1972-04-27

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I take the first opportunity to raise a question of privilege, as an hon. member and as chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
The House will recall that under an order of reference dated March 14 allegations concerning wiretapping and opening of mail of members of this House were referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, of which I am chairman.
Further to this order of reference, Mr. Speaker, the committee held three meetings. Furthermore, the subcommittee on procedure made rulings and recommendations which were approved by all those present.
I now come to my question of privilege which is, in my opinion, a major one. Following the recommendations submitted by the subcommittee on procedure and approved by the committee, four of our colleagues had been invited to appear before the committee.
One of them, actually the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who preferred not to appear before the committee, sent me, after this morning's sitting, a letter accusing me, as chairman of the committee, as bias-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I admit that the hon. member is coming to his question of privilege. However, I wonder whether he has taken into account the provisions of the Standing Order, whereby an hon. member should give the Chair written notice one hour in advance of his intention to raise a question of privilege.
Of course, when the question arises from proceedings in the House, no prior notice is required.
The hon. member should, I suggest, consider giving notice in writing after which the question of privilege could be raised by him in due course, either later today or tomorrow.


Ovide Laflamme: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that the question of privilege, concerning me and the letter to which I refer was not at all considered by me as giving rise to a question of privilege.
Nevertheless, it is only a few minutes before the House met and some time after the letter was sent to me that I became aware-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I really feel it would be quite difficult for the Chair to consider the question of privilege now unless the specific provision of the Standing Order to which I referred, had been respected, i.e. that one hour's prior notice had been given to the Chair.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister I should like to table under Standing Order 41(2) copies of correspondence with provincial premiers on the subject of manpower programs.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon):
In view of the uncertainty and discredit that exists in Information Canada, this Canadian House of Commons regrets the appointment of the Director General of that department, Jean-Louis Gagnon, as ambassador to UNESCO in Paris before a full exoneration of his responsibilities.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts as to the acceptability of the hon. member's motion. It is in the form of a charge against a high official of the government. I may be wrong in my interpretation of the motion, and the hon. member is indicating by his reaction that my interpretation of his motion may be wrong. Perhaps it might be easier to put the motion. Hon. members know the procedure regarding accusations, charges or allegations made respecting senior officials of the government. The hon. member indicates that that is not the essence or the interpretation of the motion and I will therefore put it. The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster. The motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 27, 1972
The Canadian Economy


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. My statement of explanation of this motion is very brief. The motion is made necessary by the fact that the Minister of Finance tabled on Tuesday a document entitled "Economic Review" which in the past preceded a budget so that its contents could be analysed and debated during the debate on the budget. This time that may not be possible because so far the minister has not indicated an intention to present a budget. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the document entitled "Economic Review" tabled by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday, April 25, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for study and report to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for York South under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions.
Mr. Skoberg:: That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Thursday, March 16, 1972, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if I may have unanimous consent to withdraw this motion I should like to do so. After all, the dates for the hearings in southwestern Ontario expired earlier in April and the motion will serve no useful purpose at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 POWER EFFECTS OF JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move under Standing Order 26 that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. The particular matter concerns the federal involvement in the James Bay hydroelectric development project of the province of Quebec and particularly (a) interference with and relocation of Indians; (b) altering the course of navigable waters protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and (c) effects upon the total Canadian environment.
If leave is given, Mr. Speaker, I propose to move the foregoing motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka has given the Chair the notice required by Standing Order 26 which has provided the Chair with an opportunity to give serious consideration to the hon. member's proposed motion.
The Standing Order sets out criteria which have to be taken into account in determining whether such a motion can be put. Specifically, the motion must relate to an important matter requiring urgent consideration. The numerous questions asked yesterday and during the last few days by members on both sides of the House, and the information given by the minister in reply to those inquiries, indicate that in the view of many members the problem is one which does require urgent consideration. Whether there might be some other opportunity for debate at an early date is difficult for the Chair to determine, particularly in light of current circumstances.
While I am not absolutely convinced that all the requirements of section 16 of the Standing Order have been met, because of the obvious importance of the matter and the equally obvious interest of so many members I am inclined to give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt. While I am disposed to grant the motion, I have to take into account the relative importance and urgency of the business which the government has called for consideration later today. The rules give the Chair some discretion in the timing of a debate under the Standing Order. I propose, therefore, to have consultations later and announce before five o'clock whether the debate should take place this evening at eight or tomorrow at two o'clock in the afternoon.
Subject to this reservation, the Chair will inquire whether the hon. member has leave to put this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 9 of the Standing Order, the proposed motion will stand until either later today or tomorrow.
April 27, 1972



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. As a result of the uncertainty which prevails in the country because of the cat-and-mouse game which the Prime Minister is playing by inflaming the four-year election itch, will the hon. gentleman consult with the Prime Minister as to making a categorical statement concerning the date when a general election will be held in this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a general election has to be held before our term here expires. Other than that, of course it is a well known prerogative of the Prime Minister to call an election when it is in the public interest to do so.


Gerald William Baldwin: As, allowing for budget and supply days, there are only 28 days for debate on government measures before the end of June, is it the policy of the government to announce its priorities and intentions as to the legislation it wishes to have completed before this parliament ends so that the uncertainty in the country may be at least in part dissipated?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, the government has certain priorities. These will appear in the next few days and I am sure will clarify all the doubts that may be in the hon. gentleman's mind.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the government has brought in less than two-thirds of its announced legislation in the last two sessions and the record for this session is even worse, will the government, with the assistance of the opposition, try to improve upon this appalling and atrocious record of incompetence and indecision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question, of course, is not in order.



EXPECTED DATE OF PRESENTATION OF BUDGET

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether the list of priorities the government has for its legislation includes any budgetary measures, including a budget debate?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to present a budget in the House on the evening of Monday May 8.


Gerald William Baldwin: You got smoked out. It took a lot of pushing.
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF STATEMENTS IN ECONOMIC REVIEW RESPECTING PRODUCTIVITY AND CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND COMPARISON OF UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not the minister's expectation will be realized but that remains to be seen. He is keeping a very straight face. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance some questions which I hope you will permit, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the economic survey he tabled last Tuesday. First would he inform the House on what basis he states in his one and half page sketch of prospects for 1972, the shortest chapter in the book, that he expects productivity to go down in 1970 while in the same brief sketch on the preceding page he expects capital investment to be mainly in machinery and equipment usually acquired to improve productivity?


John Napier Turner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would now be patient and wait until the early days of May.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, apparently the answer has not yet been prepared for the minister. May I ask him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: May I ask him a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance the following question. In view of the fact that Table 8 on page 48 indicates that government revenue and expenditure for all levels of government showed a surplus of more than $900 million in 1971 and almost $1,300 million in 1970, would the minister inform the House what he meant by the statement on page 47 of that document that these figures showed-I am using his words-a "cumulative movement toward deficit"?


Mr. Speaker:: I have very serious doubts regarding the acceptability of a question of this kind. It obviously invites debate rather than seeking information. I would think that normally the minister, if he were expected to answer a question of this kind, should do so by way of a statement on motions or under other circumstances.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will try asking another supplementary question. This question arises out of tables dealing with unemployment in the document to which I have referred. Can the minister inform the House why he chose 1969 as the base year with which to compare present unemployment in view of the fact that in 1969 unemployment was 4.7 per cent, and does this mean that the government considers 4.7 per cent as an acceptable level of unemployment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it does not at all. Surely these points ^re debating points that could be dealt with in the budget debate.

April 27, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



PROVINCIAL BORROWINGS IN UNITED STATES-STEPS TO LOWER CANADIAN INTEREST RATES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister arises out of his Economic Review. In view of the fact it shows that the increase in jobs arising out of manufacturing has been only 5.5 per cent since 1967 compared with 26.6 per cent in 1961 to 1966, is the minister proposing to introduce any measures that will stimulate the manufacturing sector in order to produce jobs rather than the major concessions that have been made to the extraction industries which have provided relatively few jobs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I suggest to the hon. member that the considerations I have indicated as applying to the supplementary questions asked by the hon. member for York South apply to the question asked by the hon. member now. It seems to me that all this information should normally be given by way of a statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a very simple question. In view of the fact the province of Ontario is now borrowing $100 million in the United States market and several other provinces have been forced to go to that market in spite of the admonition issued to them by the minister's predecessor, and in view of the fact this is because interest rates are higher in Canada than in the United States, is the minister proposing to take any steps through the Bank of Canada or by consultation with the banks and finance companies to lower interest rates in Canada as has been done in the United States?
Hon. ]ohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the request of my predecessor to the provinces and municipalities to seek their requirements in the Canadian market where possible was repeated by me when I was at the federal-provincial meeting of finance ministers in Jasper. Both the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec particularly have been keeping in close touch with me and the Bank of Canada regarding their borrowing requirements, and we have again impressed upon them the advisability, if they can, of seeking accommodation in the Canadian market.
As for the second part of the question, I am of course in regular touch with the governor of the Bank of Canada and I am watching interest rates.



REAL GROWTH RATE PROJECTION OF DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-RATE INDICATED BY ECONOMIC COUNCIL AS NECESSARY FOR FULL EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should point out in all fairness that my question is not supplementary to the last question but rather-


Mr. Speaker:: In that case, perhaps I might recognize the hon. member in a short while. For the moment, the Chair in fairness should recognize the hon. member for Shef-ford if his question is supplementary-the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: With further reference to the Economic Review tabled by the government, the following statement appears therein:

It is expected that real growth will continue to surpass its trend rate through 1972.
Can the minister inform the House whether he is aware of the specific real growth rate projection of the Department of Finance and, if so, would he kindly tell the House what it is?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that might be one of the matters I should properly deal with on the night of May 8.


Gerald William Baldwin: You will be pretty busy that night.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let us see if we can try this another way, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the Economic Council has indicated that we require an annual real growth rate of between 61 per cent and 7 per cent to get unemployment down to around full employment by 1975. Do the minister and his department accept that proposition handed down by the Economic Council of Canada?


John Napier Turner: That is a forecast of medium and long-term growth, Mr. Speaker, and certainly we pay a great deal of attention to the Economic Council of Canada. I shall say more about it on budget night.



GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG AND SINGLE PEOPLE

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. With reference to the appendix in the Economic Review entitled "Some Facts About The Unemployed", could the minister explain the rationale behind the table seeking to show that only about one-third of the unemployed are heads of families, and similar information? Does this mean the government considers that unemployment among unmarried and young Canadians is socially less serious?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I have very serious reservations about a question of this nature at this time.



SUGGESTED ACTION TO STABILIZE CANADIAN DOLLAR BELOW PAR

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the present value of the American dollar vis-a-vis the Canadian dollar, is the minister taking any direct action or using his good offices to try to make arrangements to stabilize our dollar somewhere below par?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say any more at this stage except that I am watching the exchange rate very closely.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is the minister aware of the problems this is creating for a great many secondary industries in Canada, particularly those engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts?
April 27, 1972



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Since Canadians working in the U.S. are experiencing difficulties in getting their unemployment insurance benefits, would the minister say whether the officials of the Canadian unemployment insurance offices are getting excellent co-operation from those of the various American states in order to solve this problem?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, that question should more properly be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I will undertake to draw it to his attention and get an answer for the hon. member.



CARROT RIVER, SASKATCHEWAN-POSSIBLE DECLARATION AS DISASTER AREA AND OPENING OF SPECIAL QUOTAS FOR GRAIN FARMERS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. As a result of the flooding of the Carrot River and the very severe damage reported in the area, are on-the-spot inspections being carried out by someone from the department, or by the minister who is on a pilgrimage to the west and perhaps could be diverted to observe the area personally, with a view to declaring it a disaster area so that federal assistance might be given to the people affected?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the matter aright, the question of whether the federal government should give assistance in such cases depends upon whether the province asks for assistance in dealing with an emergency. I understand that the provincial co-ordinator under the Emergency Measures Organization is on the spot and that we will have a report soon.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. If the reports indicate that the severe flooding has damaged grain in storage, would the minister consider the possibility of opening up special quotas for the people affected in order to salvage whatever grain may already be partially damaged by allowing them to make special deliveries?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that this is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, but I will certainly bring it to their attention. In previous cases they have taken such action.
Inquiries of the Ministry YOUTH



ACTION ON TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS-REFERENCE OF REPORT TO COMMITTEE-SUCCESS OF INDUSTRIAL REFERRAL GROUP RESPECTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROJECTS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. With regard to the task force report on youth which was tabled almost a year ago and dealing as it does with recreational, social and manpower policies with respect to young Canadians, can. the minister indicate any progress on the recommendations in the report, and when we may expect legislation or some action of another nature?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this question is under consideration by certain government committees and I am in no position to say today when the government will be prepared to state its position concerning this report.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the importance of the recommendations and the length of time since they were published, is the minister prepared to have the report referred to a standing committee of the House so that the report and its recommendations may be examined before any legislation or policies are enunciated by the government?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the consideration of that report by a standing committee of the House, if such a committee wishes to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps we might try to terminate this subject and allow the hon. member for Egmont to ask another supplementary. Then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Secretary of State. With regard to the series of questions I have asked in the past few weeks with respect to the present employment situation of young people and the final approval of roughly 3,000 Opportunities for Youth projects, can the minister indicate today or in the near future the success of the industrial referral group with some 16,000 projects that will not be funded under OFY and the number that might be picked up by the private sector or other levels of government?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think I should be able to give the hon. member an answer in this respect within two or three weeks.
1680

April 27, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



AUTO PARTS-ALLEGED INHIBITING OF EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES BY STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF U.S. CUSTOMS REGULATIONS

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whiiby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact the minister denied the accuracy of a suggestion I made a few weeks ago about the strict enforcement of customs regulations by United States customs officials, in terms of inhibiting the export of Canadian automotive parts to the United States, and in view of the further fact that yesterday in Windsor the executive vice-president of the Canadian Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, Mr. Wood, stated, "the enforcement of these procedures is inhibiting purchases of automotive parts from Canada," I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to comment on this situation? Are American officials or are they not inhibiting the export of Canadian automotive parts to the United States by work to rule or overzealous enforcement of the tariff regulations of that country?


Hon. lean-Luc Pepin (Minister oi Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I stand behind what I said at the time. A further investigation was carried out more recently into that subject, which again confirmed what I said in the House at the time. I will consult with Mr. Wood and ask precisely what he has in mind and report to the hon. member accordingly.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister also consult with Mr. Wood concerning his contention that American parent firms of Canadian subsidiaries in the auto parts sector of the industry are apparently putting pressure of some sort on the Canadian subsidiaries to restrict them from gaining access to export markets for this industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I like the use of the word "apparent". The hon. member is becoming more cautious in his questions nowadays. We checked sometime ago on that particular issue of whether some pressure was being exercised on them and the report proved to be not well-founded. On the general situation of the auto parts industry my information from well informed sources is that the industry is witnessing a very good trend at the moment, as good as last year but not as good as next year if forecasts of automobile purchases prove to be true.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY PLAN


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Recently, the Premier of Quebec announced that this government and the government of Ottawa were pre-

pared to sign an agreement concerning family allowances. I would like to know whether in that agreement the federal government has recognized Quebec's primacy as far as family allowances are concerned.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the arrangement has not dealt with the concept of primacy or otherwise. It has been a co-operative endeavour to reconcile the priorities that Quebec feels it has under the family allowance structure with the main thrust of the federal legislation. I am very hopeful that the agreement will be concluded shortly.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a supplementary.
Could the minister tell the House whether provinces other than Quebec want to avail themselves of the privilege that will be granted to Quebec in relation to family allowances?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. No other province has specifically indicated yet that it intends to take advantage of the option. Some are looking at it and studying it but they have not come to any firm conclusions.



INDUSTRY


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce based on his reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Peace River on March 16 which appears at page 883 of Hansard with regard to a request from Dominion Aviation for a development grant. Since this company has resubmitted its application by government request, can the minister indicate why there has been a further six-weeks delay in reaching a decision?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I do not know, but I will investigate and report.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the first report of the committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts on the case of Anne Booth and the Public Service Commission, can the Acting Prime Minister indicate what action the government or Treasury Board or the Public Service Commission is now taking with a view to providing guidelines so that public servants who wish to participate in politics will know whether they will be permitted to do so?
April 27, 1972


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this whole matter is the subject of very serious consideration by the government.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I have a question for the Minister of Communications, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the statement made by his counterpart in Ontario who indicated that there would be a federal inquiry by the Canadian Transport Commission into the Bell structure? If this has been set up, when are the hearings going to be held?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the Canadian Transport Commission announced a study somewhat along the lines mentioned by the Ontario minister. I think the details of it are of public record.


William Arnold Peters: Would the minister, who is responsible for that section of the Canadian Transport Commission's decisions that affect communications, give consideration to delaying the two or three applications that Bell now has before the commission for rate increases until this inquiry is conducted?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I might, Mr. Speaker, except that the minister does not have authority to delay any such consideration.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the minister, who represents members of parliament in dealing with the commission, whether he will convey to the commission the request made in Ontario and the request being made now by members of parliament to have these rate increases delayed until the conclusion of that inquiry?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be clear, unless I am mistaken, that the minister in Ontario did not request a delay in any consideration of existing applications, but I will be glad to convey the suggestion of the hon. member to the chairman of the CTC.



BELL CANADA RATES FOR PRIVATE LINE CONSTRUCTION

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is making this inquiry would he also inquire into Bell rates for private line construction to customers who have to build lines under the supervision of Bell?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Again, Mr. Speaker, this comes under the authority of the Canadian Transport Commission. The authority was given to them by parliament. I would be glad to draw the hon. member's inquiry to the attention of the chairman of the CTC.
Inquiries of the Ministry



HOUSING


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Would the minister indicate whether the statement published in the Globe and Mail of April 11 is correct concerning loans and grants for house renovation by the federal government?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that he cannot ask the minister to say whether a statement published in the press is correct. Perhaps the question could be considered as having been put directly to the minister and the minister may reply to the hon. member for Compton if he wishes.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggested that the minister might answer the first question. The hon. member can put his supplementary when the minister has done so.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question, put directly, was answered directly and fully last Tuesday. Proposals have been submitted for discussion purposes to the provinces relating to a number of areas of the National Housing Act and we are consulting with them for the purpose of developing a legislative policy which will be introduced in the House.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Would the minister tell us whether it is also true that federal funds will be allotted municipal projects in the form of bonds instead of mortgages?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker.



SUMMER OPERATION OF MEDICAL SCHOOLS TO OFFSET SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS

['Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the action taken by the department in this particular instance other than to say that the department is in constant communication with what is going on in the United States. If this report has come out I am sure they are looking into whatever implications it may have as far as Canada is concerned. I can give the hon. member more particulars, perhaps later today or tomorrow.']
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's recognition of the great need for more doctors and his paramedical services scheme, will he inform the House what provision he has made to operate Canadian medical schools this summer?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I have told the hon. member and as I am sure he is well aware, the operation of medical schools is not within federal jurisdiction but is under provincial control. If anything can be done to increase the output of doctors in our communities
25104-47J

April 27, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
through our medical schools, we naturally hope the provinces will take whatever action is necessary.



Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. lohn's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. During the course of the negotiations with France regarding their claims to the continental shelf, has any arrangement been made with that country with respect to the granting of licences for exploration on the continental shelf?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, no arrangement has yet been made with France; everything is under negotiation.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister whether he is aware of any French initiatives in this regard to grant licences for oil exploration on that part of the continental shelf which is claimed by France?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would not be surprised if this is something that the French government would like to obtain but, as I say, everything is under negotiation.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the continuing efforts to resolve the question of jurisdiction, whether it is provincial, federal or joint, can the minister indicate whether the provinces have been informed about the negotiations with France and, if not, will he give an assurance that the provinces will be taken into the confidence of the federal government and made part of the process of discussion?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there should be any doubt about it that it is the government of Canada that has the responsibility for negotiating with foreign countries. We do consult from time to time with interested parties and I am sure we will have the necessary consultation, but the responsibility is ours.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the recent report that the United States Food and Drug Administration has ordered the 
recall of certain stoneware cups and plates manufactured by Ceramano-Keramik of West Germany because this particular Surf Blue pattern contained up to 44 times the amount of leachable lead allowed under its federal standards, and in view of the fact that certain Japanese enamel-ware was found to contain from 20 to 100 times the cadmium allowed by U.S. standards, I would ask the minister whether his department has investigated the possibility of these products being sold in Canada and, if so, do they violate Canadian standards?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the action taken by the department in this particular instance other than to say that the department is in constant communication with what is going on in the United States. If this report has come out I am sure they are looking into whatever implications it may have as far as Canada is concerned. I can give the hon. member more particulars, perhaps later today or tomorrow.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
1971-72 FOR ANTICIPATED DEFICIT IN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance of which I have given him notice. In the budgetary deficit forecast for 1971-72 in the Economic Review released a few days ago, what provision, if any, has been made for the anticipated deficit in the unemployment insurance fund?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in having sent me notice. The explanation is that with the coming into force of the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1971, the unemployment insurance fund was succeeded by the unemployment insurance account. Any short-fall in this account is supported by a working capital advance. The provision of $325 million for the deficit in this account is shown in Table 61 under the heading, Other Non-budgetary Transactions, on page 145 of that review.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. In view of the many pronouncements by the government directing a new vision to northern Canada in the seventies, particularly with regard to communications, can the minister advise the House when the citizens of northern Newfoundland will receive the normal fundamental and basic communications associated with telephone and television coverage?
April 27, 1972


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, there is an extensive study into that very subject going on now with the co-operation of communications carriers. I am glad to tell the hon. member that it is proceeding well. I will be glad to share with him the information that comes out of it when it is available.


Jack Marshall: I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact it has been indicated that 98 per cent of all Canadians will have radio and television communication within the next two or three years, will the minister investigate the evident deliberate delays by the CBC in promised television coverage for northern Newfoundland?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I can ask the CBC and convey the answer to the hon. member.



FINANCE


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the announcement by the Department of Finance that the Bank of Canada will be handling the small accounts in private banks that have not been touched since 1962 and which total a little over $1 million, can the minister inform the House whether interest on these accounts will be included for those who apply for and receive the unused money in these accounts?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member will allow me to take that question as notice and I will get back to him.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON HUNTING RIGHTS OF INDIANS FOLLOWING TRANSFER OF LANDS

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I recall to the attention of the Minister of Justice a question I asked him about the James Bay area of Canada on March 3 in relation to aboriginal rights in the territories under the terms and conditions whereby those territories were transferred to the provinces. In view of the fact the minister said he would take this question as notice, will he take advantage of the opportunity to make a statement on this very important matter during the course of the discussion which I understand will take place either later today or tomorrow?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure others of my colleagues who have direct responsibility for dealing with the substantive matters involved will be intervening in the debate. I do not think it would
Inquiries of the Ministry
be proper for me to comment on whatever legal advice
may have been given to my colleagues in this connection.
* # *



UNITED NATIONS


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the forthcoming visit of the Secretary General of the United Nations. Does the government have any suggested revisions to the United Nations charter and will these be given some publicity prior to the visit of the Secretary General? Does the minister have in mind any suggestions with regard to revision of the charter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The subject of charter revision is now under consideration in the department. Before the time expires, I will be presenting our views on the subject to the Secretary General. The hon. member knows that the prospects of substantial charter review are almost nil because most of the great powers and most of the underdeveloped countries in the world are opposed to revisions in the charter of the kind that have often been suggested to me. However, we will be putting forward what we think are practical proposals in this direction. I do not think, however, that this will be a main subject of discussion with the Secretary General when he is here.



WATER RESOURCES


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister, either in that capacity or in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of reports emanating from Washington this morning that Senator Frank Moss stated that Canada, the United States and Mexico are close to an agreement on a continental water policy, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether negotiations on this subject among the three countries or between two of the three countries have in fact taken place and whether the reported statement by Senator Frank Moss has any validity in negotiations or discussions among the governments?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am quite unaware of any discussions or negotiations of any kind between Canada and the United States having to do with water. I do not know what is going on between the United States and Mexico, but I can assure the hon. member that the statement he has quoted to me is completely without foundation.


David Lewis: I hoped that would be the answer. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will look into the

April 27, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
statement made by the senator, see exactly what he was driving at and let members of the House know the source of that statement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be prepared to do so. It may be something the senator would like to see happen.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS BY MEMBERS

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State. Has any action been taken as a result of the letters that were forwarded to him prior to April 13 with regard to the Opportunities for Youth program or was this simply an exercise in futility and the recommendations of hon. members were not considered at all?


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not get the full import of the question. Maybe I could consult with the hon. member on it afterward.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley James Korchinski: May I repeat the question, Mr. Speaker. Was any action taken as a result of the recommendations of members of parliament which were forwarded to the parliamentary secretary's office prior to April 13 on the Opportunities for Youth program or was this simply an exercise in futility and these recommendations were completely disregarded?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, it was not an exercise in futility.


Stanley James Korchinski: Will we be receiving replies as a result of these recommendations?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, where a member of parliament is anxious to have an explanation as to why a project was accepted or rejected, we will have the facilities to provide that explanation.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the parliamentary secretary from what source we can get this information because I have tried the special liaison office and also his office in order to get some kind of reply. To date I have not received a reply and I do not know who is on the selection committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.



PENSIONS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of increasing concern and the representations by many Canadians in relation to early retirement, I should like to ask the minister whether he is considering amending the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan so that people who so desire may retire at the age of 60?


John Carr Munro: We have had under consideration the general principle of encouraging earlier retirement but we have reached no conclusions as to how it should be done or what particular program should be amended.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the leader of the House to tell us the business for the rest of this week and next week, bearing in mind that there will be consultation with regard to the business for later today or tomorrow, as the Chair has suggested?


Mr. MacEachen:: Today we shall continue the debate on the item now before the House. This will be followed by the amendments to the Criminal Code, Bills C-2 and C-6. After that we would take up Bill C-5, the Farm Credit Act and the explosives measure, Bill C-7. The order may be subject to negotiation.


Gerald William Baldwin: In light of the announcement made by the Minister of Finance, can the hon. gentleman undertake that the House will be able to hold the usual budget debate prescribed by the rules and that there will be discussion between the parties, bearing in mind that the budget will be brought down on Monday evening, as to the dates when the debate will follow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I shall do my utmost to meet the requirements of the rules in that connection.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 27, 1972



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-170, to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lewis (p. 1448).
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I sat here yesterday afternoon while the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) attempted to assert that the NDP was opposed to measures taken to assist financially the poor people of this country. This contention was refuted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in my opinion very effectively. It is, therefore, not my intention today to go into any great detail in connection with the debate which took place yesterday.
At the outset, I wish to make it clear that not only are we in favour of this bill as far as the money aspect is concerned-the amounts which will be directed to low income families-but we wonder why that amount is not greater. This is one of our basic criticisms. Since 1945 inflation has eroded the value of the dollar by more than half. To be more precise, $15 at the present time buys what $6 bought in 1945; $20 now buys what $8 bought in 1945. So, we are really not giving any more; we are simply catching up with the purchasing power of the dollar, and this is something which should have been done years ago.
There is a further point I should like to make. It is that the bill before us provides for the replacement not only of the Family Allowances Act but of the Youth Allowances Act. This, I feel, is somewhat of a tragedy. I have been informed that Canada is the first nation operating a family allowance program to cut off families from benefits and to introduce the regressive principle of payment according to family income. More than 60 nations operate such programs, including every industrial nation except the United States, and undoubtedly this one hold-out has influenced the more colonial-minded of Canada's elite. Almost all these nations have dramatically increased payments over the past decade. Sweden, the first nation to introduce family allowances, now pays $250 a year with respect to each child; the United Kingdom increased its payments by 150 per cent in 1967 and 1968. Hungary has raised family allowances to $48 a month in respect of all children aged seven and under, having found it was cheaper to pay women to remain home to care for their own children than it was to care for them in government day nursery institutions. And this is in a nation where $100 a month is a good wage.
I should like to address myself, now, to what I consider to be some of the built-in problems which will arise once this bill becomes law. It takes little imagination to think of cases where neighbours who view themselves as in approximately the same financial circumstances will
Family Income Security Plan
resent their allowances being cut off or be embarrassed by their continuance. This is at the neighbourhood level. Cashing the family allowance cheque in the drugstore or grocery store, where the number of children in the family is known, together with their approximate ages, will amount to a public declaration of family income. Sessions at which parents calculate family income, especially among the working class, may well be traumatic occasions causing internal family resentment. It may well be that the calculation of family income is a socially desirable aspect of the bill, but along with a number of other dimensions of the legislation it will undoubtedly create resentment among the public. Politically and socially, the family allowance is valued particularly by the women to whom the cheque is made out. For some, it is too small to make much difference but for many others, even some who are considered well off, at least in terms of the bill, it is very important.
I turn now to the administrative difficulties-to what some hon. members have called the administrative jungle. Well, the administrative jungle which can reasonably be expected to arise from the introduction of the FISP plan in its present form will make the UIC mess look like an oasis in the desert. I represent what is primarily an industrial riding, and I know what a mess the Unemployment Insurance Commission was in throughout the fall and most of the winter. People became so angry that they stormed into commission offices demanding cheques. Situations of this kind may develop if the FISP plan is carried out.
In reply to a written question in Hansard on December 22, 1971, the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated that the number of employees required to process FISP cheques will more than double, from 730, the number currently involved in processing both the family allowances and youth allowances payments, to 1,477. According to the estimates for 1972-73, the existing manpower of the entire income security and social assistance program is of the order of 2,000 persons. Of these 2,000, the minister has indicated that 730 are involved in administering family allowances. When the new scheme has been fully implemented or when all the bugs have been ironed out, the staff of FISP alone will approach 1,500.
The costs of this program are another major factor. The minister indicated on December 22, 1971, in reply to written question No. 1,714, that the administrative cost of FISP would be $13.7 million the year after the program started. The administrative costs of the program under the new scheme go well beyond the walls of health and welfare. Some of the costs of the scheme will be borne by other government departments and, of course, the new scheme imposes an administrative cost on the recipients of benefits.
The courts will be burdened with the new offences created under the act. It seems to me that as this government draws up more bills and passes more acts, it at the same time creates more crimes with which persons can be charged. The Tax Appeal Board will be required to handle some of the appeals. Supply and services, national revenue, Indian affairs and northern development, Statis-

April 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
tics Canada and manpower and immigration are all implicated in the bill.
A massive advertising campaign wil be required to inform the public of the changeover, undoubtedly in flattering terms to the Liberal party, and will have to be continued on a large scale to keep the public constantly informed of their rights and to warn them of the newly-created wrongs that they could commit.
The potential recipients of benefits will be burdened with two economic, if not financial, costs. The first is the cost of acquiring the information they need to take advantage of the scheme. The second is the cost involved in doing all the paper work imposed on them. More and more people every day are spending more time working for the government. There are seven distinct circumstances when a statement or a form must or should be filled out and sent to the department, depending on whether you want the family allowance, whether your income has gone up or down "substantially", as the bill puts it, whether during the year your income has changed, how many children you have and how old they are.
Let us look at the administrative jungle created, Mr. Speaker. First, all applications for family allowances must be checked to determine the eligibility of the applicant. Second, in the case of eligible applicants the benefit payment must be calculated on the family income and age of the children. Third, in the case of non-eligible applicants appeals and explanations must be handled. Fourth, appeals regarding the amount of benefit must be handled. Fifth, statements involving a substantial increase or decrease in income must be processed, with appropriate adjustments to benefits. Sixth, divorces, separations and marriages of recipients must be reported if family income is affected. Benefits must be adjusted. Seventh, adjustments must be made in benefits when estimated income differs significantly from actual income. Eighth, an administrative machinery must be set up to recover benefits paid out to ineligible persons. Ninth, an administrative machinery must be set up to detect frauds involving misrepresentation of income, misrepresentation of the number of children, misrepresentation of the age of the children, failure to report income increases, and failure to report deaths or marriages. Lastly, an administrative machinery for liaison with the provinces will have to be established.
I should like now to refer to some of the comments made by the Canadian Council on Social Development in relation to the white paper that preceded this bill. The council has set forth some guiding principles, and I want to put these principles on the record. The first principle is that family allowances should be universal. This is the main argument of the New Democratic Party. 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.
The second principle is that 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 entitled "Income Security for Canadians" are, size of family, age of children and family

income. Of these, the present program takes age only into account and FISP considers only income. Third, there should be the maximum feasible simplicity and efficiency in administration. What I have just mentioned very briefly about the problems that will arise in administration certainly serves to prove, or will eventually, that we in this party are perhaps right, and certainly the council itself. Fourth, the program should be as fully compatible as possible with long-term social and fiscal policies. This is not evident in the FISP proposals. Fifth, the program should have a built 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 family allowances program or FISP.
I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that if one compares the purchasing power of money today with the situation in 1945 when the original Family Allowances Act was passed, one finds that at that time $6 went as far as $15 to $18 does today; $8 went as far as $20 does today. This is another criticism that I have: there should be a built in escalator clause. With regard to income tax exemptions for dependent children, the council stated that the primary purpose of the exemption is to reduce the tax burden on low income families, but its value increases with the income of the taxpayer. It should be eliminated for children under 18 as a logical first move toward closer integration of the social security and taxation systems. Then, under the heading of taxation of family allowances, the council suggests that family allowances should be taxed,-this is not part of the present program but is proposed by FISP-the tax system taking into account not only income but also the number of children, a feature that is not included in the FISP program.
With regard to universality and selectivity, the council believes in "selectivity within universality" in favour of people of low income. It sees no contradiction here since equity requires that the level of the allowances be related to family resources. FISP proposes to achieve selectivity through grading the allowances; that is to say, selectivity from the bottom up. The council proposes flat rate allowances, graded indirectly according to income through a special tax schedule, which we can call selectivity from the top down. This method also has the virtue of a comparatively simple and cheap administration.
I have pointed out some of the weaknesses in the FISP program and have criticized it for not providing greater benefits for the needy. I have criticized it for eliminating the principle of universality, and in conclusion have outlined some of the recommendations put forward by the Canadian Council on Social Development.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had little or no desire to take part in this debate until I heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) speak yesterday. I hope he will return to his seat in the Chamber before I have concluded my remarks because there are some things I should like to say directly to him, I support all that has been said by my colleagues in our opposition to this bill. We oppose it for many reasons, the main ones, as have been pointed out repeatedly and will continue to be pointed out, being the
April 27, 1972

destruction of the principle of universality and the administrative jungle that it will create. It will also divide, inconvenience and even hurt some people.
One can recall the mid-1940's when old age pension measures were substantially changed and improved, and when the family allowance program was discussed across this country and in this parliament for many months. It was finally enacted with a great deal of fanfare by the then Liberal government. One cannot blame them for that, but only expect it. When the principle of universality was suggested the then Prime Minister of Canada, Mackenzie King, spoke fervently about the inclusion of that principle in the field of social security measures, particularly in respect of old age pensions and family allowances. One can recall when the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent was Prime Minister of our country and became eligible for the old age pension. He publicly and with some fanfare received and accepted his first cheque at the age of 70 to show, not that he needed it, but, his support as the Prime Minister on behalf of his government and the Liberal party of the principle of universality. The point was that he did not need the money, but that the universal application of the old age pension was designed for the benefit of the people.
Similarly in respect of family allowances, Mr. Speaker; those in high places, both in government and in other sectors of our society, who do not need these allowances accept family allowance cheques because they, too, agree with the principle of universality. This government, over the past four years, has adopted many measures that attack people, and many measures which give aid and comfort to wealthy corporations, to an extent that is almost unbelievable. This government has attacked old age pensioners by destroying the principle of universality, and now it attacks children.
I suppose the best illustration I can give quickly is one which can be found in one of the provisions of this bill. The minister proposes that children who are in orphanages, foster homes or are being supported by public funds in other ways, will only receive half the benefits. This is the meanest kind of attitude to adopt. Surely, children in these circumstances need even more than the children in normal homes. Because governments at the federal, provincial and municipal level are participating in the support of these children in foster homes or orphanages, and the federal government is paying half the cost anyway, this government reveals a typical, bureaucratic Liberal attitude by paying only half the allowances. That is surely an attack on the children who are unfortunate enough to be in orphanages or foster homes. It is difficult to understand how the Minister of National Health and Welfare or any self-respecting Liberal, if there are any, could countenance such an outrage.
I should like to repeat what my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said yesterday, that the time has come to say no to this further destruction of what was the leading social security system in the world. I agree with him that the time has come to say no to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and if he wants to take us on in the country in respect of this matter we will only be too glad to oblige him, even in his own constituency. It is time to say no to this destruction of
Family Income Security Plan
the principle of universality. It is time to say no to the government in respect of snooping into people's private affairs. It is time to say no to paternalism and patronizing of the poor. It is time to say no to the inevitable administrative boondoggle which this kind of bill will bring about, and it is time to put an end to this attack on children and to reject this Liberal government's version of a middle income group. I do not class as a middle income what is suggested by the minister, and I think most people in the country would agree with me.
I recall a survey being conducted in the city of Toronto two or three years ago by a joint group of welfare and business agencies. This survey showed that a man and woman with three children living in an average home with a 30 or 35 year mortgage, with one car, attempting to put the three children through university, could not do so on less than $11,000 per year in the city of Toronto. The minister calls that level of income high or high middle, and excludes people making that much money from receiving benefits under this legislation. We all know of people with a total income of $7,500, $8,500 or $9,500, whether it is a single income family or a husband and wife both working, who have a continual struggle to keep their heads above water. They do not live high off the hog. They do not have two cars and do not go to Florida every winter. They struggle to meet their mortgage payments and the payments on their furniture; they struggle to educate their children. They hope to have sufficient money for a two or three week vacation once a year, and often they borrow the money for that. The Minister of National Health and Welfare says they should benefit less because he calls that a middle income. I would hesitate to classify even $15,000 a year as middle income, let alone $7,500.
Each year we will have to raise the levels of what can be called middle income. In five or ten years someone with an income of $7,000 or $8,000 a year will be living at the poverty level, particularly if we are still victimized by Liberal economic policies, because this will mean more and continuing unemployment and a continual loss of control of our own destiny in this country. If we continue to have this kind of policy we will have more inflation, and what is considered by the experts as the poverty line now will be doubled in a few years.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who will still be here then, will be pleading with the government, if we are unfortunate enough to have a Liberal government at that time, to double the levels referred to in this legislation. He will be pleading then to build in an escalation clause. We are pleading now to build in an escalation clause in the family allowance provisions just as we did in respect of old age pensions. Each year, automatically, if the cost of living goes up 4} per cent, the family allowance benefits go up 4 \ per cent and similarly with old age pensions. But this miserly, so-called free enterprise Liberal government condescends to provide a 2 per cent escalation in pensions of civil servants and in the guaranteed income supplement, then turns a blind eye to everybody else.
As has been said by my colleague, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), the proposed $15 or $20 levels just
1688

April 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
bring the purchasing power of the family allowance benefits to what they were in 1945. Let us look at these people whom the minister proposes will either receive less benefits or be excluded. Let us take the wage earner. It is usual nowadays rather than unusual, as was the case 20 or 30 years ago, for the income of people to fluctuate, even though they may only change jobs 4, 5 or 10 times in their lifetime. A wage earner will be laid off, fired, promoted or demoted. It is not uncommon for this to happen to him many times in his lifetime. The level of income fluctuates up and down, particularly at a time when people are being victimized by a Liberal government, and when unemployment is high.
Because of unemployment a person's income may go down and then go up again when he returns to work. The Minister of National Health and Welfare says that if this should happen the person could very well make a new application for benefits under this program. It is not unusual for someone with an income of $10,000 or $12,000 a year to have his income substantially reduced because he must take another position, but by the time he gets through all the red tape involved in reapplying and receiving these benefits weeks and months will have elapsed. An unnecessary burden is placed on the public when one must apply every time his income level changes by $500 a year or more. I think this is really an imposition. It is an imposition on the taxpayers in terms of the cost of administering this type of program as proposed by the minister. The single parent in this bracket for whom the minister proposes to provide less benefits have more costs to bear. Oh yes, the minister may say they will be able to deduct the cost of babysitters, the cost of housekeepers, the extra cost involved in educating their children and so on, but it is still an imposition.
There are higher costs, not only in monetary ways but in other ways as well. Even though a single parent, one who is widowed, separated or divorced, may have an income of $7,000, $8,000 or $9,000 a year that parent will have more difficulty in supporting children, but since the minister considers that level of income as the middle level that parent will receive less or be excluded entirely. The more one thinks about it, the more one is ashamed to see this kind of legislation presented in this House. It is uncivilized, it is mean and it is vicious. It divides people.
I am sorry the minister has not returned to his seat. He made some statements about the New Democratic Party, about its leader and about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He can say what he likes about me, but when he infers that the New Democratic Party is opposed to giving these allowances to the poor he indicated that he expects millions of people in this country to believe something they know is not true. When he suggests that my leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), is opposed to this bill and is therefore opposed to giving these allowances to the poor, he is expecting millions of people in this country to believe the unbelievable. It is incredible that the minister would expect anybody would believe this of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I suppose there is hardly a citizen in Canada who does not know about and recognize the reputation this hon. gentleman has in the field of social security for something over 30 years. In fact, I submit the day will never arrive when the Minister of National

Health and Welfare will be able to carry water for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


William Arnold Peters: And he doesn't drink very much water.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That kind of a suggestion by the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not only ridiculous, it is insulting. If he had wanted to say it about me I could not care less, but he will not get away with saying it about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or the hon. member for York South. We know there could be political difficulties for the New Democratic Party in the stand we are taking on this, but we make no bones about it and are not running or hiding. I think we have established a good reputation in this country for putting up this kind of a fight for people. For the Liberals to suggest that we are in favour of the rich receiving these allowances, is again asking millions of people in this country to believe the unbelievable.
I do not think you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone in Canada has any doubt about the stand of our party, of our leader or of our leaders before him on this matter, over a period of many, many years. Those who are on high income still do not and never have paid their fair share of the cost of running this country and the cost of having as decent a society as we can. We have taken the lead in demanding and fighting for higher levels of taxation for those who are wealthy. We have taken the lead in this country in fighting the gifts to corporations, their exemptions and allowances under the tax laws of Canada which permit them to evade hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes.
When the minister says that acceptance of our proposals to make these benefits at the $15 and $20 level universal would cost $700 million a year more, I say so what. In the first place, if he had completed reading our amendment he would have known that we proposed there be appropriate amendments to the tax laws which would result in those above the level of $15,000, $20,000 or $50,000 or $100,000 a year paying back a major portion of what they received as family allowance. Surely, this is the way in which it should be done. Surely this would involve the least imposition on the public rather than putting people in categories on the basis of how much money they might happen to earn in a given year, then expecting them to return like mendicants year after year and reapply at their new income levels.
Another group which the minister obviously considers to be at the middle income level are the farmers. Their incomes go up and down like a galloping jackrabbit, varying from a low of $1,500 to a high of $15,000 in a period of two years. In a period of low income, they can receive the family allowance, but if they experienced a few years of high income they would lose the benefits of the family allowance while at the same time they would be paying off debts accrued in the years of low income. The minister can allow them all the deductions similar to those he allows when they make out their income tax forms. If this is the kind of paper work the minister demands of a section of our society, I hope they will tell him to go to blazes.
April 27, 1972

The same thing applies to fishermen and small businessmen whose incomes depend on the profits of their businesses, particularly those located in rural Canada or in areas where fishing is the main industry. Their incomes fluctuate greatly. Those people may belong to what the minister calls the middle income group, people who make between $7,000 and $10,000 a year for a year or two. When their incomes drop below that sum, those people are patronized and told to rush down to make an application for family allowances because that year they are poor. Multiply the number in this group by the hundreds of thousands of people in this country whose income fluctuates every year, then imagine the paperwork that will be required and you can visualize the administrative jungle we will have.
What is even more serious is the fact that this legislation will cause people to feel even more alienated from each other than they do now. They will feel alienated from their government and from each other. They will be computerized and categorized according to the incomes of the father and mother and even the incomes of teenage children, because if those children have incomes over a given amount they must be declared on income tax forms. I assume, therefore, they must also be declared when applying for family allowance benefits under this bill. All of this information goes into the computer and everyone becomes a little card. If your income changes by $500, you must rush down and report it and then the next year make out a new application. Your card goes into the computer, the bell rings, the red light flashes and it spits out another card indicating how much less or how much more you will get or whether you will get anything at all.
Family allowances are for people, for children. Old age pensions also are for people, not because they are old but because they have a right to them which they have earned through their contributions to their country all their lives. Family allowances are for children, for their education. This group of people whom the minister calls middle income people I submit are not middle income people because they are barely making it. Tens of thousands of mothers have had a small savings account for each child into which the family allowance cheque went, and when that child was ready to go to university there was $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 that had accrued to help finance his or her education. If the boy or girl did not wish to go to university, the money stayed in the account until he or she got married and it helped to start them off. In some cases, it was used to purchase clothes. I know a number of mothers who have saved family allowances in separate bank accounts. They did not let the old man touch it for beer or cigarettes, but would use it to buy clothing for their children or to finance their vacations.
However, if those families are now in what the minister classifies as the middle income group, they will get less money in family allowance benefits. If they earn more than $10,000 a year, they will get nothing at all. It is inconceivable to expect this kind of legislation to work or to be accepted. We do not accept it and we never will. The government has flown in the face of a policy that was traditionally theirs, at least since 1944. It has flown in the face of what members of all parties in the House have
Family Income Security Plan
favoured for many years, the principle of universality. No self respecting businessman would try to operate his business in the way in which the minister propose to administer this legislation. It flies in the face of good administrative sense and judgment. It asks too much of people. It imposes upon them. As I said earlier, it perpetuates the paternalistic and patronizing attitude of the government towards the poor.
Family allowances are a matter of right, not a privilege. From those whose incomes are in fact high, those who could be called the middle income group, for example people making $15,000 a year, we propose that we would recover a major part of the extra cost through the income tax. The minister mentioned the figure of $700 million a year. We could recover a large part of that sum through the tax system, and do so fairly on the basis of the ability to pay. We should not demand that people come to the government each year to expose all their private affairs, to expose themselves to government scrutiny and to the computer to see whether they qualify for a few dollars a month or even a few cents a month. If the change in income is only $500 as compared with the previous year they will receive 33 cents less per each $100, but the cost of administering this will be more than the 33 cents which will be deducted. I am sure that the bill for electricity for that computer will go up by at least 33 cents each time the button is pushed to make a calculation.
The way in which the minister proposes to administer the family allowances plan in the future is stupid. One thing for which I have always given credit to the Liberals is that they were reasonably efficient, honest and reasonably good administrators. But this will be a boar's nest-


Mr. McBride:: This will be what?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It will be a boar's nest.


Murray Arndell McBride: Describe a boar's nest.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would be delighted to do so sometime. It is a good prairie expression. To ask me or any other member in the House to approve that kind of administrative procedure is ridiculous.
May I conclude by repeating that the minister's remarks yesterday, not only about the stand of the NDP on this bill but more particularly about the stand of my leader and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were unworthy of the minister. I hope he does not try to perpetuate that kind of nonsense. I hope he will be man enough to admit that he should not have said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is opposed to giving money to the poor. I hope he does not try to perpetuate that kind of nonsense because if he does, he will be earning a punch on the nose from many thousands of people across this country who have admired and respected the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for his stand with regard to the poor, whether or not they support him politically. I hope that members of all parties will think seriously about our amendment before it comes to a vote and that they will decide it is worthy of support, that in fact it makes this bill into what it should be, a universal Family Income Security Plan that is more meaningful, that does not discriminate, that does not computerize and does not alienate. I hope they will recognize that with this
25104-48).

April 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
amendment the legislation before us will be much more efficient and will be administered much more cheaply. I hope that the bill will be passed on second reading in record time and that, when amended, it will be in such form that we will be proud of ourselves, then, when it is given third reading, the minister will be proud of the legislation.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of prolonging this debate, but I think it is my duty to say a few words on a subject I consider of extreme importance, not only because I represent a riding that is mostly labour class and where the average salary is relatively low, but also because Quebec workers are not sufficiently represented in Parliament. Since these people do not have much say in Parliament, I think it is my responsibility to take part in the debate and make a few comments on Bill C-170 respecting family allowances.
I would not like to repeat all the arguments that have already been made. I think, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members who have expressed their views on this measure have dealt with the fundamentals of this bill. They have pointed out the flaws both in its drafting and its implementation. They have tried, in particular, to show to the Canadian people that they are being led once again to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, by which means the government wants to assert that it is considering with benevolence, and in accordance with its philosophy of a just society, the situation of the working class, of the small salary earner and of the large family, particularly in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot be fooled in this House and we very well know, as the hon. member who spoke before me has pointed out, that whatever our pronouncements and objections to this bill, the government has decided to adopt it and that all our efforts will fail to alter the position or the decision it has already taken.
Indeed, this attitude is not new. Since the government of the just society has assumed power, it, alone, has charted our course of action and it, alone, has made its own decisions while ignoring the democratic role and the contribution of opposition members in the House.
This being said, Mr. Speaker, I felt I had to rise and say clearly that we of the Progressive Conservative party have stated our position, which is that we give outright support to the principle of family allowances. We acknowledge the need for them, and I feel that those who, like me, represent working class constituencies where there are a lot of low and middle income people should acknowledge-no matter what party they belong to-the urgency of seeing to it that the working class will not be once again limited both by the rise in the cost of living and by the cuts the government makes in some social legislation-in short, that it will not lose once again through legislation which attempts to deprive further the families, the middle class of this country.


Mr. Ouellet:: What cuts are you talking about?
[Mr. Benjamin.)


Georges-J. Valade: If the hon. member would have some patience, I will tell him. Let him be quiet and listen. Let him take part in the debate if he has something intelligent to say, and I will tell him what cuts I am talking about.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary on a question of privilege.


André Ouellet: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie says that if I have something to say, I should rise and speak. If he was in this House more often, he would know that I have already taken part in this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is obviously no question of privilege here.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, not only is the hon. member's remark stupid and silly, but it shows, above all, that he does not see that even the minister who sponsored the bill is not in the House, and that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), who supposedly wants a just society, has never been in this House to take part in the debate and to hear arguments and discussions on such an important bill. The Prime Minister of Canada should be the first to give a good example by being present in this House.


André Ouellet: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege. I hope it is not the same he just raised because we could discuss for a long while as to whether an hon. member from any party is present in the House during a debate. I think such considerations have very little to do with the debate which should take place regarding the bill now before us.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie has called my comments silly. I can take the liberty, I think, to point out to him that his own remarks must be somewhat uninspired since there are no Conservative members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to ignore that remark because among the 55 Quebec Liberals-the province most affected by this legislation-hardly three or four are in the House. There is only one Progressive Conservative member representing the Canadian metropolis. Unfortunately, the injustice committed in the last election is that the present government which is indebted to Quebec for the majority enabling him to exercise power happens to penalize that province by bringing in Bill C-170. Most of all, we should not forget that the province of Quebec responded to the Prime Minister's appeal to give him a majority government in order to establish a just society. Yet, it is the province most severely penalized by Bill C-170 that the Liberal party will compel the House to pass in a few hours.


Mr. Cyr:: That is not true.
April 27, 1972


Georges-J. Valade: I don't intend to be lead into digressions by such inept remarks.
If the hon. member for Papineau, who represents a Montreal riding, had any sense of responsibility to discuss the merits of this bill, I believe he would have better chances to be assessed more favourably when the next elections come around and he would not bring out in this House the nonsense he just gave us.


André Ouellet: I can go and discuss it at any time in your riding.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the floor and I intend to take advantage of it whether or not it pleases the parliamentary secretary who is far more adept at writing in newspapers than at making speeches in the House.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is the duty of members to express in the House, where bills are passed, their own opinions and especially their feelings and concern about the people and about a bill which is extremely complex and seems to give something while in fact it withdraws more than it brings. I feel that it is our duty, regardless of our party loyalties, to speak up the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I shall limit myself to the merits of the bill. Personally, I believe the government, instead of making a further amendment to the Family Allowances Act, should first of all have recognized that jurisdiction for family allowances was claimed by the provinces. That, in my opinion, is another violation of the Constitution which stipulates that administration of public health is exclusively a provincial field.
If the government wanted to amend the Family Allowance Act, it should first have tried to come to an agreement with the provinces, to establish whether they want to exercise that responsibility themselves or relinquish it to the federal government.
There again I consider that the government has acted without consultation. It has in fact once more taken the initiative to force upon the provinces legislation which would be better administered by them.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss the substance of Bill C-170. Interruptions have caused me to digress somewhat from this subject, but I want to get back to it, because I think it is more important to discuss the merits of a piece of legislation than to indulge in political or partisan considerations.
Having said so, I think that if we seriously analyze the impact of Bill C-170, there is cause for some concern. No member has raised this point, I think, and this is why I have decided to speak on it.
If we consider the changes that this bill introduces into the family allowance program, I think that we must ask very sincerely whether the government is not seeking a systematic, gradual and definite elimination of all forms of family allowances, for two reasons.
First, as a result of the selectivity principle, and then, as a result of inflation. The selectivity principle obviously reduces more and more the number of family allowance recipients. The government itself admitted it; over 1 million people will no longer be eligible to family allowances.
Family Income Security Plan
As a result of inflation, wages and prices tend to increase. The minimum floor on which these new allowances were based will undoubtedly disappear, that is to say that the basic amount of $4,500 which made a parent with one child eligible, will no longer apply, since, because of inflation, a person who earns $4,500 now, will probably earn $6,000 or $7,000 within three, four or five years. And then, a single child will no longer be eligible to family allowances. This means that, in a few years, through the technocratic process related to this bill, most families, maybe all of them, will no longer be eligible to family allowances.
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare seems to disagree. This section on page 6 of the bill is very clear about it. It is clearly stated in section 6(l)(b) that allowances will be paid to a person with one child and that, for each full $100 of income by which the income of the family exceeds, the allowance will be reduced by 33 per cent.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, every person earning $4,600 will be obliged to deduct 33 per cent from the amount exceeding $4,500. Who can say, nowadays, that the head of a family who earns $5,000 has a salary enabling him to make ends meet? In my opinion, it is only fancy.
This is another method which the present government uses to show that he is trying to help the poor, the low income people, the families who need it, but actually, it is only playing a hypocritical game which tend to reduce even more the assistance that large families and low income people need so badly, nowadays.
If the intention is really to do away with family allowances by circuitous means, the present government should have the courage to say outright that it wants to be rid of the burden of helping small wage-earners and large families.
I suggest that the inadequacies of this legislation are evident. Because of the two conditions explicitly stipulated therein, the concept of selectivity and the 33 per cent deductibility clause for each additional $100 of income over $4,500, the legislation clearly indicates that we are going toward complete elimination of family allowances to large families and small wage-earners.
If the government wanted to be really honest, it would state outright its intention of abolishing in the near future legislation assisting large families and it should truly demonstrate its intention to help small wage-earners through the use, as all hon. members suggested, of the income tax.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it would be easy for the government to say: We want to help families and small wage-earners. We are going to allow low-income family heads to deduct from their income tax all expenses made for their children. Why should the government not allow deductions of clothing expenses for a child under 16 years of age, of all school fees for children under 16, of medical expenses, of physical development expenses, and even of expenses made for sports which are necessary to the training of young people? This would really be a way for the government to prove its sincerity and its truthfulness to the Canadian people.

Family Income Security Plan
Mr. Speaker, the government could also say to the family head who has a small property saddled with municipal and school taxes: We are going to help you by allowing you to deduct a certain amount of your municipal and school taxes from your income tax, so that you will have a little more money to meet necessary family expenses. I feel this would not be a mere statement of intent, but rather facts which would prove that the government is trying to help low-income heads of large families.
The government could also have said on the same occasion: We are going to help senior citizens. This government of the so-called "just society" has not yet indicated what it intends to do to alleviate the burden of senior citizens. I know that this bill does not deal with this matter, but I think this is an opportunity which the government could use to demonstrate that it really wants to implement its policy for a just society by giving more assistance to this class of citizens, elderly people, who only receive a pittance and who cannot, nowadays, make both ends meet.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the important impact of this bill is concealed by several sections which are so complex that they make it difficult for anybody to understand the meaning of the bill and the way in which it is going to be administered. For instance, clause 6(2) of the bill clearly states that where a person receives a pension or any other assistance from a lower level of government or within the meaning of a plan approved by the provinces where this legislation would apply, the amounts of the benefits payable by the federal government will be one half of those amounts which would allegedly be paid to families, as stated in the bill. I think I understand the bill quite correctly, but explain it to me if I do not. How is it possible for the minister to tell the people that he is paying $20 a month in respect of a child of from 12 to 18 years and $15 in respect of another of up to 12 years, in the event that the child's family receives any assistance from the municipality within the meaning of a plan agreed upon by the province?
The government is lying when it tells the people that it is going to pay these amounts. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare might repudiate my arguments, but the government will only pay $10 in respect of one child and $7 in respect of the other. This is clearly established in clause 6(2) of the bill and I quote:
(2) The amount of a benefit that is payable in respect of a person referred to in paragraph 3(l)(b) in respect of any benefit year is the amount set out in paragraph (l)(a) or (b), as the case may be-
The government is once more creating the impression it is going to pay sensational and stupendous amounts, something that will at last enable families which face difficult economic conditions to extricate themselves from their stagnation, when this is not true. Once more, Mr. Speaker, this bill tries to mislead-


André Ouellet: Speak about it to the minister.


Georges-J. Valade: -Canadians by hiding the real intent of the government in the sense that it is obvious that this piece of legislation will be gradually and systematically self-

April 27, 1972
defeating within a few years, due to the conditions with which the government has stuffed it.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Sainte-Marie answer a question?


Georges-J. Valade: I will answer any sensible question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


André Ouellet: While opposing this bill, is the hon. member for Sainte-Marie aware that through this government measure almost 80 per cent of the families in his riding will see their allowances doubled or tripled?


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, this is not only false but another lie which must be emphasized because I know that it will be used by the Liberal party to defeat a Quebec member-the member for Sainte-Marie-because in Montreal it has been found out that the Liberals have betrayed the people, that one person is trying to set the record straight-the member for Sainte-Marie.
The Liberal party has only one thing in mind: to use all means available to stifle, to knock out the member who, even though he can speak on behalf of the people, is subjected to this government's demagogy and dictatorship.
Mr. Speaker, I will reply to the question of the hon. member for Papineau. Not only will the people of my riding not see their benefits doubled or tripled-because in Sainte-Marie some people do not or barely earn the minimum required under the law-but the 33 per cent deduction on each $100 above $4,500 will automatically deprive most large families of the benefits that the member for Papineau is saying the law will give them.
In fact in Sainte-Marie, not one father of four, five or six children does not earn at least $5,000 or $6,000 a year. He could not make both ends meet otherwise. And when it comes to $5,000, $6,000 or $6,500, the 33 per cent deduction clause for each $100 excess income means that the possible income of large families will decrease by that much. In my opinion, it would be wrong for the parliamentary secretary to say flippantly that the entire population of the Sainte-Marie or Saint-Jacques constituencies or of the Montreal constituencies as a whole will profit from the legislation. It is untrue, because due to inflation, the increased cost of living, the wage raises which have been added to the income, the inflationary pressures, this new system will not enable the heads of large families in labour constituencies such as mine to receive more than they do now. The parliamentary secretary knows it quite well and his intervention is only meant to alter the interpretation of the present legislation.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask another little question to the member for Sainte-Marie.
His comments show that he does not understand the legislation at all. I ask him if he would be kind enough to invite me in his constituency at the next elections; I would
April 27, 1972

explain to his constituents the great advantages of that legislation.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, not only am I happy to tell the hon. member that I shall invite him, but I shall even invite him to his own riding to explain the truth to his constituents.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the exchange that has just taken place between some of the members from the province of Quebec. I wish it had been a fuller discussion, particularly on the aspect of why the province of Quebec is trying to negotiate family allowances into its sphere and what bearing the negotiations may have on the plan we are now discussing. I am interested in the fact that most Liberal members come from the province of Quebec.


Georges-J. Valade: That is right, and it is a shame.


William Arnold Peters: I agree it is a shame, but it is a fact.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is not true. Among other things you cannot do, you cannot count.


Mr. Bechard:: What about Ontario?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly, the majority of the Liberal members come from the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Hon. members should at least give the hon. member for Timiskaming a chance to make his speech.

I would suggest that all hon. members wait before putting questions or making remarks, in order to give the hon. member who has the floor a chance to start his speech.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have said before in this House that my arithmetic is not good. Probably this is the one justification for a computer.
I was interested in the discussion that took place because in years gone by there has been a great deal of support from the province of Quebec for family allowances. I am very surprised that there should be an argument now as to whether you should use the high income figure for a family with one child as the criterion or, as the previous speaker did, use the example of five children at a much lower family income level. Obviously, the people of Quebec are not now as deeply concerned about the matter of procreation as they were previously. The birth rate in the province of Quebec is now very low. In fact, even with government intervention in the form of a family allowance program, it is the lowest in the civilized world. I am interested in the thinking of Quebec members in this regard because they are affected. It might have quite a bit to do with their future because the populations of some of the other ethnic groups in that area are multifamily Income Security Plan
plying much faster. The Indian population is enjoying a very high birth rate.
When this matter of social security payments was settled to the satisfaction of most people a long time ago, it was agreed that people would be granted certain fundamental rights because they were Canadians. One was the right to the old age pension. I remember a former Prime Minister from the province of Quebec who said in this House that he was very proud of the fact he was now able to draw the old age pension because he had reached the age at which that pension was paid to all Canadians. Mr. St. Laurent did not need the money. He had a considerable amount of money. He was proud of the fact he lived in a country which paid such a pension because he had contributed to this country and had reached the age at which he was automatically entitled to the old age pension. The wife of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who is also well off financially-and this is unusual in the Canadian Parliament-is entitled to receive this universal payment for their offspring. It seems odd that he resents this to the extent of getting rid of the universality of this program. I think it is an excellent idea that people should receive this payment without consideration being given to their incomes.
Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) made a great thing about the unions agreeing with him, that they were willing to give up something so that it could be given to the poor. If the minister thinks that is so, he has not talked to them. No matter what income level they have reached, union members are of the opinion that, as Canadians, they have a right to family allowances. If they have six children, they believe it is their right to receive a universal payment for those children.


John Carr Munro: If they have six children, they will get a lot more under this bill.


William Arnold Peters: They will not get anything. There is not a worker in the Hamilton area who receives less than the amount at which the family allowance is cut off. Certainly, the steel workers fit into the category which the government now considers to be the middle rich. There are now two thoughts being developed in Canada. The government should consider the implications of both. One concerns the middle income group of Canadians. They claim they are being taxed far heavier than anyone else and, Mr. Speaker, that is true. They ask: Why should we be taxed so heavily to pay money to others who should be able to work but who are living on unemployment insurance benefits, or, in some cases, on welfare, not necessarily through their own fault. Any reasonable government should be making every possible effort to get the economy going again so as to provide the maximum number of jobs, thus lightening the load which presently falls on the middle income group.
Another group in our society is saying that the nation as a whole has provided certain benefits on a universal basis because the persons receiving them are Canadians and are entitled to various concessions for that reason. We went into all this a long time ago when the principle of

April 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
universality was first exercised. The Conservative party of that day was much opposed to it. Even after this House had passed the universal old age pension legislation, the Senate turned it down. The second House, the House of sober second thought, believed that a measure of this kind would destroy the country. The same was said with respect to the family allowance payments on a universal basis.
I would point out there has been no great outcry on the part of the Canadian public in favour of the change the government is now proposing. There have, however, been many complaints from those who have been receiving benefits on behalf of their children about the inadequacy of the allowance. Time and time again the government has been asked to increase the allowances, at least to the point at which they would be in line with the increase in the cost of living. One of the questions frequently asked of me during political campaigns is: Where do you stand on the issue of family allowances? It is asked by representatives of a group called Union d'Electeurs, a forerunner of the Creditiste party who often attend political meetings for the purpose. I have always been able to say, truthfully, that I am in favour of increasing the family allowance. I believe that at least the amount should be kept in line with its purchasing power when first introduced. Revision should be carried out periodically, in fact an escalator clause should be built into the scheme. If we pass the amendment in the name of the leader of my party we shall only have done what many people in this country have been demanding, that is, to bring the family allowance payments in line with the increase in the cost of living.
Much has been said about the problems which members of parliament have been encountering in connection with programs administered by the government. I was interested to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) tell the House yesterday that over the years he had received very few complaints about the administration of the family allowance program. I can recall only a few instances of my own knowledge, and these difficulties usually involved something other than the benefits themselves. They arose because a child who had reported he did not intend to return to school decided, later, that he would do so, or they arose from questions concerning the guardianship of the child-who should, in fact, receive the cheque, and so on. So, while there have been a few minor problems, they have not been the kind which develop as a result of a too bureaucratic administration. The minister is to be congratulated on the way in which this branch has been administered. It has been easy to get replies from the department, which indicates to me that the staff is sitting waiting for telephone calls, and are able to deal with inquiries immediately.
If we embark on this computerized nightmare which many hon. members have foreseen, the staff will need to treble in size. Before the minister even considers it, I should like him to read a little booklet which should be on the desks of all administrators in the civil service-it should certainly be on the desk of every cabinet minister. It is entitled "Up the Organization". He will find therein a section on computers in which the authors say that anyone changing over to computers should be prepared for a long period of manual checking of everything which is done by the computer. The other day there was an

interruption of the power supply to parliament. It caused very little interruption to this particular institution. But in Belleville, where a computer is installed, 12 hours were lost as a result of that interruption. This meant that instead of a man getting his cheque on Thursday he had to wait until Monday, and then only if he was lucky. This is the kind of problem which will be encountered in connection with family allowances if we put the program on a computer system.
I am sure the whole country was shocked to learn recently how poorly our tax system operates. We were shocked to hear the Minister of Finance say it was not possible to raise personal exemptions by $500 and still expect to run the country, because so much money was flowing in from the lower end of the tax structure. This is why we have written into our amendment a proposal that the necessary tax changes be made to ensure that maximum benefit is received by those to whom the allowances are directed. It is certainly not our desire that this money be given to the rich or to people who have no need of it. Nor is it our desire to give it to those who will find it detrimental to their total tax position. The government seems determined to do things in the most complicated way possible, though it would be easy to provide $15 to the entire group we wish to help, $20 to the second group, and sufficient money to the third group to take care of education costs. I once earned an income which would put me in the middle income category, yet my wife could always make good use of the family allowance. I had three boys and it was very seldom that she was able to buy a pair of shoes or some other item of clothing for the children without her having to take money from the family budget. These items were needed by the children and were well used. This sort of thing occurs right across the whole community. Yet this government wants to divide the people into the haves and have nots.
Not a day goes by that I do not receive a letter dealing with some problem in connection with the old age supplement. For example, someone has a burial fund which puts him over the limit. Although he does not have sufficient money to live on, since he has money put away to bury him, it means he cannot get the supplement. If the minister employs an additional 500 people to administer the program, how close is this going to come to carrying the total expenditure when you discount the amount received back through the income tax system, even as it is now? As you know, expenditure has a revolving effect, and it soon gets back into the taxation system. I should like to know whether the cost of the 500 people that are to be hired will exceed the savings that will be made.
Personally, I have always thought family allowances should be increased. I thought that it was a demogrant which served a purpose for the young people and in many cases gave them an equal opportunity. In my area two kinds of youngster go to high school. There are those from the depressed rural areas and there are those from the urban community. This small allowance made the difference whether they were able to dress so that they felt equal to other kids or were not. Although society has changed today, what has not changed is the requirement to make application for assistance if you are in need.
April 27, 1972

Whether you apply for the guaranteed income supplement, for veterans allowance or any other means tested program, there is a stigma attaching to it which a good many people are reluctant to accept. We have discarded universality in the case of the old age pensioner, and I hope we will not do so in regard to our young people today. The minister did not give the House one legitimate reason for not raising the payment from the $6 and $8 initially set to $15 and $18 instead of involving us in the complications of a computerized society and dividing people into categories.
The regulations that would be established to administer this complex and confusing program of youth maintenance will at the same time bring with them additional problems. I would have thought the minister would have given the House facts and figures instead of trying to make the argument that if you supported universality you were only concerned to give those in the middle income class, as he called it, those earning $7,000 and up, the rights they have had for a period of time when Canada's gross national product was considerably below what it is today. Certainly, today we are in a position to give our young people a decent and reasonable family allowance program at the levels indicated.
I hope those other members of the House in favour of universality, who have voted in the past for universality and have seen the merit of universality in Canada, will again vote to retain universality and will support not only this motion but the increase that is long overdue to the youth of this country.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 POWER EFFECTS OF JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), perhaps the House would allow me a moment to refer to the motion made earlier today by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) under the provisions of Standing Order 26.
The Chair indicated that consultations were to take place later on. These consultations have been proceeded with, and as a result it was suggested, and is now decided, that the debate should take place tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[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
Family Income Security Plan
and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lewis (p. 1448).
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite need not fear that I shall prolong this debate. However, as an elected member I do feel I have an obligation to speak, on behalf of the people I represent, on this very important bill. I realize, of course, that at this stage of the debate the ground has been pretty thoroughly raked over and any convincing that might have been done of hon. members opposite has perhaps already been accomplished.
I, as I suppose are many other Canadians, am a little tantalized by the prospect of selectivity when the explanation for it is that we are going to deny this extra money to those who really do not need it and in turn use the money to benefit those who do. This would be a program that might bear some public support. On this basis the minister, through this particular legislation, is attempting to seek the approval of many Canadians who are concerned about what I consider to be faulty administration and lack of equity in some of the programs we have at the moment. However, after thinking the matter over I have rejected the concept of selectivity, though I admit its initial appeal, on the ground that the purity of the concept of universality-and I feel the same goes for the old age pensions- should not be tarnished in one area just because there is a lack of equity in another, namely in the field of taxation.
I think the argument goes something like this: Why should H. R. MacMillan or some other magnate get the old age pension? He does not need it because he has millions of dollars. The answer by members of this party has always been that if these benefits were applied on the basis of a means test, an application for old age pension or family allowances would be undignified and would label people as being poor, or at least unsuccessful. It is also suggested that we will get the money back in income tax in any event, and we will not have to employ an army of snoopers and bureaucrats. I believe that is the main argument in respect of universality as opposed to selectivity. The fact is that the affluent in our country have far more means at their disposal to avoid their fair share of equitable taxation than the poor. Therefore the argument of universality tends to break down because it is quite easy for these people to avoid taxation. I am certain that many members of the other place are quite familiar with the business of setting up dummy corporations, foundations and other kinds of financial manipulations to avoid taxation.
If you give $80 a month to "Mr. X", and I will not name any affluent individual as I am not personally acquainted with any, he will not pay it back in taxes. I was initially moved by the fact that we, in fact, have a tax structure and perhaps this was the way to get at the situation. I am no longer convinced of that because I do not think it is worth destroying the purity of the concept of universality and its efficiency just because some other area of government policy, particularly on taxation, happens to have some weaknesses in terms of equity. The so-called tax reform was rammed through at Christmas time, and has

April 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
been criticized throughout the land by business, corporate and resource company interests. I do not think it nearly approaches the kind of equity proposed by the Carter Royal Commission on Taxation. It is interesting that within the same period of months, almost in the same breath, the government has moved towards selectivity in old age pensions and family allowances, and in terms of collecting money has moved toward universality. I have in mind the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The government has moved toward universality in the collection field and toward selectivity in the payment field. I consider this to be at least mildly anomalous.


An hon. Member:: What about taking them off the income tax rolls?


Mark Willson Rose: Don't give me that boloney about cutting people off the income tax rolls. We argued about that for months. You know as well as I do that an increase in exemptions helps the affluent far more than it helps people at the poverty level. Do not try to confuse the House with that kind of nonsense and sophistry.
I have a great personal regard for the minister. We borrow cigarettes from one another behind the curtains. I know he is concerned about people and I thought he had a similar set of values to my own, being concerned with humanity. I always felt he chose to be a member of the government party in order to satisfy his political ambitions rather than on philosophical grounds. I felt he did this in order to be in a position to do things for people. I know he is concerned about medical training and the constitutional problems of getting the provinces to have three or four semesters per year in their universities in order to train doctors rather than steal them from other countries, as Canada usually does. I even suggested the setting up of medical centres in areas where there are no provinces, such as in the Yukon Territory. Perhaps he is so concerned he will make a proposal to abolish fees for medical services and put doctors on salaries such as we pay school teachers and parliamentarians. I am sure he is bold enough. He was recently described in Maclean's magazine as being pudgy and rumpled. In addition to being such a pleasant man, he is that way because he is working so hard. I am sure when he considered this legislation he went over it for hours and hours without rest. I think what happened to him was that he forgot his basic principles.
I am not going to speak any longer on this matter but will say in conclusion, and this is usually when I get some applause-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Even when you have to ask for it.


Mark Willson Rose: This particular policy is another example of increasing the burden of the middle income earner. The government is not assisting the man who is in the middle income group and, in order to support a family in that kind of middle class life style television leads us to believe most people in Canada and the United States enjoy, both parents have to work. The minister knows that many people do not enjoy that life style. Many of them in this

social economic class find it necessary that both parents work. This is not a case of a wife having the right or wanting to work, but a case of her being required to work in order that her family may have a decent kind of living standard with provision for the education of her children.
Minimum wages are too low. Certainly, the organized worker is doing fine. Professional people in our society including doctors, lawyers, school teachers and professors are getting along all right. Many of the people in what we describe as the middle income group find it necessary that both parents work to achieve this standard of living. I oppose the legislation on the ground that it lacks universality and I support the amendment put forward by this party. I should like to conclude by saying that I am disappointed that we have been required in this House to deal with this kind of thing at all.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?	
Division


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we put the question immediately?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that	
a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-78, an act respecting the use of the expression "Parliament Hill", with amendments, to which the concurrence of this House	
is desired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Chair calls it six o'clock 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 Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Industry-Action to avoid closing of Skil Corporation plant, Richmond, B.C.; the hon. member for Vaneouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)- Industry-Action to avoid closing of Skil Corporation plant, Richmond, B.C.-Alternative employment for workers; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St.Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Industry-Pulp and paper- Closing of mills-Position of discussion with industry to overcome problem.
Is it the wish of the House that I now call it six o'clock?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At 5.46 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Criminal Code 1967 Amendment Act, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act, the Parole Act and the Visiting Forces Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is another step in the program of the government in continuing law reform. The origin of this program lies with the omnibus criminal law amendment bill which was introduced into this House on December 21, 1968, by the then minister of justice, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). When this bill had passed into law it was regarded as a landmark by the legal profession in Canada and as a step in the developing process of law reform. Since that enactment we have seen continuing progress under my predecessor as minister of justice with the legislation of the bill on hate propaganda, the Bail Reform Act, Canada

April 27, 1972

Evidence Act amendments, and along with the bill now before us we have on the order paper a bill in regard to the invasion of privacy.
In all of these moves to amend the law we have been conscious of the view that there is an important distinction between law and morality, that not everything which some of us may regard as wrong or undesirable need be included within the prohibitions of the law. The law does not have to interfere in everything that is regarded as wrong: it need not be overzealous in this regard.
The legal system is designed to assist in the promotion of order but, of course, the promotion of order itself is desirable because of the freedom which it allows us as citizens in society. Order is important for our freedom, for the free exercise of our rights and for the enj&yment of life itself. The legal system promotes that order.
The order which we are talking about is not brought about by law enforcement alone. Law enforcement is important and we must not lose sight of the importance of the quality of the law enforcement process. That is vital. But order in our legal system is brought about, as well, by the reasonableness of the law inducing a willing compliance on the part of members of our society who see how the legal system means to provide order and how that order means to provide for their freedom.
For far too long we went without any very quick responsiveness on the part of our legislators when the law was seen to lag behind and when it was seen by many who knew it best to fail in providing reasonable solutions. It failed to do that because we seemed never to be able to give adequate attention to the question of reform and improvement of our law in the face of what some thought were more pressing problems of economics or other practical matters.
It has been the performance of this government, and it is my pledge as Minister of Justice, to provide quick action where changes in the legal system are seen to be necessary. To this end we have been improving the ability of the government, and the abilities of others have been improving at the same time, to study what changes should take place so that we can react to studied suggestions for reform. The formation of the Law Reform Commission has been an important step in this regard.
We have seen the growing strength of research in our universities and in our faculties of law across the country as well as in the Department of Justice. From these we may expect increased research and examination of the legal system, with recommendation where it may fail to provide that reasonable order to which I have referred. The bill before us contributes to the process of reform in part by establishing new offences in an attempt to secure a higher level of order through their existence. At the same time, this bill responds in other ways to views about where the law need not be and where we have been out of date in our application of either offences or procedures.
In the area of new offences, the bill before us establishes the offence of hijacking by that name and the related offences of endangering the safety of aircraft in flight and the taking onto aircraft of offensive weapons without authorization. Some of these matters may have
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
been dealt with under existing law in other ways but here we deal with them explicitly.
In the establishment of these offences we have ratified the convention on the unlawful seizure of aircraft which was signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970, and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971. Among the new offences is included the offence of disturbing the peace in relation to apartment dwellings. Protection has been available to those who live in houses in the traditional style and this protection is now extended to those who live in apartments. In a slightly different legal category we propose to treat as prime facie evidence of an offence the obliteration of serial numbers of motor vehicles, for more effective enforcement of law in that area.
There is also, under this bill, the introduction of an offence for the turning in of false fire alarms. This has been the subject of bills placed before the House, most recently by the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud-'homme) who withdrew his bill in this session when we tabled for first reading Bill C-2 which is now before us.
The bill removes certain offences and punishments from the law. Corporal punishment is removed in its entirety from the Criminal Code of Canada. We have not used very much this particular form of punishment in Canada in recent years and there has been a growing feeling that it should not have a place in our system at all. This is not to say that corporal punishment in other places and in other situations does not have its role, but we feel that in the penal system, in the penitentiaries and prisons it is out of place and undesirable as a technique for deterrence or punishment.
We have removed, as well, the offence of attempted suicide, again on the philosophy that this is not a matter which requires a legal remedy, that it has its roots and its solutions in sciences outside of the law and that certainly deterrent under the legal system is unnecessary.
The offence of vagrancy, which to this day has been applied in many different ways in the legal system, is modified very significantly. Here we have an offence which has been applied differently to the rich and to the poor in our society and we propose to move against this difference in application. There will be some who will feel that it has served useful purposes, but the question is whether when it served those purposes it was being fair to those who were caught up in it.
I believe that if we must find better ways of strengthening enforcement, we must do so in ways which are more equitable, and we have applied that principle under this legislation. In citing this change I liken the move to action which has been taken with regard to bail reform to which I referred earlier. Here, too, we recognized certain risks which the change entails, risks in regard to law enforcement and perhaps additional difficulties for our law enforcement officers. Yet the changes are necessary in order to try in some way to attain greater fairness in our law as applied to the privileged and to those who are less privileged, to the rich and to the poor. This is an ideal which we must always keep before us. It is not one easy of

April 27, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
attainment; it is not one which we should expect to attain very soon, but it should be a goal toward which we move.
Several other changes in the bill before us deal with matters of distinction which exist in our present criminal law as between men and women and which are increasingly under attack today. Less important among these, no doubt, is the change in the vagrancy section relating to soliciting: more important is the change which will mean that in the area of criminal law the responsibility of serving on juries should apply equally to men and women. This accords with the following view expressed in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women:
We see no reason why women should not in all cases carry the same responsibility to perform this important duty as men.
In the area of criminal law which is open to us in our jurisdiction we will make the change in this bill which renders equal treatment a fact. Another important area included in the bill relates to sentencing. First of all, we propose to put into the hands of judges and magistrates the power to give an absolute or conditional discharge to persons who either plead guilty or are found guilty by them. This means, of course, that the offender will not be convicted. This means that in certain cases, particularly of young offenders who have transgressed in a technical way without in any malicious sense having attempted to injure society, the judge or magistrate is given the power to use this approach instead of rendering a suspended sentence which might otherwise have been the next least severe penalty available to him.
Power to grant a conditional discharge will allow judges and magistrates discretion in dealing with cases where a certain course of conduct may be desirable as a result of the actions of the young offender. This may be particularly relevant in cases of simple transgression such as the simplest of drug offences. The key to how this power is used will be the way in which the judges and magistrates apply it. We are very conscious of our responsibility to help them understand the scope of their power and to promote a uniform and enlightened approach throughout the country. The judicial council, which is another new body available, will have an important role to play in helping to ensure that uniformity and understanding of this power is available to magistrates and judges.
Further discretion is given to magistrates and judges by two clauses of the bill which allow for intermittent sentencing. In sentences of up to 90 days imprisonment, the judge may impose the sentence intermittently so that if he sees the possibility of allowing the convicted person to maintain a job while serving his sentence over a longer period, he can so arrange it. We have all too often seen cases of persons convicted where the fall-out effects of the sentence, loss of job and serious economic hardship for family of the offender, far exceed the simple sentence itself. This may be more often avoided if the judge has power to make sentences intermittent so that the offender may hold his job, support his family, and also serve his sentence. In the same way, in the case of suspensions for driving we propose to allow the judge or magistrate to suspend sentence intermittently, recognizing the fact that in certain cases a man's driver's licence is itself a source of livelihood. The punishment in such a case is of a different level, a different magnitude than in the ordinary

case where this principle does not apply. The judge may take this into consideration as he imposes the penalty.
We do, in this bill, increase the penalties which may be applied in cases of obstruction of police and obstruction of justice, recognizing thereby the serious nature of some of the offences which can occur under these heads. At the same time, we provide for an alternative for summary conviction proceedings because the range of action, the kind of activity which may be involved under this offence is so broad that in certain cases the lesser penalty or lower-keyed approach is appropriate.
We also propose to provide for an appeal from conviction for contempt of court. Heretofore these appeals lay in respect of sentence only. This has been seen as a gap in the law which should both be fair and seen to be fair in dealing with persons who offend or are held to offend in this fashion. We also propose to impose a clear duty under the criminal law upon jurors to hold secret the content of their deliberations. Such disclosure by jurors has in some jurisdictions-far less in ours-brought the system into serious question and we propose to move against it in this fashion.
These changes, Mr. Speaker, represent further moves in the direction of trying to respond to the needs of today in our law, and in how our law may be viewed by people who are affected by it. As a new Minister of Justice I earnestly seek hon. members' support in carrying these changes into law. Perhaps even more importantly, I earnestly seek their support in developing further changes for equally rapid implementation into law.
In our day we can far less afford the delays which we have suffered in the past. It is more dangerous and less defensible to leave our legal system, our whole belief in the working of freedom, vulnerable to those who have a case against a particular rule when we have to agree with their case and should move to change the rule. Mr. Speaker, I urge hon. members, in that spirit, to embrace these changes, to quickly, after effective study, put them into our legal system and to work together in improving our criminal law and our legal system as a whole.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this could be called the night of the parliamentary splashdown, after several weeks of starting and stopping in this place as we took to ephemeral flights of fancy as to whether we were to be interrupted by the calling of a general election. We now, apparently, feel there is to be none and it is back to business at the old stand.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in his first major legislation in that capacity has given us quite a bag of changes in the criminal law. There are 75 clauses in the measure we are now considering and I suppose it could be said that there are at least two dozen principles on which we have to make a decision. I think I can set the hon. gentlemen's mind at rest on most of them. They will be examined, perhaps vigorously, in committee as to the technical nature of the language or as to the reason for change, but at least on the face of it they appear to merit being passed by parliament.
April 27, 1972

There are one or two, however, that raise serious doubt in my mind and I would like to present those to the House in this brief address. But first it must be said that the changes recognize that in Canada we have had a period of inflation. If one looks at clauses 23, 28, 29, 40 and 41 one finds that the dividing line between serious offences involving theft, and non-serious ones, which used to be $50, has now been raised to $200. So under "just society" inflation you have to steal four times as much before you get yourself into serious difficulty with the law.
Clause 11 recognizes, as the minister has pointed out, that we do live in the high-rise apartment age and if you are going to stand outside on a Saturday night, or any other night for that matter, hollering and making the night ring with your noise, you will pay the penalty for it. In this case the law is simply brought up to date to recognize that the dwellinghouse is not what it used to be.
My favourite, from the standpoint of change that causes a second glance, is the one in which you cannot report your own death. This has a Mark Twain element and this is why it appeals to me. This is made an offence, and if you commit it you are in difficulty with the law. But if you kill yourself, or attempt to kill yourself but do not succeed, you are not in difficulty with the law. In other words, if I should yell out, "I am going to kill myself by slashing my throat" and I slash my throat but do not kill myself, I can end up before a magistrate for making a false report.


Otto Emil Lang: Maybe you should carry through for a change.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The moral of that is that if you do something in the just society, for heaven's sake be quiet about it. The other change that appeals to the whimsical in me is clause 14 which removes certain distinctions by which some people could live off the avails of prostitution and other people could not. The distinction that is being removed means that if a woman lives off the avails of male prostitution she can now be brought into court and dealt with as pitilessly as if a male had been brought into court for living off the avails of female prostitutes, a distinction that perhaps the recent Bird royal commission had not thought about. Nevertheless, an advantage that had been given to the female criminal has been removed. Several hon. members around me think this is a noble victory for man's liberation. I cannot say I disagree with this provision but there are some measures that I think that will receive our support.
I think the various provisions in this bill which would eliminate whipping as a punishment are correct. This was the conclusion reached by the committee which dealt with this matter almost two decades ago. When I spoke on the same matter in this House about ten years ago, after examining the case in some detail, I felt that it was not a useful measure and should not be part of the law. The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), who has been promoting the abolition of whipping since 1967, will no doubt take part in this debate to approve the steps taken by the government. I see no tangible benefits that can be
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
derived from the retention of such punishment, so I welcome its abolition.
Putting the summer joyrider in a boat on almost the same footing as the man who mixes alcohol and driving is a most welcome provision. The changes that would enable the court to deprive the driver of his off-work privileges but enable him to drive to earn his living make sense. I presume the intermittent serving of sentences means serving them on weekends, and this makes sense. It also makes sense to put women in the same position as men with regard to jury duty.
The court of appeal provisions regarding contempt, together with what I gather is an element of parole to be introduced into the courts which mete out punishment also make sense and should have been enacted earlier. Perhaps this will be a good step toward a different attitude to parole. I have often felt that the present system tends to downgrade the function of the judge who metes out punishment and must consider whether such punishment is for the purpose of protecting society. So there is an element of progress in this proposal. I support it and I hope it is a forerunner of further improved measures.
There are some issues on which I have doubts, however, Mr. Speaker. At first glance I thought the elimination of vagrancy as an offence was a great step forward. To arrest a person simply on the grounds of his or her being poor and without means of support was a degradation by society of that person and of itself. I thought it was something that could, and I am sure has been, used by the police to take a person out of circulation even without a crime being committed. The minister and I are on the same side on this one and it would take very compelling evidence that vagrancy is a weapon that can be properly used by the police to make me consider changing my mind. By "very compelling evidence" I do not mean just expediency, where vagrancy is useful in rounding up people in order to find out who committed a crime! I would not agree with that.
Doubts are also raised by clause 62 which deals with a stay of summary conviction. I wonder whether this could not be used as a substitute for the old vagrancy section in the Criminal Code and whether it would not enable police to detain people and eventually obtain a stay of proceedings against them. Such a stay now exists for indictable offences, but this measure would extend to summary convictions. I give the minister notice that I shall ask a considerable number of questions in order to determine how this power will be exercised.
I am told by critics outside the House that in British Columbia the present method of stay of indictable proceedings had led to a great number of prejudicial actions by the Crown, that it facilitates arbitrary arrests, jailing and fingerprinting or even suppression of public disclosure and nothing ever comes out in court. Eventually the accused is freed, but in the meantime he has undergone an unpleasant experience. If I thought clause 62 was a substitution for the elimination of vagrancy from the code, I would certainly want to make a different type of speech on third reading than I am making now. As it is, I indicate to the minister that he must be prepared to defend this clause with all his resources when it comes to committee.

April 27, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
Clause 49 deals with disclosure of jury proceedings. I welcome it in the sense that it prevents jurors from being asked by the press during or after trial to disclose what is going on in what should be a confidential forum, the jury-room. I wonder whether this provision does not go too far. Perhaps there should be a limit, so that within five or ten years of a trial a juror could be allowed to report a reminiscence of what took place. For historical purposes perhaps it would be useful not to impose any penalty, but the imposition of a time limit would remove any difficulties which might be created by press sensationalism.
I should like to devote the balance of my remarks to the clauses which make the bill a matter of the utmost urgency. These clauses deal with air piracy, hijacking and the commission of offences in flight. These are of an urgent nature and I hope the bill will go to committee, if not by tomorrow, when our time will be limited, at least as early next week as possible. I can assure the minister that we in the opposition will deal with it as expeditiously as we can. The Canadian Air Lines Pilots Association have conveyed to us, as I am sure they have to the minister, that they consider time to be of the essence with regard to the air piracy clause.
This association has written to me that if they thought there was going to be any delay in the bill becoming law, the portion dealing with airline difficulties could be severed from the rest of the bill and dealt with. However, I think the bill as a whole can be dealt with expeditiously but I want the public record to note that this is one of the reasons we want to get at it. The pilots wrote as follows to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) during the time of the hijacking of an Air Canada aircraft:
The recent spectacular hijacking of an Air Canada aircraft points out the need for immediate government action in this area.
That a man carrying a veritable arsenal can board an aircraft unnoticed indicates a total lack of security measures.
The Canadian Air Line Pilots Association urgently requests the Canadian government to implement effective security measures at all Canadian airports and terminals.
Further delays in this matter cannot be tolerated.
I think we are all aware of the event to which this association refers. A person walked on to an airplane with a sawed-off shotgun and some 40 pounds of dynamite, and rather spectacular bravery by the captain of the plane eventually brought the man back to earth. One is entitled to ask whether the measures that are proposed in the omnibus Criminal Code bill before us are sufficient. Some argument can be made, and in fact was made in the Financial Post of August 21, 1971, about the pre-flight screening technique that has been used in the United States more than it has been used in Canada. I quote from that editorial:
There have been an impressive 815 airport arrests as a result of a preflight screening technique that has been specially developed to pick out likely hijackers. While the eventual charges against those detained covered a wide range, 141 of those caught were actually carrying concealed deadly weapons.
The transport association figures that in 1969 only 17.5 per cent of hijack attempts were thwarted. By 1970, as the system of preflight screening became better developed, they claim a hijack failure rate of 30.8 per cent. So far in 1971, 43.8 per cent of all attempted hijackings of U.S. airliners have been averted.

I think the Canadian public has conditioned itself to expect the strongest measures possible to deal with hijacking, including the preventive measures I have mentioned. It is not a pleasant experience to be subjected to a search outside an airplane. I am sure it has happened to most members in this chamber when bomb threats have been telephoned to airports. None the less, when you get into the air and look at that rather fragile metal cocoon surrounding you from the elements and great heights, you are happy that all measures have been taken to ensure that no infernal instrument has been brought on board which could put you into the great hereafter and the great beyond before you want to go there.
The minister and, I am sure, other ministers have received correspondence from a gentleman in Calgary, Mr. Van Wielingen. He has written to a sufficient number of people so his writings can really be classed as public documentation. I quote:
During the first 10 months of this year I logged 72,021 air miles by commercial aircraft. Twenty-seven departures involved embarkations from Canadian international airports, 28 from U.S. airports, and six departures from airports outside of North America.
In Canada, I was involved in one superficial metal-detector inspection at Vancouver International Airport in January, 1971. Notwithstanding considerable waiting time spent at numerous Canadian international airports, I never witnessed any checks whatsoever, although I had ample opportunity to do so if any had been conducted at those occasions.
In the United States, I underwent nine inspections, several including thorough bodily inspections and detailed checking of carry-on luggage.
On transoceanic flights I underwent three inspections.
Notwithstanding his experience, this man argued with various ministers and members of parliament for a more detailed inspection system for Canadian airlines and Canadian airports.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) would normally be carrying the burden of this bill but he is on special assignment to the United Kingdom. However, I think it should be noted that he has presented a measure on air piracy as a private member's bill. Along with the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and other members of the official opposition, he has consistently argued for quick dealing by Parliament of the legislation to implement the several international conventions dealing with the twentieth century crimes, as they must be called, of air piracy and hijacking of aircraft.
It has been two years since the Air Line Pilots Association met with the former minister of justice to argue for the fastest action possible. I suppose parliament really is not in tune with the jet age, because two years is a long time to wait for remedies. Now that we have embarked upon this legislation, hopefully we will get on with the job and before too many weeks have passed our law enforcement people will have something with which to deter or cut out altogether one of the sophisticated crimes of this era.
I think I have indicated to the minister areas where he can expect opposition and areas where he can expect support. I have tried to do this in the spirit of trying to make the Criminal Code as good and as enlightened an instrument as possible. We will deal further with it in committee.
April 27, 1972


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to preface my remarks by congratulating the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) on his appointment. I was delighted to hear him say he would take quick action with regard to the criminal law when and where changes seem necessary. If he adopts that philosophy, I think he will have the support of many members of the opposition.
Canada needs a more contemporary criminal law, one which is credible, enforceable, flexible and compassionate. If we are to have a just society, we must begin with just laws. Nowhere is this more important than in the realm of criminal law. It is here that the most fundamental values of life, liberty, dignity and property are to be protected and sanctioned. It is here that the measure of our commitment to these values will be tested.
The minister mentioned some of the reforms we have passed in this House in the past five years. He properly gave credit to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the now Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). Probably most of that praise should go to the Minister of Finance. I will mention just a few of the reforms we have passed. There has been the abolition of capital punishment except in the case of the killing of prison guards and police officers. We have had the omnibus bill amending the Criminal Code which dealt with, especially, abortion and driving offences. We have had certain changes with regard to our drug laws and criminal records, and we have had the bail reform legislation. These changes were welcome and the changes in Bill C-2 are welcome. But they still fall far short of the ideal of a criminal law which is enforceable, flexible and compassionate. This is why the Minister of Justice mentioned the law reform commission. I think of the adversary system which the former minister of justice said was in many ways a myth. I think of the concept of mens rea. The minister mentioned sentencing procedures. I cannot help thinking of the important role judges must play in the future. I read in Karl Menninger's book "The Crime of Punishment" the following passage:
The plight of the judge is worthy of special attention. He is usually the most intelligent individual in the system but he gets too little opportunity to use this intelligence. He must sit passively during the delivery of all sorts of mumbo-jumbo, striving to get some idea of the situation from poorly organized, tendentious stories. His observations are interrupted repeatedly by ritualistic trivialities, and he comes at last to the chore of selecting archaic medieval remedies for the treatment of an acute social and personal problem.
I should also like to quote the words Mr. G. K. Chesterton attributed to a judge passing sentence:
I sentence you, prisoner at the bar, to three years' penal servitude in the firm and God-given conviction that what you really require is three weeks at the seaside.
This underlines the importance of studying in depth sentencing procedures which prevail. A widely shared attitude toward the criminal law today is what one might call a law and order approach; the attitude is one which is punitive, coercive and retributive. We must develop a system based on a reformative approach-reformative, educative and rehabilitative.
When I read a summary in the Toronto Star of the speech the minister gave before the graduating class at
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
Osgoode Hall I was left with the uneasy feeling that he was taking the law and order approach. He spoke legalis-tically, almost impersonally. I hope this is not what he intended because in my view it is necessary, as I say, that he take an approach which is reformative and rehabilitative. When I see provision made for increases in penalties with respect to certain offences, I again become apprehensive that the law and order approach is the one being taken. I hope I am wrong.
I was encouraged by the remarks the minister made this evening outlining his philosophy and I am sure he was sincere when he told us he would take quick action to make changes where changes appear to be necessary. At this point I should like to add that the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) appears to be adopting a reformative approach. There has been no criticism from members of my party of his action in arranging special leave for prisoners or his proposal to place certain inmates of corrective institutions in the homes of senior citizens as part of a program for their rehabilitation. I hope this attitude continues to prevail and I hope the Minister of Justice adopts a similar attitude.
The Minister of Justice comes to this House with many academic distinctions. He is now being tested on the basis of his practical experience as it relates to the law. I am sure he will be able to apply his academic experience to practical concerns and evolve progressive measures as a result of total exposure to all these issues. The first criticism I wish to direct to the Minister of Justice concerns the title of the measure we are considering-the title Criminal Code. The Solicitor General attempted to bring forth a bill called the young offenders act in substitution for the Juveniles Delinquents Act. Many of us thought it should not be called the young offenders act but the children and young persons act. Maybe we have reached a stage at which we could put aside the words Criminal Code and replace them with more appropriate wording. Speaking off the top of my head, I would suggest "the adult persons act". After all, many of the offences mentioned in the code are not criminal in the real sense of that word. I have in mind offences such as vagrancy, attempted suicide, prostitution and the possession of drugs such as Arthur Maloney, the noted criminal lawyer, described as crimes without victims. Surely they do not belong in the Criminal Code. I think it is time we realized that the origin of many of these offences is social; that many of these problems are social rather than criminal in nature.
Bill C-2 is omnibus in its nature and we in the New Democratic Party give general approval to the measures proposed. At the same time, we hope we can put forward constructive criticism. The first suggestion I would make has to do with consultation on a national scale-consultation with attorneys general of the various provinces, police officers, parole and probation officials, law professors, criminologists and last but not least inmates of correctional institutions. I believe that before we implement Bill C-2 these people should be called before a committee to give the minister and his officials the benefit of the experience they have acquired over the years and, on this basis, to voice their criticisms of the provisions before us.
Only recently, Alex Edmondson, a former director of the John Howard Society now associate professor at

April 27, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
Ottawa University, speaking on a program called "Viewpoint" said that recommendations which were set forth by inmates of Kingston penitentiary in the early thirties have now, in 1972, been fully implemented. Surely it is time we were given the benefit of a broad range of views on this important bill so that we may use them as a basis for improving the code. There has been no consultation on a national scale in connection with the provisions of Bill C-2 and I hope the minister will see to it that the experience and expertise I have mentioned is made available to the committee.
Bill C-2 makes provision for between 15 and 20 changes. Some of them are substantive in their effect upon the law, others are procedural and consequential in nature. I intend to deal with some of these matters and my hon. friends will deal with other aspects. The first subject I should like to deal with concerns aircraft piracy which is dealt with in clauses 3 and 6 having to do with offences committed on aircraft, hijacking and offences endangering the safety of aircraft in flight, rendering aircraft incapable of flight and the offence of taking onto an aircraft weapons and explosive substances. These changes have arisen out of the Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970, and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation signed at Montreal in 1971.
The law affecting piracy of aircraft and related offences is international in nature and scope. Its application and enforcement is dependent upon the acceptance of international treaties and conventions. Most countries have realized that the safety of innocent passengers in flight far transcends political motives and acts, and that hijacking cannot be excused as a political action. I should note that the Canadian delegation played a very active role at the conference in promoting a generally acceptable treaty and was particularly instrumental in securing the adoption of strong prosecution provisions. It therefore makes us realize that the job now is to make the treaties international in scope. At the first convention only 55 countries attended, and in view of the many countries there are in the world the support of a great many more is needed.
It has been said that there is also the necessity for strengthening security at airports. I think that all of us would want to congratulate captain Vern Ehman and purser John Arpin for the courageous and constructive action they took regarding the attempted hijacking at Calgary. I think we owe them and other pilots and crew personnel the duty to make sure that this law becomes operative and to make the strengthening of security at airports far stronger than it is at present. Therefore, we of the New Democratic Party support the measures dealing with piracy of aircraft.
The second main area I should like to deal with is corporal punishment. The amendments indicate the number of crimes that carried with them corporal punishment as part of the sentence. May I remind the House that it was in March, 1969, that the Ouimet report came forth, which studied the criminal law in depth. Many recommendations were made in the report and I should like to refer to page 207 where the following appears:

The committee deems it necessary to record and deplore the fact that corporal punishment may lawfully be included as part of a sentence imposed by a Canadian court. Despite the fact that sentences of whipping are rarely imposed by present-day courts, the emphasis on liability to be whipped in the Criminal Code presents an astonishing anachronism.
Then further on:
The committee considers that the imposition of such punishment is brutal and degrading both to the recipient and the person imposing it.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the committee recommended the abolition of corporal punishment, and I must congratulate the minister for incorporating this recommendation into the provisions of Bill C-2. It is not only corporal punishment as part of a sentence with which we must concern ourselves, but corporal punishment in regard to disciplinary action in penitentiaries. At page 323 of the Ouimet report there is reprinted some evidence given before the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs on November 25, 1968, by the commissioner of penitentiaries. I directed a question to him as follows:
Mr. Commissioner, I would like to direct other questions to you with regard to corporal punishment-


Mr. MacLeod:: -As far as institutional corporal punishment is concerned, it cannot now be imposed in an institution without the specific approval of the commissioner of penitentiaries. Of course, we have very elaborate regulations governing the manner in which it is to be imposed. No more than ten officers can be present. The prison psychiatrist or medical doctor must be there; the warden or deputy warden must be there. The punishment can be stopped at any time by the doctor or the psychiatrist or the warden or deputy warden. Of course, the only problem with making rules about corporal punishment is that the more humane you try to make them, the less humane the operation looks in the end result. My own feeling is that the tendency is for it to go into disuse as a possible prison punishment, and, of course, when that happens then presumably the regulations in the act will reflect the practice.
Then I asked:
In other words, you would not have any objection if I brought forth an amendment to repeal that particular section?
Mr. MacLeod replied:
I would not, no. As a judicial punishment, it is remarkable that it is reserved under the Criminal Code for offences that involve the use of violence or the threat of violence by the offender. Our people seem to think that it may have a useful short-term benefit if it is imposed on an offender but ultimately, society reaps more violence from him than it inflicted upon him.
They were the comments made by the former commissioner of penitentiaries. This week the Solicitor General appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and when I asked him about the use of corporal punishment in institutions he said that he was opposed to it. When I put the same question to the present commissioner of penitentiaries, he was certainly ambivalent with regard to it. I ask the Minister of Justice to join with the Solicitor General in his view of the use of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in penitentiaries and to make the appropriate amendment to the requisite acts to do away with it. When a committee says it is degrading, inhumane and that society reaps more violence by its infliction, it is time we took action.
The amendments abolishing vagrancy regarding prostitutes are also welcome and in keeping with the recommendations made in the report on the status of women. I
April 27, 1972

am sure that the Minister of Justice and others recall the Wolfenden report in England where this problem was studied in depth and many recommendations were made. At page 370 of the report on the status of women the following appears:
In the words of the Wolfenden report, prostitution .. has persisted in many civilizations through many centuries and the failure of attempts to stamp it out by repressive legislation shows that it cannot be eradicated through the agency of criminal law." The Prevost commission indicated that the public did not favour the punishment of prostitutes even though it considered prostitution morally wrong. Briefs presented to the commission pointed out that prostitution is fundamentally a social, not a criminal, problem.
Therefore, it was recommended that the appropriate sections of the code dealing with prostitution under the vagrancy provisions be repealed. I note that in the bill a new offence is made of soliciting prostitution. I ask the minister to consider the recommendation made in the report on the status of women, that this offence should more properly be dealt with by bringing a charge under the disturbing the peace section.
I have found that it has been unfair in many cases where a prostitute is charged under the act because very often inmates of the bawdy house are not charged. This creates an unfair situation between the persons participating, more especially the male participants. It would be far better to lay a charge of disturbing the peace than soliciting for prostitution. I thought the minister was quite right in saying that the vagrancy provisions in the code create a difference between treatment of the rich and the poor.
The next area I should like to deal with is that of attempted suicide. It is rather remarkable that we in Canada are now getting to the position where we want to abolish the offence of attempted suicide, particularly when we think of England which abolished it in 1961. They said this was done after many years of resistance. Of course, relatively few persons are affected directly by this provision; the number of persons convicted for this offence last year, before repeal, was only 460. Twenty-one of them were sentenced to prison for periods of between three and six months.
The study also indicates that the arguments which were used for and against repeal are still instructive. Very few of those who defended the old law which punished suicide attempts did so on the ground that suicide was harmful to others or to society in general. Nor was the argument often heard that the law prevented suicide through fear of punishment. The main argument was that even if the law was ineffective through its sanction, the retention of attempted suicide as a crime sustained and reinforced the moral and religious condemnation of it; consequently, repeal of the law would weaken this condemnation and cause moral opinion to move in a permissive direction. That was said in 1961 in England. Now we are taking the same human approach with regard to the problem of attempted suicide and we are placing it more in the field of a medical and social problem rather than a criminal one.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
The next area with which I should like to deal involves driving while disqualified and the prohibition part of Bill C-2. As you know from your experience as a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, the present law imposes serious hardship on an accused and his family if the accused requires his motor vehicle to earn a living. I am thinking of truck drivers, taxi drivers and travelling salesmen. The new law modifies this hardship, and we welcome it.
It is rather striking that the Scandinavian approach with regard to drunken driving has made this offence almost non-existent in those countries because of the sureness, swiftness and severity of the prohibition that is so well known by the people. When I think of the number of people who are killed and maimed, I believe we probably have to reconsider some of the driving charges where drink is involved. I welcome this change in the case where disqualification or prohibition would directly affect the earning power of the person involved.
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), pointed out the changes in respect of theft, namely, the change from $50 to $200. This certainly indicates the inflation factor but at the same time it points out the necessity for change. The next area I should like to deal with is that covering the broadening jurisdiction of the courts in respect of offences. It is now proposed that the offences of bribery, rape, attempted rape, manslaughter and causing death by negligence will be tried not only by the supreme court but also by the county court. This raises the question of the absence of murder and treason and I should like to put the minister on notice to give his reasons for making that change and not including the offences of murder and treason in giving both the supreme court and county court jurisdiction.
The question of jurisdiction raises the problem of whether we should use the English approach, where they have specialized courts dealing with criminal law, divorce, chancery matters and so forth, or whether we should merge the present supreme court and county courts, having them act as a unit covering all offences. I think I would be fair in saying that at the moment the only difference between the county court and the supreme court is really a question of quantum. We should give some attention to the merging of the county and supreme courts.
The Minister of Justice waxed eloquent with regard to the changes concerning conditional and absolute discharge, and I thought he was right in doing so, and taking a great step forward from the approach of suspended sentence to that of conditional or absolute discharge. This is a giant step forward. I was happy to see that not only if a person pleads guilty, but when a person is found guilty and a conviction is registered we will give the judge discretion to grant an absolute or a conditional discharge if it is in the best interest of the accused and is nof contrary to the public interest. The result will be that in time the offence will be deemed not to have been committed.
One may ask why we have advanced from the suspended sentence approach to the conditional or absolute discharge approach. We have experienced so many convictions, more especially convictions affecting the children of middle and upper income groups, that the government was bound to act in this matter. It had the same problem

April 27, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 when we brought forward the Criminal Records Act, because many sons and daughters of rich people found that the restrictions of a conviction, in regard to employment, travel and bonding, were too severe. Therefore we brought in amendments to the Criminal Records Act.
I would assume this to be one of the underlying reasons we are bringing forward this amendment. I do not justify it on those grounds but on the ground that it will affect all persons who are charged. I thought the minister was quite right in saying it grants a tremendous discretion to judges. It imposes upon him as Minister of Justice the job of selecting as judges men who are enlightened and have in mind the reformative and rehabilitative rather than the punitive and coercive aspect. If we get that type of person acting as a judge, applying attitudes of reformation and rehabilitation, I hope he will not be influenced by any difference in income or status of young persons who appear before him. If he is not, then we will have taken a giant step forward in respect of this problem.
Mr. Speaker, the minister was quite right in saying that another advance has been made in the inclusion of the provision regarding the serving of intermittent sentences. How many times has a man lost his job, having received a short sentence of jail or reformatory. The loss of his job has affected the security and the happiness of his family. The provision for the intermittent serving of sentences where the sentence does not exceed 90 days is a welcome step forward and I hope that judges will use it frequently in sentencing. It will enable a person to hold his job and to retain contact with his family. It is a step in the right direction.
I said at the beginning of my speech that Canada needs a criminal law which is credible, forcible, flexible and compassionate. I said that we have not gone the full distance but we are moving in that direction. The Minister of Justice said that he seeks the support of the members of this House in making changes to the criminal law. He can be told that he has our support because this matter far transcends political parties and necessitates the cooperation, participation and partnership of all of us to ensure that we develop a system of penology which is consistent with attitudes of reform and rehabilitation and is credible, forcible, flexible and compassionate.
We in this party support the provisions of this bill and I hope we can bring forward constructive criticism when the bill is referred to the standing committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to make a few comments on this bill. First I want to congratulate the minister on his new appointment. I congratulate him also on the fact that he has been able to introduce as his first substantial measure this very excellent bill amending the Criminal Code. The high quality of the speeches of my friends the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) has been an indication that the spirit of the House with regard to these matters is not, and should not be partisan.
There is a reasonable approach, not only by members of the House who are members of the bar and have practised

the law but by members who have an interest in this matter. It is an indication of their earnest sincerity in their attempt to improve the quality of our laws. The minister had to carry a heavy burden in his previous portfolio. If I were speaking on matters having to do with his previous responsibility, I could not congratulate him. But this is a reward for a minister who has laboured hard and zealously. He still has the burden of the blind goddess in one hand and the sack of wheat in the other. I think it is bound to cramp his style to some extent.
I will not go into the details of the bill, with the exception of one issue on which I will make a few general comments. I notice there is an amendment in the bill with regard to the breathalyzer test. When the minister responds, I wonder whether he would give an indication with regard to the situation which exists so far as concerns various judicial decisions which have been made. How does the breathalyzer provision stand now, to what extent is it valid, what is the status of some of the appeals, and when will there be an authoritative decision from the Supreme Court of Canada?
I was following this matter with interest but work has prevented my continuing to do so. Perhaps the minister will be able to indicate that there have been settlements. My understanding is that there have been some successful challenges to the legislation. I think there was one decision which validated it and a more recent decision which invalidated it because of certain facts. I know that the former minister of justice did have some problems there and perhaps the minister will be able to bring us up to date.
I do not wish to deal with particular issues. My hon. and learned friend, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, has indicated our approach. We will examine the proposed amendments with care and be prepared to make suggestions as to changes from time to time. However, I want to make one or two general observations and suggestions to the minister. I know that we have a law reform commission. I know there are some professionally trained people in his office. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be without benefit if the standing committee of the House, in addition to the excellent work it does-and I only regret that I am not able to be a member of it as I used to be-had a general observing jurisdiction to deal not only with legislation which comes before it, not only with private members' bills which may be referred to it, but to look at the question of criminal law reform.
This committee would work in consultation with the officials of the minister's department, with members of the judiciary, with the respective attorneys general and their officers and with members of the bar, so that there may well be an opportunity for legislation, not to be initiated-I know the responsibility for initiation of legislation is that of the government-but to be studied by members of the House who are probably in more continuous and closer contact with members of the public. I refer particularly to those members of the committee who when they are at home or travelling in other parts of Canada are bound to pay close attention to observations and discussions about the state of the criminal law and the feelings of people, and are bound to be influenced by the impact of the criminal law upon the people of Canada.
April 27, 1972

They might well act through the committee or subcommittee in making suggestions to the minister and to the House about changes in the law.
I realize that the minister's department has a very heavy responsibility. There are problems with regard to drafting legislation, and the complexities of the legislative system under which we now live place a heavy onus on the government. It is not easy any more to find people of the professional status which is desirable. Without in any sense qualifying the value to the country and to the government of the officials in the minister's department, there is a substantial role to be played by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in being engaged in a continuous examination of the effects of the necessary changes in, and the proposals in respect of, the criminal law and its administration in Canada. It would not constitute an alternative but a supplement to the functions which are exercised by the other groups which I have mentioned.
I also want to make a comment on the statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the time when the minister's predecessor called a national conference on law, in January. In reading that I was particularly struck by what the Prime Minister said about the adversary system. I believe in the adversary system. I say this because it struck me that the Prime Minister at that time was rather inclined to take the position that there is some merit, if not immediately in dispensing with that system then at least in moderating it.
Through the ages, both in the House and in the courts of this country, in fact in the courts of all civilized countries, it has been through the medium of the adversary system that we have come closer to an approximation of the truth. There is nothing more calculated to bring out the true facts than a witness being called to give testimony in public, standing up before a man accused of a criminal offence and in front of the public being cross-examined under the keen eye and scrutiny of an experienced judge, knowing he is going to be cross-examined by counsel for the other side.
There is nothing more calculated to permit a court to arrive at the truth which is so essential to try to bring about, not judicial perfection-we do not get that-but the closest thing to it which is possible under our system. I will be fair and admit that the Prime Minister's statements were somewhat ambiguous, but I felt at the time that it was essential that someone should take the position that it is not proper, that it will not be adequate and will do a great deal of harm for us to suggest that the adversary system should be abolished either in this House or in the courts of the land. There may be some changes made, yes-but abolition, no. We change, of course. When I was younger in the practice of law I liked nothing better than a good fight. I have now moderated. I approach my duties at the bar as I do in this House, with the moderation and ease which I think are essential.
If I may, I will illustrate that by a story. Many years ago when I was a great deal younger than I am now, the first case I ever had in the appellate division in Alberta involved a young woman who had come up into the Peace
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
River country, taken up with a homesteader and was living with him. She persuaded him, by measures which I leave to the knowledge of hon. members who are knowing in the ways of human nature, to give her a half section of land. Ultimately their liaison terminated; she left, and he came to me to bring an action to get the land back. I was successful in the court in the first instance and he got the land back, but she appealed. As this was my first appeal, I had memorized my peroration to the court of appeal: "My Lords, it is a terrible thing that this young and attractive woman should be able to seduce this poor old man of 60 and take his land away from him."
Just as I said this, I knew I had said the wrong thing because the chief justice was 88 and in fact all the judges were over 75. There was a pause in the court. These five white heads drew together and then the chief justice said to me, "Mr. Baldwin, how old are you?" I admitted to the tender age of 26. He then said, "It isn't relevant to this case, but it is our opinion that at 61 you are not senile and it is just as pleasant to be seduced at 61 as it is at 26." Having now come close to 60, Mr. Speaker, I know what he meant. We do change; our approach is a little different. I may not be as eager for the adversary system as I once was, but I say that there is a limit to which the system can be changed.
I want to close on this note, Mr. Speaker. I have spent all my professional life defending people in the criminal courts. Now I have changed and I am defending taxpayers from the government. But it is very much the same thing. The fact is that I believe in reform; I believe in moderation; I believe in the sanctity of the individual first. However, I want to issue a warning that we are now moving in our society on this continent and in many other parts of the civilized world into a situation where because of conditions that exist in large metropolitan areas there is a strong movement, in some cases represented by undesirable elements-a genuine movement, and it is not an organized movement-toward a greater degree and need for stability in our society, stability in our life, for the retention of the family as the pivot of our society.
That feeling will have a very considerable impact on the extent to which law reform is going to be brought about. I do not mean by that to suggest to the minister that he must from time to time take this into account. He need not ignore it. I point out that it is there and I say it is very important, because the extent to which we can move forward and make changes must be modified by the mores of our society. This is a fact of life that cannot be ignored. It is for this reason I have urged that the involvement of the standing committee, being composed of members of this House who have to seek election from time to time, would provide a very stabilizing and moderating influence on the type of law reform which we need from time to time in the Criminal Code.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes left tonight I would like to make some comments on this bill. The bill contains many amendments that private members have requested for several years through private members' bills. Although we do not get many of our private members' bills passed, this government bill incorporates several of them and in a way constitutes a victory for all private members who

April 27, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 persisted for years and years in putting forward their ideas.
This is a very humane bill, one which responds to many requests for justice by ordinary people. One matter in the bill that I raised in the House several times is that of aircraft hijacking. It is a question of great concern not only to the travelling public but to the airplane crews who have to fly day after day. Although the provisions of the bill are tough and comprehensive, their purpose is really to deter hijacking. As a matter of fact it is my opinion that the purpose of the criminal law is to deter, and if it cannot deter then it should be directed toward rehabilitation.
It is my hope that the provisions of this bill on hijacking will deter and reduce that problem. We know it is a complex problem. Its solution requires the co-operation of other countries. Canada, along with many other countries, has been trying to negotiate treaties which will help in the enforcement of these kinds of provisions. I am very pleased that the government has come forward with these anti-hijacking provisions.
There are other items in the bill which respond to the wishes of hon. members. There is the abolition of corporal punishment, whipping, and there is the clause concerning false fire alarms. Last year the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) introduced a private member's bill on this subject because a man in Montreal was killed as a result of a false fire alarm. This could be just as dangerous as many other crimes and could involve people in situations where their lives could be endangered, so we are also pleased to see this item. The item which provides for jury duty for women is one which was raised in parliament in recent years by the hon. senator from Fredericton. In the other place she introduced a motion to bring about this reform and she is very pleased to see it in the bill.
One of the outstanding reforms in the bill is the clause which deals with conditional or absolute discharge. A great many people believe that the deterrent effect of criminal justice can be achieved just as effectively by charging a person with an offence, bringing him before the courts and dismissing the charge without any criminal record once the accused has appeared before the judge. This will achieve a great deal because it is sometimes felt that penal institutions only serve to accentuate the criminal behaviour of inmates. I think we can achieve our purpose of criminal justice more effectively with provisions such as this, and I congratulate the minister.
Another reform awaited by many accused in this country is the one which permits the judge to make an order for the prohibition of driving at specified times and places. I know of two cases pending where the accused have requested postponement of their trials until passage of this bill. The individuals concerned need their licences in order to work. They are truck drivers and if they lose their licences they will lose their jobs. This will cause a lot of unnecessary hardship. The provision which allows a judge to take away a licence for specified periods of time, say weekends or evenings, is much better.

I hope the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) will deal with another matter which concerns me. That is the provision of legal counsel to people accused of criminal offences. I hope the government will introduce a plan to assist accused persons with legal aid. Ontario has a complete system of legal aid and Quebec has proposed a system which I do not believe is as good as that of Ontario. But a legal aid system for criminal justice right across the country should be introduced soon.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister and the government for bringing forward this bill which incorporates so many of the ideas put forward by private members.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make reference only to two matters in the bill at this stage. I have been critical of the slow pace of change made by the government in implementing the recommendations contained in the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, but two of those recommendations are embodied in this new legislation. Reference has been made to both this evening but I want to take a moment to speak about them.
The vagrancy section has been repealed. This was recommended in the section of the commission's report entitled "Women under the Criminal Code". The investigations of the commission showed real sex discrimination in the vagrancy section. When pressed by the public, the authorities have tried to clear the streets of prostitutes. However, many of the so-called prostitutes were not arrested for prostitution at all, but for vagrancy. Men were never picked up for vagrancy and consequently there was discrimination in the code. The commission recommended that section 164(l)(c) of the Criminal Code be repealed. This has been done, and I think the minister has gone even further by making the section relating to soliciting equally binding on men and women. This is a very welcome change in the code.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) has referred to the matter of women on jury service. It was a recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women that women should be given exactly the same conditions of jury service.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Justice what the business of the House will be until one o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the intention to continue with this item, followed by Bill C-6.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
April 27, 1972

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in the debate tonight I could probably just as well read the speech I made on June 22, 1970, because it dealt with precisely the same matter. I think it has identical implications and concerns the closing of a Canadian subsidiary of an American corporation that was once an independent Canadian company.
I am dealing with the problem faced by people who are employees of the Skil Corporation which purchased the Canadian Chainsaw Company located in Richmond, British Columbia, in the constituency of my good friend the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode). I do not quite understand why I am called upon from time to time to take up his case, Mr. Speaker: this is the second time in two years, and we have yet to hear publicly from the member who represents that constituency. If he is not particularly interested in this problem I should like to indicate that other members from British Columbia are and think it is worth while.
I asked a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) on March 21 relating to the closing of this plant with the subsequent loss of from 125 to 150 jobs for Canadians. The ostensible reason for the plant closure was that there existed in the United States excess plant capacity to produce these chainsaws under Canadian patent. They will be produced in Chicago and imported into Canada.
I think this case is particularly significant. It indicates the general trend and problem faced by Canadian manu-factuers, especially those industries that have been purchased by corporations beyond our national borders. Most of us can appreciate the problems faced by such a corporation, with its head office and main decision-making centre beyond our borders when there are domestic problems of unemployment similar to those of our own. I suppose it is only natural that if a large plant happens to exist in the United States with unused capacity, and there is a Canadian operation here, that it be rationalized into the American industrial complex. The priorities of that foreign corporation would demand that the plant outside its borders be closed down and the jobs and plant capacity used for the benefit of the nationals of that country. In this case, it happens to be the United States.
Many people are concerned about the increasing amount of dominance of the foreign corporation in the manufacturing sector of our economy. This is why from Walter Gordon to Watkins to the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) the subject has become one of increasing interest and study. The problem is not linked to British Columbia but I think it provides an interesting example. It is not because this particular plant, operating on a Canadian patent and Canadian development, is not making money. I have documents here and if pressed I will quote from them to indicate that the company is making a profit in Canada. However, because the profit is only marginal, the plant intends to close and therefore 125 to 150 jobs are being denied to Canadians.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
While the government has allowed this to happen, it has moved with its customary band-aid approach. I am not criticising this. I think it is only right. It is the old story of locking the barn door after the horse is out. Manpower is spending considerable public funds to retrain and relocate those people who were displaced by this particular move. This is typical of what can happen when a government turns a blind eye to the problems of priorities concerning the employment of its nationals.
Of particular significance is the fact that this particular dimunition of employment occurs in the manufacturing area of our economy. It is well known to people who have studied these matters that manufacturing or secondary industries tend to be much more labour-intensive, that is, produce more jobs, create more employment and produce more money for our economy than do the resource industries upon which Canada has been dependent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in the middle of 1970 the company to which the hon. member has referred first indicated that they were considering closing the plant in question because of marketing problems which the company was then encountering. At that time the officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce had discussions with management of the company expressing concern about the curtailment of the operation and pressed the company to consider alternative solutions to their problem which would not require cut-backs in that plant.
I may say in answer to the hon. member who raised this question that members of parliament from this area and supporters of the government find it possible to make direct representations to the minister and that they do so very effectively. Since the date mentioned, the market for chainsaws has become increasingly competitive, and in order to realize the necessary economies of scale the company decided in July to cease chainsaw production in Richmond. Some components will continue to be manufactured in Toronto and this should result in a small increase in employment there.
Officials of the department have again held discussions with the company, but the company has advised that its decision to close the plant is irrevocable because of economic conditions. In some cases employees have been offered alternative employment in other plants of the company, and the company is working closely with officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration to assist employees to obtain work in other locations. I am glad the hon. member recognizes the merit of these efforts to help the employees involved. I am not surprised to learn that he does not appreciate the nature of the economic difficulties which can occur when profits are small or inadequate. He would, of course, be more sympathetic to the procedure adopted on occasions in my own province of Saskatchewan following the serious failure of plants operated there by the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You had better stick to justice.

April 27, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



INDUSTRY-ACTION TO AVOID CLOSING OF SKIL CORPORATION PLANT, RICHMOND, B.C.-ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT FOR WORKERS

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), I raised this matter two years ago and, also like him, I raised it a very short time ago. I have no doubt that other members are interested in this plant. But when the minister says the Liberal members have been very effective in making representations to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), I can only say that I am afraid the effectiveness of their representations is not apparent from the results. They have neither been able to prevent the plant from closing nor to bring out the facts of the matter.
According to the confidential memorandum we have been sent, the interoffice memo of 1969, the 1610 powersaw produced in Vancouver is actually a money maker and was expected to gross close to $5 million profit in a five-year period. It was demonstrated that in a 15-month period from December, 1970, to March, 1972, the plant produced and sent out 45,000 saws, reaching its third year projected potential in only 15 months. In these circumstances the very least you could expect from the government would be confirmation or otherwise of the truth of these facts and figures so that we could find out why this firm is finding it necessary to switch its operation from Vancouver to Chicago. From the facts and figures we have seen, it is expecting a lot of these employees to ask them to believe it is really necessary for the Vancouver plant to close down. [DOT]
I also think that the government is settling for very much less than it should if it is simply working with Manpower to try to find jobs for the employees when the plant closes down instead of making some effort between time. If the efforts of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce two years ago in persuading the plant that it did not need to close down were successful, I cannot for the life of me understand why similar efforts are not being made at the present time. I am not saying that such is not the case; what I am saying is that we do not know the facts. Those of us who have workers in our constituencies among the 150 who will be thrown out of work on July 1 have the right to know what are the facts in this connection. For that reason I am not happy to see this veil of secrecy descend. We are given no facts. The firm has told us its story and we have to let it go at that. We believe that the government has an obligation to investigate the truth of the matter and to reveal the facts and figures so that we know the situation.
The steelworkers have done all they can, but they have been unable to get the true picture from the company. They have also ascertained that the company has not applied for government assistance of any kind. Perhaps they would not get it even if they did, but the point is they have not tried. I think that is an interesting point.
The steelworkers asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself to use his good offices to prevail upon the Canada Development Corporation to put pressure on the company to stay, but the Prime Minister's office has been

content to refer the steelworkers to the CDC, and as far as I have been able to learn the CDC did not reply. Nor, apparently, has the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to whom they also wrote. For these reasons these workers are in a very unsatisfactory situation, being asked to acquiesce in the loss of their jobs at the end of July.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are all mindful of the difficulties that the closure of a plant causes its individual workers. As a result, my department, like the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, goes to great pains to attempt to encourage the continuation of operations, as it goes to great pains to bring new plant into existence as well as new manufacturing. This does not mean that in every case these efforts are successful; there are times when the result is that the plant closes anyway. At that point in time we have other programs that attempt to ease the burden the best way we can, in terms of finding other employment and offering assistance in the relocation of employees involved.
Naturally, in the course of the conversations between the department and the plant concerned a certain amount of confidential material is discussed and examined. From the point of view of future discussions with other companies it would not be wise to treat that material in any way other than in the confidential way it is given. This approach is taken by the department and it is one which has success from time to time, as shown by the continued operation of this plant for a period.
As I say, we regret the impact of this projected closure on individual men and women who may lose their jobs, but we do attempt to offer them such services as we can in an effort to find alternatives that are suitable to them.



INDUSTRY-PULP AND PAPER-CLOSING OF MILLS- POSITION OF DISCUSSIONS WITH INDUSTRY TO OVERCOME PROBLEM

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, as I have done for many months, I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to give me a progress report on April 20 dealing with the critical situation which exists in the pulp and paper industry. For some reason the pulp and paper industry is facing a critical situation not only in my own district but in every province and region. The most recent crisis occurred in western Canada at Ocean Falls.
The answer to my many questions has been that meetings are being held with the pulp and paper industry to consider tax relief and other methods of providing impetus to the industry in order that it may recover. The pulp and paper industry is probably the most important industry in Canada and the complacency which exists on the government side regarding this critical situation amazes me.
Meetings have been held since February, but every time I ask the minister for a progress report he says that meetings are continuing with the hope that they will come up with a solution. At the same time, people are being laid off across the country. But the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) is giving grants in
April 27, 1972

respect of new mills in a number of regions, transplanting employment.
One of the problems could be solved by tax relief, so that pulp and paper mills could renew old equipment. More investment could be made in the industry in this way. Other problems exist in marketing. I am asking the minister, for the benefit of Canadians, to give us something more than the reports we see in the newspapers and those emanating from the pulp and paper associations regarding the progress being made at these meetings. In this way the workers being laid off without hope of finding new jobs may have some hope in the future.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has reported to the House from time to time, several members of the government have held discussions with senior executives of the pulp and paper industry to discuss the marketing and production situations which face this industry. Following these discussions, concentrated work is being done at the official level in close co-operation with the industry and its associations. Several departments of government are working together as may be required to bring the right expertise to bear on the problem. The government is fully aware of the industry's current difficulties and the necessity to ensure its viability in
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
the long term so it can contribute to Canada's economic growth.
With reference to current conditions, although the government considers the situation to be difficult and is taking steps to develop policies to help the industry and Canada's economy, the situation is improving somewhat at the moment. Shipments of the industry to date this year are 3.5 per cent higher than those of a year ago. The production of a number of products, such as linerboard, has improved substantially. Demand for pulp has tightened up considerably in the last two months, and prices should improve. There is also some optimism in regard to newsprint sales to the United States for 1972.
In relation to the particular plant to which the hon. member has referred, I understand that the major reason for closure of the mills involved obsolescence, heavy transportation charges affecting the cost of raw materials, maintenance and service and the relative isolation of the plants. This has resulted in chronic deficits and has placed these plants in economic difficulty. With the programs being developed by the companies, in co-operation with the associations and the government, it is hoped that the situation of the industry as a whole will improve, with the result that employment potential and jobs available to workers will improve.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Friday. April 28, 1972