and effective foreign policy with these our long appreciated and well known neighbours, then our whole external outlook is in question.
Since my inquiry there has been an announcement, not in this House-we rarely expect that courtesy now-to the effect that among new missions to be opened by 1974 Barbados will be included. For this step I must express my approval and not dilate upon the time wasted in strengthening our ties. But must we really wait until 1974? What is the problem? Are we short of staff? Are we so bereft of funds that an area so vital as the Commonwealth Caribbean must be downgraded for another two years?
This government, too, has not hesitated to proclaim its concern for the struggles of the majority in southern Africa, but for long we have demurred from appointing a high commissioner for Zambia, which of all countries must be closest to the struggle being carried on in those African states where the majority has not been given full political rights. In view of our sustained preachments it would have seemed normal and natural that a mission to Zambia be given high priority. But Algeria and several other nations came first. Zambia, too, is on the 1974 list. I suppose we should be thankful that it is on the list at all. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I fear that this is something more than an indication that the austerity squeeze is lingering on at the Department of External Affairs while other departments are embarking upon a glorious free-spending era.
I am troubled lest this is but another indication of the isolationist or withdrawal syndrome which has been a consistent part of the foreign policy of this government. Not long ago I checked the record and found that nearly a dozen countries had embassies here without reciprocal Canadian missions in their countries. I think we should not withdraw from our Commonwealth association. I think we should strengthen our ties with friendly Commonwealth states. I think we should not turn inward but should accept our role on the international stage. I hope that the minister will accelerate the opening of missions in Zambia and Barbados and thus strengthen, reconfirm and underline our strong ties of friendship and good will with the people of these friendly Commonwealth countries.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hen. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) that his warm expression of feeling towards Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean is shared to an equal degree by the government. I think the hon. member may have misread the communique of April 10 in which the opening of these missions was announced. Six new posts were announced at that time, being at Barbados, Hungary, Korea, Morocco and Zambia, where there will be either high commissions or embassies and, as well, at Atlanta, Georgia, where there will be a consulate general. The press release said:
The posts should all be in full operation in 1974.
That is not meant to suggest that the opening of any of these six posts is to be delayed until that date. They will be opened as soon as reasonable accommodation can be found. This will be easy in some of the countries involved. In some where the housing shortage is accute, there may be delay and that delay may extend until 1974. The delay will be as short as reasonable in all cases, Mr. Speaker. I hope that Barbados and Zambia will be among the posts which will be first opened.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago one of those marine legal miracles occurred in which a German built freighter at or near Halifax took on Singapore registry, this action having dire effects on the few vessels now remaining under the Canadian flag, under Canadian ownership and sailing Canadian waters between Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland. The vessel I refer to is the Travetal, manned by German officers and a Spanish crew.
I make nothing of that except to welcome those gentlemen to Canadian waters. I regret that the presence of that ship in Canadian waters means that two Canadian vessels, one Federal Hudson, and the other O.K. Service XI, will probably have to pack up their careers. Some attempts are being made to continue those Canadian vessels in operation. Let us hope they succeed. However, hope is somewhat different from government policy that will ensure that these efforts succeed.
On April 18 I directed the following question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) in this chamber: Would the minister investigate the recent waiver by customs which resulted in a foreign vessel, Travetal, and its crew, replacing the Canadian vessel, Federal Hudson, and its Canadian crew on the east coast. Would he also look into the circumstances in which Canadian National is reportedly negotiating in Sweden for two vessels for the Newfoundland trade?
It was agreed between the minister and myself that the position would be made clear this Tuesday evening, and I see that the parliamentary secretary to the minister is here with information. I am not much concerned about the reported dickering of Canadian National in Sweden. That may have been a rumour. If it is, I am sorry that I
April 25, 1972

helped to pass it along or give it some kind of currency. What I am concerned about is the fact that Canadian officers and Canadian seamen will lose their jobs with the laying up of two Canadian vessels.
The Canadian Merchant Service Guild and the Seafarers International Union have both lodged letters of protest over the customs arrangement concerning Travetal. The arrangement, technically, is not a waiver of customs but comes, rather, under the Canada Shipping Act and the Financial Administration Act. This vessel will pay at the rate of one one-hundred-and-twentieth for every month she is allowed to operate in Canada, and she will be allowed to operate here for two months. I am not sure whether at the end of that time she may not undergo some further legal metamorphosis and be allowed to operate here for a longer period. The point is that Canadian ships have just about lost any opportunity for work and Canadian masters, officers and crews not laid off yet face a pretty bleak outlook.
The government does have the Darling report, a study on this whole matter. I pursued this matter with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) when he appeared before the finance committee last Thursday. He seemed sympathetic toward Canadian shipowners and crews. I pursued it further tonight when members of the Canadian Transport Commission appeared before the transport committee. You have to be a nomad who knows all the weigh stations to make a point: you must make one part of your point before one committee of the House and another part before another committee. Anyway, the cry of "marine rape" has been raised. I raised it on many occasions in as many places as I could. I now look forward to whatever reassurance the parliamentary secretary can give in a very sad situation.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hali-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion fax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) in his question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) last Tuesday raised two distinct and separate matters involving water transport from the mainland to Newfoundland.
I will deal first with the matter of the reported negotiations for vessels in Europe. The short answer to that question is no. There are no CN officials in Sweden negotiating for vessels for the Newfoundland trade at the present time. What the hon. member may have had in mind is that in January an official of CN and another of the Department of Transport went to Europe to assess an older ferry vessel which was steam driven and capable of carrying a limited number of rail cars. However, as it turned out this vessel was not suitable for operation in the Gulf.
The other aspect of the question raised by the hon. member concerned the use of the vessel Travetal and the waiver granted to this vessel by the Department of National Revenue. My understanding of this matter is that CN has neither bought nor chartered the Travetal directly. In order to fulfil cargo commitments with the CNR, Newfoundland-Canada Steamships Limited arranged to charter the Travetal through Trident Steamships Limited of Halifax. They have a specific requirement for a roll-on roll-off vessel, and the Travetal has this facility.
The waiver in question is for a period extending to May 8 and it is for the purpose of transporting automobiles and cargo between Halifax and St. John's. The Canadian laws which are being applied are found under the provisions of section 665 of the Canada Shipping Act and section 17 of the Financial Administration Act.
The hon. member has raised a number of points which I will not have sufficient time to cover this evening, but I have noted them and will bring them to the attention of the Minister of Transport. Perhaps a written reply to the hon. member on these items would be helpful as well.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:21 p.m.

Wednesday, April 26, 1972