1972-04-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the government's failure to make long-term grain transportation plans I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) and with the unanimous consent of the House, the following motion:
This House urges the government to take immediate action and use all powers and any necessary funds to establish and co-ordinate a modern grain-handling system that is capable of moving Canadian grain to export markets so that Canadian farmers can take advantage of world grain market opportunities as they arise.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Lisgar. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-189, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (vessel bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, this bill is part of a series being put forward by myself and the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Groos) to amend certain aspects of the Canada Shipping Act. It requires that all vessels in Canadian waters be tuned into and monitor a certain radio frequency to be designated by the Minister of Transport after consultation with his United States counterpart.


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


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-190, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (cigarette advertising).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, which I thank the hon. member for Simcoe North for seconding, is to require by way of an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act that in future all cigarette advertising must contain within its text a health warning against the use of the product advertised.


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


Hon. lack Davis (Minister oi the Environment) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-191, respecting wildlife in Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are. indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Dieienbaker: 1.	What was the total cost of the National Conference on the Law, held in Ottawa February 1st to 4th, 1972?
2.	How many persons registered to attend the conference?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. While all of the
accounts for the Conference have not yet been received, it is estimated that the National Conference on the Law will cost approximately $165,000.
2.	Three hundred and sixty.
Questions

April 19, 1972


COMPARISON OF FUNCTIONS OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION INTERVIEWERS
Mr. Marshall: What functions are filled by agency relations consultants in the Department of Manpower and Immigration and how do they differ from the functions of the interviewers who will assist claimants in the UIC office under the Claimant Assistance Program?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Agency Relations consultants of the Department of Manpower and Immigration are employed in the Department's Regional Offices, and are engaged in the development and maintainance of working relationships with other Federal and Provincial Departments, with Private Organizations and Professional Groups involved in the provision of vocational rehabilitation services to disadvantaged workers.
They provide advice to these Departments and Agencies on the use of the services and programs of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and they coordinate plans for the development of cooperative efforts leading to increase employability of disadvantaged clients of Canada Manpower Centres.
These programs and services may be implemented through such instruments as the Canada Assistance Plan, Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Agreements, or in cooperation with private and voluntary organizations such as The Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded, and the Canadian Hearing Society.
These consultants also provide advice and guidance to Canada Manpower Centres in the delivery of Manpower Services to disadvantaged clients. This includes the development of working arrangements with appropriate public or private agencies for the referral of such clients in order to receive rehabilitation services leading to placement in employment.
Under the Claimant Assistance Program of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Guidance Officers at each District Office are required to establish and maintain close liaison with job placement, job training, and social development agencies operated by different levels of government and by public organizations within their respective areas, so that referral of claimants may be made to the appropriate agency based on mutually acceptable criteria.


PER CAPITA COST OF HEALTH CARE
Mr. Rynard: 1.	What was the per capita cost of health care for each province for the period January 1,1969, to January 1,1970?
2.	What was the per capita cost of hospital care for each province for the period January 1, 1969, to January 1, 1970?
3.	What was the per capita cost of medical care for each province for the period January 1,1969, to January 1,1970?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. The per capita cost of health care for January 1, 1969 to January 1, 1970, includes: mental, tuberculosis and non-shareable hospital care expenditures, non-shareable personal health care, health administration, public health and general health expenditures.
(Mr. Lang.]
Mr. Speaker, as the answer is rather lengthy I wonder whether the rest of it might appear in Hansard as having been read?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The balance of the answer follows.]
Excludes capital expenditures
Province	Per Capita Cost $ 124.31
Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island	123.88
Nova Scotia	158.17
New Brunswick	151.05
Quebec	172.87
Ontario	202.58
Manitoba	178.05
Saskatchewan	163.15
Alberta	196.80
British Columbia	185.62
Yukon and Northewest Territories	128.50
2. The current estimated per capita cost of in-patient	
hospital services for each province for the period January 1, 1969 to January 1, 1970 is as follows:	
Province	Per Capita Cost $ 58.79
Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island	52.12
Nova Scotia	70.41
New Brunswick	73.36
Quebec	88.55
Ontario	84.62
Manitoba	72.04
Saskatchewan	76.71
Alberta	81.54
British Columbia	72.81
Yukon Territory	68.66
Northwest Territories	79.38
3.	The Medical Care Program operates on a fiscal year basis from April 1 to March 31. As a result, precise per capita cost of insured services are available on a fiscal year basis only. For the fiscal year 1969-70 the medical care per capita cost of insured services by province is as follows:
Province
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Per Capita Cost $
28.84
16.69*
40.40
13.65*
76.71*
60.33
52.87
36.95


April 19, 1972

Alberta	51.46
British Columbia	57.49
Yukon Territory	-
Northwest Territories	-
*As the provinces joined the Medical Care plan during the year, their cost of insured services does not represent a full 12-month per capita cost.


STATISTICS CANADA-NAMES OF EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED IN ABITIBI CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the persons employed by Statistics Canada or other government agencies to determine the number of unemployed people in the constituency of Abitibi?
2.	How many persons were consulted for each sampling?
3.	What salary was paid to each such person?
4.	Are any travel expenses paid to such employees apart from the regular salaries paid to employees of Statistics Canada or other government agencies?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. Statistics Canada employs Mr. Denis Veil-lette, 440 Pioneer Avenue, P.O. Box 2058, Malartic, Quebec, who was hired in April 1965 to interview people for the Labour Force Survey in the constituency of Abitibi.
2.	The interviewer's assignment for the Labour Force Survey averages thirty-four households.
3.	Mr. Denis Veillette currently receives $1.92 per hour. (February 29, 1972).
4.	He is paid thirteen cents per mile for miles travelled in his automobile while completing his assignments. (In accordance with travel regulations, travel expenses are paid when prior authorization has been given 1


BORDEN-CAPE TORMENTINE FERRY SERVICE
Mr. Macquarrie: Are there any plans for construction of a new ferry or ferries for the Borden-Cape Tormentine service and, if so (a) when is construction to begin (b) what is the cost and capacity of any ship or ships planned for this service?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: No, there are no plans for construction of a new ferry for the Borden-Cape Tormentine service at the present time.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	For each year since the inception of the Canada Pension Plan
(a)	how much money has been paid into it (b) how much money has been paid out of it (c) what has been the total cost of administration?
2.	How many persons in Canada are in receipt of pensions of less than $20 per month under the Canada Pension Plan and what is the total cost of administration for these pensions?
Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Since the Canada Pension Plan is a partially funded social insurance plan, contributions received together with interest earned, will exceed benefits payment during the early years of the plan. Full retirement benefits are being reached in stages over a ten year transition period. Survivors benefits did not become payable until the third year of the operation of the plan. Disability benefits did not become payable until the fifth year. Income received by the Fund will come into balance with benefit payments sometime in the 1980's after which the Fund will steadily decline.
1.	(A)	(B)	(C)
	Contributions paid		
into C.C.P. and Interests on Investments and	Cost of	Cost ofYear	other revenue	Benefit Payments	Administration1966	.. $ 536,243,606.78	$ NIL	$ 6,003,805.761967	.. 661,134,034.97	611,909.03	9,772,151.871968	.. 765,341,849.79	10,415,176.44	14,201,738.071969	.. 865,531,082.91	38,167,132.09	16,247,808.851970	.. 966,752,085.75	77,871,817.53	19,701,086.761971	.. 1,076,403,913.77	128,732,461.32	21,153,239.99
2. (a) As of December 31, 1971: 91,524. (b) Our records do not isolate the specific costs of administration of pensions on the basis of monthly amounts such as those under $20. However, the administration costs outlined above include the costs of administration of all pensions in pay, as well as the cost of determining the non-eligibility of applications submitted by persons who have not met the eligibility requirements to receive a pension and whose applications have not been approved for payment. They also include the costs of collecting contributions from some seven million contributors and maintaining their record of earnings.


AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES RELATING TO SERVICES SUPPLIED FOR WEATHER REPORTS
Mr. Robinson: Are there any agreements between Canada and the United States or any other countries relating to joint services supplied for weather reports, etc., which emanate from Canada and, if so, what amount is paid for such services by (a) the United States (b) other countries?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: There are no formal agreements between Canada and the United States or any other country. However, there is a free exchange of weather data among most countries of the world. This exchange is carried out in conformity with the purposes of the World Meteorological Organization. Canada is one of the 136 member states of WMO.

April 19, 1972
1430__________________________________
Questions


OPERATION COMPULEX
Mr. Robinson: Will the government advise which profession or professions will be able to utilize data banks as a result of the pilot study Compulex?


Otto Emil Lang: The objective of Operation Compulex is to determine to what extent modern technology can be used to improve a lawyer's information handling capabilities. Any recommendations made by the Study would relate to data banks of legal information. Such banks would be of interest mainly to members of the legal profession.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO DAHOMEY
Mr. Robinson: What contribution, if any, has Canada made to Dahomey (a) directly (b) through the African Development Bank and is Canada contemplating any further assistance to Dahomey?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Bilateral: At the bilateral level, in 1971-1972 Canada is making available to Dahomey $864,000 in gifts and $550,000 in loans for the financing of projects or programs agreed upon. African Development Bank: To date Canada has not participated in the financing of the ADB, but it is contributing $150,000 towards technical assistance. The costs of sending two experts to the ADB are being paid out of these credits. If a Special Fund is set up, Canada plans to contribute, but the amount is as yet undetermined. Future Assistance: Canada plans to continue assistance to Dahomey.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO IVORY COAST
Mr. Robinson: What contribution, if any, has Canada made to Ivory Coast (a) directly (b) through the African Development Bank and is Canada contemplating any further assistance to Ivory Coast?


Mitchell William Sharp: Bilateral: At the bilateral level, in 1971-1972 Canada is making available to the Ivory Coast $1.69 million in gifts and $3 million in loans for the financing of projects or programs agreed upon. African Development Bank: To date Canada has not participated in the financing of the ADB, but it is contributing $150,000 towards technical assistance. The costs of sending two experts to the ADB are being paid out of these credits. If a Special Fund is set up, Canada plans to contribute, but the amount is as yet undetermined. Future Assistance: Canada plans to continue assistance to the Ivory Coast.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO MALI
Mr. Robinson: What contribution, if any, has Canada made to Mali (a) directly
(b)	through the African Development Bank and is Canada contemplating any further assistance to Mali?


Mitchell William Sharp: Bilateral: At the bilateral level, in 1971-72 Canada is making available to Mali $193,000 in gifts for the financing of projects or programs agreed upon. African Devel-

opment Bank: To date Canada has not participated in the financing of the ADB but it is contributing $150,000 towards technical assistance. The costs of sending two experts to the ADB are being paid out of these credits. If a special fund is set up, Canada plans to contribute, but the amount is as yet undetermined. Future Assistance: Canada plans to continue assistance to Mali.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO MOROCCO
Mr. Robinson: What contribution, if any, has Canada made to Morocco (a) directly (b) through the African Development Bank and is Canada contemplating any further assistance to Morocco?


Mitchell William Sharp: Bilateral: At the bilateral level, in 1971-1972 Canada is making available to Morocco .8 million in gifts and 2 million in loans for financing projects or programs agreed upon. Also 2 million have been given under our food aid program. African Development Bank: To date Canada has not participated in the financing of the ADB, but it is contributing $150,000 towards technical assistance. The costs of sending two experts to the ADB are being paid out of these credits. If a special fund is set up, Canada plans to contribute, but the amount is as yet undetermined. Future Assistance: Canada plans to continue assistance to Morocco.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO NIGER
Mr. Robinson: What contribution, if any, has Canada made to Niger (a) directly (b) through the African Development Bank and is Canada contemplating any further assistance to Niger?


Mitchell William Sharp: Bilateral: At the bilateral level, in 1971-1972 Canada is making available to Niger $2.5 million in gifts for financing projects or programs agreed upon. African Development Bank: To date Canada has not participated in the financing of the ADB, but it is contributing $150,000 towards technical assistance. The costs of sending two experts to the ADB are being paid out of these credits. If a special fund is set up, Canada plans to contribute, but the amount is as yet undetermined. Future Assistance: Canada plans to continue assistance to Niger.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO SENEGAL
Mr. Robinson: What contribution, if any, has Canada made to Senegal (a) directly (b) through the African Development Bank and is Canada contemplating any further assistance to Senegal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Bilateral: At the bilateral level, in 1971-1972 Canada is making available to Senegal $3.40 million in gifts and $2.00 million in loans for the financing of projects or programs agreed upon. African Development Bank: To date Canada has not participated in the financing of the ADB, but it is contributing $150,000 towards technical assistance. The costs of sending two experts to the ADB are being paid out of these credits. If a Special Fund is set up, Canada plans to contribute, but the
April 19, 1972

amount is as yet undetermined. Future Assistance: Canada plans to continue assistance to Senegal.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO TOGO
Mr. Robinson: What contribution, if any, has Canada made to Togo (a) directly (b) through the African Development Bank and is Canada contemplating any further assistance to Togo?


Mitchell William Sharp: Bilateral: At the bilateral level, in 1971-1972 Canada is making available to Togo $824,000 in gifts and $500,000 in loans for the financing of projects or programs agreed upon. African Development Bank:	To date
Canada has not participated in the financing of the ADB, but it is contributing $150,000 towards technical assistance. The costs of sending two experts to the ADB are being paid out of these credits. If a Special Fund is set up, Canada plans to contribute, but the amount is as yet undetermined. Future Assistance: Canada plans to continue assistance to Togo.


CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION TO COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL CONTROL STATION, TRINIDAD
Mr. Robinson: Will Canada contribute to the station of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Trinidad and, if so (a) where will it be located (b) will it be utilized by any other Caribbean country
(c)	will there be any control over the construction and maintenance of the station by Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Canada has contributed to the station of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in Trinidad. (a) It is located at St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies, (b) Yes. (c) CIDA's contribution is limited to construction which will be monitored through the use of a CIDA inspector who will approve the invoices before funds are disbursed.


PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS IN MONTREAL-BOURASSA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Trudel: In the constituency of Montreal-Bourassa (a) what projects are planned by the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year 1972-73 (b) what projects were completed by the Department from 1968 to the present?
[Translation1


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: (a)	Nil
(b)	Fiscal year
1968-	1969
1969-	1970
1970-	1971
1971-	1972
Project
Air conditioning of Post Office Loading Platform at Post Office Nil
Improvements to Post Office
Questions


CIDA LOANS TO JAMAICA
Mr. Rodrigue: In the past five years, has the Canadian International Development Agency granted any loans to Jamaica and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the amount of each loan (c) for what period of time and at what rate of interest was each made?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs):			
Yes		.(a) 11		
(b) and (c) Loan	Amount	Interest	TimeRural Schools	. 950,000	J	50St. Mary's Water Supply	. 1,200,000	3	30Water Resources	. 1,500,000	3	30Prefeasibility Studies	. 1,200,000	3	30Montego Bay Hospital	. 735,000	1	50Line of Credit to Jamaica Development Bank	. 1,300,000	3	30Bridges (69/70)	. 300,000	i	50Bridges (70/71)	. 200,000	3	30Bridges (71/72)	. 525,000	3	30Road Studies	. 3,000,000	3	30Port Antonio Water Supply	. 500,000	3	30
CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF POST OFFICES IN PORTNEUF, ST. AUGUSTIN, CAP-SANT& AND ST. BASILE

Question No. 341-Mr. Godin:
What amounts were paid by the government to the person in charge of cleaning and maintenance for each of the following post offices in the constituency of Portneuf (a) St. Augustin (b) Cap-Sante (c) St. Basile?

Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):
Location	Yearly Contract	Paid to date	Contract for period of Months(a)	Saint-Augustin	$1,020	$3,570	42(b)	Cap Sante	1,320	1,923	17.5(c)	Saint-Basile	1,284	1,926	18
'ISSUANCE OF STAMP TO COMMEMORATE 25th WEDDING ANNIVERSARY OF THE QUEEN AND PRINCE PHILIP

Question No. 353-Mr. Diefenbaker:
Will the Postmaster General give favourable consideration to taking the necessary steps now to bring about the issuance of a stamp later this year to commemorate the 25th Wedding Anniversary of Her Gracious Majesty The Queen and HRH The Prince Philip?
1432

April 19, 1972
Questions


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal is under consideration.


FORT AMHERST NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	When was Fort Amherst National Historical Park established?
2.	In each of the succeeding fiscal years, what was the amount of money expended upon this Park?
3.	What plans are envisaged for restoration of the original fort?
4.	What historians, archaeologists, architects or engineers have studied or surveyed the site?
5.	Apart from a visitor centre, what other improvements or additions to the park are in contemplation?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister oi Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. February 2, 1967.
2.	1967-68, $38,249; 1968-69, $39,737; 1969-70, $68,612; 1970-71, $40,823; 1971-72 (to Feb. 19, 1972), $59,173.
3.	Restoration or any form of reconstruction of the original fort is not possible as the physical remains are scanty and archaeological investigation suggests that the site had been stripped shortly after the fort was abandoned in 1775.
4.	Mr. Brock Hornby then a staff historian with this Department and Mr. John Rick, than a staff archaeologist with this Department.
5.	Improvements to picnicking facilities, parking areas, installation of an instructive display in the visitors centre, and ground interpretive signs are contemplated.


COST OF HYDROFOIL HMCS BRAS D'OR
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What was the total cost of the hydrofoil HMCS Bras d'Or project?
2.	What is the present status of this project?


Mr. J. R. Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. The cost has been $51,722,000.
2. As announced on November 2, 1971, the hydrofoil, HMCS Bras d'Or, has been laid up for a five-year period because a reassessment of Maritime Command's requirements has scaled down its priority. However, research into hydrofoils will be continued by the Defense Department, and the Bras d'Or could be reactivated at any time should circumstances alter. For more detail, see Hansard for Tuesday, November 2, 1971, p. 9239.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-TEN TOP SENIOR OFFICERS
Mr. MacRae: As of January 31, 1972, who were the top ten senior military officers in the Armed Forces?


Mr.   J.-R. Comtois@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence: General F. R. Sharp, Lieutenant General E. M. Reyno, Vice Admiral J. C. O'Brien, Lieutenant General M. E. Pollard, Lieutenant General G. A. Turcot, Lieutenant General M. R. Dare, Lieutenant General J. A. Dextraze, Vice Admiral H. A. Porter, Major General R. C. Stovel, Rear Admiral J. A. Charles.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-MANPOWER STRENGTHS
Mr. MacRae: What was the strength of the Armed Forces on March 31 for the years 1966 to 1971 inclusive?


Mr.   J.-R. Comtois@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence: March 31, 1966, 107,467; 1967, 105,584; 1968, 101,572; 1969, 98,340; 1970, 93,353; 1971,89,563.


GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION &quot;NATIVE TREES OF CANADA&quot;
Mr. Beaudoin: Does the government intend to cease publishing the French version of Native Trees of Canada and (a) if so, for what reason (b) if not, has the French version been sold out and when will it be available again?


Eymard G. Corbin: The French version of "Native Trees of Canada" (1970 edition) is still under preparation; the government intends to publish it as soon as possible.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS
Mr. Rowland: 1.	What percentage of farmers having loans with the Farm Credit Corporation have been unable to meet their obligations to the Corporation during the past two years?
2.	Of those farmers who have successfully met their obligations, what percentage have been forced to borrow money from other sources in order to make their payments to the Farm Credit Corporation?
3.	If the information requested in part 2 is not now available, is any attempt being made by the Farm Credit Corporation or any other government department or agency to obtain such information?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows: 1. The percentage of all borrowers in arrears increased from 6.4 per cent in 1968 to 9.9 per cent in 1969 and to 15.1 per cent in 1970.
2.	Information not available.
3.	No. The Corporation does not believe it should, nor does it have the power to, require borrowers to declare the source of funds with which they make their payments.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT STATISTICS, 1971
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Under the Small Businesses Loans Act, for the year 1971, what was the increase or decrease in loans in dollars and as a percentage over the previous year (a) for each province (b) in total?

April 19, 1972


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Increase or	(Decrease)	
in Loans in 1971	Compared to	1970
	Amount ($)	Percentage
British Columbia	947,418	34.2Alberta	1,211,507	104.8Saskatchewan	454,818	54.6Manitoba	508,305	89.8Ontario	1,913,416	61.2Quebec	3,169,714	71.9New Brunswick	211,447	81.4Nova Scotia	10,600	2.0Prince Edward Island	(12,488)	(13.3)Newfoundland	78,434	288.3Yukon	(15,000)	(100.0)Northwest Territories	18,012	500.3Total	8,496,183	61.6


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT STATISTICS, 1971
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Under the Farms Improvement Loans Act, for the year 1971, what was the increase or decrease in loans in dollars and as a percentage over the previous year (a) for each province (b) in total?


John Napier Turner: Increase or (Decrease) in Loans in 1971 Compared to 1970
	Amount ($)	Percentage
British Columbia	1,106,370	20.8Alberta	12,857,183	37.8Saskatchewan	20,328,642	71.9Manitoba	3,280,439	30.1Ontario	6,987,210	35.1Quebec	(279,812)	(21.2)New Brunswick	65,941	8.7Nova Scotia	54,986	5.9Prince Edward Island	(7,989)	(0.4)Newfoundland	6,681	15.8Total	44,399,651	43.0


PEI-DEVELOPMENT OF SECOND NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Has the Government of Canada received any requests from the Government of Prince Edward Island for the development of a second national park in that Province and, if so (a) what has been the response (b) what share of the cost of land acquisition will the government make to such a park?
2.	Is land being added to the existing Prince Edward Island National Park and, if so (a) in what amount (b) what is the location and purpose of each parcel of land to be acquired?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1, (a) Joint negotiations between 25104-321
Orders for Returns
the Governments of Prince Edward Island and Canada are continuing on the proposed East Point National Park. The Government of Canada, represented by the National and Historic Parks Branch is most anxious to see a National Park established in the East Point Area because of its scenic and recreational attraction and biological significance.
(b) Cost sharing arrangements are now the subject of discussion. On previous occasions a fifty-fifty cost sharing has been utilized where lands have abutted on shorelines or coastlines.
2. (a) Land is now being acquired relative to the long term development of Prince Edward Island National Park. Owing to potential land speculation it is not considered to be in the public interest to disclose the land acquisition program in specific terms.
(b) Planning studies are being conducted at the present time by the National and Historic Parks Branch as the basis for a park development concept. Until the concept is completed the specific purposes of each sub-area cannot be indicated. However in keeping with National Park policies the uses will be recreational and conservational in character or geared to serving these priority uses.


ACQUISITION OF TROPICAL PLANTS FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT BUILDING
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Were tropical plants acquired for the new Department of the Environment building in Hull and, if so, what was the cost of acquiring these plants?
2.	Were any or all of these plants damaged or destroyed due to inadequate heating in the building and, if so, what was the cost of such plants?
3.	Have the plants which were damaged or destroyed been replaced or have replacements been ordered and, if so, what will be the cost of replacing such plants?


Eymard G. Corbin: 1. Tropical plants have been acquired for the Department of the Environment Building in Hull at a cost of $30,244.50.
2.	None of these plants were damaged or destroyed due to inadequate heating in the building.
3.	See two above.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Douglas: 1.	How many oil exploration permits were issued by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources during 1971 covering areas of the coastal waters on the Pacific coast?
2.	How many oil exploration permits on the Pacific coast were outstanding as of March 1,1972?
3.	What were the names and addresses of the companies granted these permits, on what dates were they issued and what is the area and the location covered by each permit?
4.	What permits, if any, have been revoked since January 1, 1972?
Return tabled.

April 19, 1972
Motions for Papers


NATIONAL DEFENCE-PAY AND ALLOWANCE SCALE FOR ARMED FORCES
Mr. MacRae: What is the pay and allowances scale for all ranks of the Armed Forces?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 8, 36, 38 and 41.



COPY OF STUDY BY SUMMEROUR AND ASSOCIATES INC. REGARDING &quot;ANALYSIS OF THE MANPOWER UTILIZATION OF THE MANITOBA GARMENT INDUSTRY&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by Summerour and Associates Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis of the Manpower Utilization of the Manitoba Garment Industry".
Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, as advised in the last session, the material requested is a confidential report prepared by a firm of private consultants on the understanding that it would be available only to the department and the private sponsors. I regret that it cannot be produced and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, since I cannot accept the government's criteria about what should be kept confidential I cannot agree to withdraw the motion.


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF REPORT BY GOVERNMENT RELATING TO DEUTERIUM OF CANADA LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of any report or reports prepared by or for the government recommending that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited assume responsibility for the reconstruction and operation of the Deuterium of Canada Limited heavy water production plant at Glace Bay, N.S.
Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the reports were of a confidential nature prepared for internal use and not for the purpose of being made public. I would therefore request the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Hellyer:: Transfer for debate.



COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY PRIME MINISTER FEBRUARY 21-29,1972 CONCERNING STRIKE OF MONTREAL WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all telegrams or letters received by the Prime Minister or his office from February 21 to February 29, 1972, concerning the strike of outside workers at Montreal or the strike of federal electronic technicians.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, correspondence addressed to the Prime Minister is not readily retrievable by subject only by name of correspondent. However, accurate statistics analysing the mail are available and we could pass those to the hon. member if he is agreeable under the circumstances that the motion be withdrawn.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most ridiculous excuses 1 have heard in 20 years of parliamentary life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously there can be no debate now. Either the motion is transferred for debate or the question is put.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF REPORT OF COMMITTEE CREATED TO DEAL WITH PROGRAM TO HELP SMALL FARMS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the final report of the Technical Committee created by the Minister of Agriculture to deal with the development of a national program to help the small farms in Canada as well as any documents, letters or communications related to the Technical Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Speaker, in regard to notices of motions Nos. 25 and 26, the first of which has to do with the production of papers concerning the CNR pension plan, in view of the tremendous amount of interest in this subject can the government say whether or not this material will be produced?


James Alexander Jerome: I will look into that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.	Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.
(Mr. Douglas.]
Mnnmnm
April 19, 1972



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order may I say that I have been waiting since we came back from the Easter recess to put an important question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). He was not here last Thursday or on Monday, both of which were his roster days. Again today he is not here. Can we be told whether he will be here and, if not, can we be told who will be speaking for him?


Mr. Hees:: Let's have an answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, doesn't anyone know who the acting minister is?


George Harris Hees: No, they don't know who he is.


Mr. Speaker:: I would judge that the matter is in the process of being considered at the moment. For the time being the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lisgar.



GOVERNMENT ACTION TO INCREASE MOVEMENT FOR EXPORT-PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL EXPENSE

Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Since Canada's grain exports are still some 25 million bushels behind our target, what is the exact extent, if any, of the contribution to be made by the federal government in an all-out effort to move the backlog of export grain which, as I said before, still stands at some 25 million bushels below the target?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would take me a long time to outline all the steps we are taking to improve our export capacity. While we may be behind our target it is, of course, a very large target indeed because we are presently about 70 million bushels ahead of last year's pace when we set an all-time export record.


Jack Burnett Murta: Since the government has done nothing but look at short-term plans for the movement of grain and this, of course, involves money, can the minister tell us what the government is prepared to do about the additional expense that will be incurred ultimately by the prairie farmers in moving grain? I am thinking of the demurrage charges on boats, the extra cost of shipping grain that will be incurred and the use of inland terminals.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we are prepared to do quite a number of things on those fronts and are discussing the use of the inland terminals, of which use is now being made as railway cars are available. I would remind the hon. member about such things as movement during the winter by unit train of grain from Thunder Bay to the eastern ports so that an additional ten million
Inquiries of the Ministry
bushels of grain could be moved into export at the expense of the federal government.


Jack Burnett Murta: In view of the additional expense that will be involved in moving the backlog of grain and trying to catch up on the backlog, can the minister tell the House who in effect will pay? Who is going to foot the bill? Will it be the Canadian farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I quarrel with the hon. member's definition of backlog in view of the record movement of grain that is going on.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Otto Emil Lang: Naturally a great number of regular expenditures are involved in expanding our transportation system. Now that we have people gradually believing that we are going to export at these levels with a vigorous export effort in the years to come, we can expect the transportation and handling system to respond.



PAYMENT OF SHIP DEMURRAGE CHARGES BY GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN FARMERS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I am not
going to ask about backlogs, Mr. Speaker. The demurrage charges on the ships that have been waiting as a result of the government's failure to get the grain moving and amounting to an estimated $7 million to $10 million, is that amount to be paid by the government of Canada rather than being charged to the farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that the demurrage results from any failure on the part of the government is totally misplaced. If the right hon. member would care to ask the Wheat Board about the matter, for instance, they would tell him very clearly that the kind of winter we had resulted in this problem. We have done a great number of things to see to it that the grain is moving at the present time. There are now only 11 ships waiting in Vancouver-


George Harris Hees: Just answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Even the minister could not memorize that fairy tale, Mr. Speaker, and had to read it. Is that $7 million to $10 million to be charged to the farmers? Who will be responsible? That is what I want to know and the farmers have a right to know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I have made clear many times before, that kind of cost may be considered an ordinary cost and risk of doing business. While we have been spending millions and millions of dollars to improve the lot of the farmer both directly in regard to his income and in the operation of the system, we do not propose to do so for any particular feature of the operation of his farm.

April 19, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



COMMITMENT OF ADDITIONAL ROLLING STOCK AND MOTIVE POWER BY RAILWAYS FOR MOVEMENT

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister who is quoted in the Free Press as saying that he is very optimistic about the good will and determination of all-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might like to ask the question directly rather than quote the newspaper report to which he has just referred.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Can the minister tell the House whether the railroads have put into effect their undertaking to provide both additional rolling stock and motive power to move grain? Is this now taking place?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the railroads are now acquiring additional capacity and stock to handle our record movement of grain, and all other parts of the system to my knowledge are trying to do their best to react to the challenge which faces us. I do not think it would do any good to comment at any particular point in time on whether I think one person or another in the whole group involved could do better.


John George Diefenbaker: They could not do worse than the government has done.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The minister, of course, is entitled to his opinion as to what will or will not do good, but the farmers on the Prairies are entitled to information. Specifically, has the CPR committed rolling stock and motive power for moving grain and, if so, in what quantity?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will have so see if I can obtain that kind of statistical information or whether my colleague, the Minister of Transport, can obtain it. I know that the railways are in the process of obtaining more of both types of equipment. What exactly they have at this time I do not know.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very large number of foreclosures, involuntary land sales and forced sales by farmers who are being compelled to leave the land because of the bankrupt policies of this government, does the government intend to take steps to relieve against these conditions, either by amendments to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act or in other ways, so that farmers can be allowed to stay on the land until there is a new government to deal with the problems?



SUGGESTED USE OF NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD TERMINAL, VANCOUVER, TO HANDLE SPECIALTY CROPS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Since the National Harbours Board Terminal at Vancouver is still sitting empty after three or more years and since it is in need of repair, can the minister advise what response he has made to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce's telegram urging, on the advice of experts in the trade, that that terminal be immediately used as a specialty terminal to

handle specialty crops in order to increase the throughput of wheat and barley in the other, larger terminals?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, that particular elevator is constantly being examined in light of the costs involved and alternative facilities which are available. Further examinations of its possible use are going on at the present time. Naturally the over-all objective is to move the maximum amount of grain but also at the lowest possible cost, and the use of the terminal is being examined in that light.


Mr. Korchinski:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At least 15 hon. members are seeking to ask supplementaries. We would have three question periods to allow all those supplementaries. We will return to this important subject in a moment. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
While travelling, in 1971, between Montmagny and the New Brunswick border, we saw a few road signs stating that the federal government was contributing to the Trans-Canada Highway development.
May I ask the minister whether the agreement in force until December 31, 1970, was renewed for 1971 and, if so, did the government really contribute to the construction of that road in 1971?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that this kind of question should be put on the order paper. However, if the minister has any information available on this matter, he may answer the hon. member.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, if this is a federal-provincial agreement on highway development in the province of Quebec, it does not come under the jurisdiction of my department.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) would like to ask a supplementary to the question he asked a moment ago.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order.
Further to the answer the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) has just given to the question I asked him, I would merely like to say that my question deals with question No. 252 I put on the order paper and which has been answered on Monday last, in writing, by the Minister of Public Works. Since this answer was dealing precisely with the works I mentioned in the question I just asked, I think the minister did not understand it or else that we
April 19, 1972

were not talking about the same matter. In any event, I would like to get an answer to my question.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I just said. If it is a provincial road being built under a federal-provincial agreement or program, this agreement does not come within the purview of my department. The hon. member should express himself more clearly or else get in touch with me after the question period.



EXPORT MOVEMENT-RAILWAY PROPOSAL RESPECTING COST OF LEASING ROLLING STOCK-ELEVATOR COMPANIES' REQUEST CONCERNING ADDITIONAL COST OF SIX-DAY WORK WEEK

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. At the recent meeting he held with all organizations interested in the movement of grain, did the railways lay a proposal before him involving certain expenditures of money which would be necessary in order to provide rolling stock by way of lease? Also, have the elevator companies requested, because of the proposal that they work a six-day week which would entail additional cost, that the additional cost be borne by the government and not by the elevators and, consequently, the producers themselves?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the latter part of the question is no. The answer to the former part is that there were discussions along these lines concerning additional equipment and whose responsibility it might be.


Stanley James Korchinski: In those discussions did the railways assure the minister, even at this late date when there are congested elevators, that they will be sending boxcars to blocked elevators in order that many producers who have rape may take advantage of the increased price and perhaps provide an inducement to them to stay in that crop?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the railways' commitment was in terms of over-all use of equipment to move grain. The actual location of the cars depends on the operation of the block system, the Wheat Board and the elevator companies, but the objective is certainly to place the cars wherever elevators are congested so that the grain may move.



STORAGE OF CLEANED WHEAT FOR SHIPMENT IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, 1973

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It relates to the serious problem introduced by the hon. member for Lisgar. In view of the serious difficulties we have had in the past year in moving our grain into market position, is the government making any preparations for next November and December as to
Inquiries of the Ministry
the piling in a surge storage of clean, ready to move wheat for shipment in January and February 1973?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the possibility and how to achieve it is among the matters being discussed.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, we are sure that the two great national railway systems, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, are doing their best to move all the grain from the west, but my concern and question are directed to the Minister of Transport. What is the minister going to do about the boxcar situation to move lumber from British Columbia to Ontario where it is greatly needed for housing construction?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for not giving me notice of that question. I answered it in considerable detail yesterday. I believe the statistics are on the record and that some improvement has started as of yesterday and will continue in the weeks immediately ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can assure hon. members that I am not necessarily impressed by the loudness of their calls. I see hon. members standing. It is not necessary for them to try to impress the Chair in this way. The hon. member for Middlesex.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Is it true that some of the large manufacturers of plywood have to negotiate with the CNR to supply their own boxcars in order to move their product to the eastern provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



DECISION ON USE OF NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD TERMINAL, VANCOUVER, TO HANDLE SPECIALTY CROPS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact the National Harbours Board terminal, now unused in Vancouver, could be put into operating condition for some $200,000 to handle specialty grains, can the minister indicate when we might expect a decision on this matter which he said he will take under consideration?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that I was taking it under consideration but that it was under consideration and was being looked at

April 19, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
from the point of view of cost and benefit. There are other ways of handling additional grain, particularly clean grain, in the existing terminals, and these alternatives have to be balanced against the cost.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the government House leader. In view of the concern expressed by many members with regard to railroad problems, will the government House leader consider bringing the CNR financing bill before the House today or tomorrow so they can be explored and debated in more detail?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if we can make some progress on the items I announced on Thursday last, I will be happy to bring on the CNR bill just after that.



MEDICARE AND HOSPITALIZATION-ACCEPTANCE OF NEW GOVERNMENT COST-SHARING FORMULA BY PROVINCES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It arises out of the cost-sharing formula he has offered to the provinces, which will have the effect of tying the federal government's contribution to hospital insurance and medicare to the growth of the gross national product. May I ask the minister how many provinces have accepted this formula, what provinces have rejected it and, since March 31 was the cut-off date, has it been closed or is the offer of the thrust fund still open to the provinces?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, answering the latter part of the question first, the offer of the thrust fund is still open. As to the first part of the hon. member's question, none has actually accepted and none has rejected. What is going on now is that they are making their views known with reference to the last proposal that was made by the federal government. They are suggesting some changes and we are considering those. It has not really gotten to the point of actual acceptance or rejection.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the federal government's offer would undoubtedly place a larger share of the cost of these programs on the provincial governments, is the minister prepared to consider as an interim step continuing the present cost-sharing arrangement until such time as the full effect of the thrust fund in providing lower cost facilities becomes fully operative?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. We are not prepared to consider that, although I do not agree with the premise of the hon. member's question; if I understood him correctly, he said that this formula would cast a greater share on the provinces in terms of health expenditures. The whole formula was based on the federal and provincial governments coming to some agreement jointly with regard to controlling the rate of escalation based on an agreement that it be controlled, and it was on this basis this formula was offered.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope hon. members will attempt to limit their supplementaries because we will be running short of time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it the intention of the minister to introduce legislation to implement this cost-sharing formula and will this be done on the basis of concurrence of all the provinces or a majority of the provinces? Can he assure the House that he will not implement this formula over the objections of the provinces?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we are going to proceed now on the basis of the formula we have talked about. We certainly will not legislate it into existence without having tested the provinces and having considered some of the reactions. It is premature to talk about that matter now. We still want to carry on further discussions with the provinces. I do not anticipate legislation at this time.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister visits Edmonton next week, will he be visiting as leader of the Liberal party or as Prime Minister of Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will not be able to split my personality before next week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would like to know because there are not too many Liberals in Edmonton and we want to make sure he gets a proper welcome.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
April 19, 1972



POLLUTION


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Does the government have any intention of extending to Lake Simcoe the anti-pollution strategy announced last weekend for the Great Lakes with regard to phosphate discharges and waste treatment facilities?


John (Jack) Davis: As the
hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, the Canada Water Act provisions apply all across Canada. They relate to the phosphate content in detergents. However, the specific matter of sewage treatment facilities is a matter for the province of Ontario.


Philip Bernard Rynard: My question is, is the government extending the same facilities and help in the case of Lake Simcoe as it is in respect of the Great Lakes?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the government of Ontario wants to enter into an agreement with the federal government to help out in that regard, we will be willing to look at it.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State about the NABET strike. Is it the position that the Department of Labour mediators in this strike are engaged in attempts at settlement on a daily basis or are they standing by waiting to be called by either side?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question should be directed to the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Fairweather:: It might save time, Mr. Speaker, if I could redirect my question. If the Minister of Labour would answer it I would be much obliged.


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The federal mediators are in constant touch with both parties. They have met with them on a number of occasions jointly and separately. Renewed efforts are being made today in contacting both parties to the dispute.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to ask the
Minister of Labour whether the mediators have met with both parties at any time in the last ten or 12 days and whether, in fact, the mediators have met with the union
Inquiries of the Ministry
representatives in the last ten days or so? My information is that there has been no such meeting.


Mr. O'Connell:: If the hon. member means both parties jointly, the answer is no. He is correct. The two parties have not been together with the mediators for approximately two weeks. In the meantime, the mediators have been in touch with both parties separately and both parties have made some proposals. As I pointed out earlier, renewed contacts are being made today.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether the time has not come for him to be ready to ask the mediators to do what is normally done in such serious negotiations after a long strike, that is, to arrange that the two parties be in the same place with the mediators and that discussions take place continuously instead of over the telephone and over the course of some days, so that the parties can be there to discuss matters with the mediators and with each other? Would the minister undertake to get that done?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: The federal mediators are highly expert in this field, Mr. Speaker. They are the same persons who brought about a settlement of the stoppage on the St. Lawrence docks. They know perfectly well how to handle the situation, and I am sure their efforts in the immediate future will be helpful and bear fruit. The two parties to the dispute must show a willingness to come together.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Bearing in mind the statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that he is considering requesting bids for a pipeline running from the Canadian Arctic, can the hon. gentleman give an assurance that no final decision on this matter will be taken until the outstanding native rights claims are settled?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are now in the process of studying what the formalities will be with regard to allotting a corridor and authorizing the construction of a pipeline. Other instructions will be given, through regulations, to control the situation.
With regard to the Indians and the Eskimos, we are now looking into the problem; we are in constant touch with them. They can contact the Indians claims commissioner and no final decision has yet been made in this connection.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the fact that the Indian brotherhoods have refused to consult with the commissioner dealing with land claims and bearing in mind the long delay in the settlement of treaties 8 and 11, can the minister give an assurance that a definite decision will be

April 19, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
reached on these important treaties before any final decision on a pipeline is made?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. We have offered the Indians to solve the problems with regard to treaties 8 and 11; it is now up to them to make proposals. They must take their responsibilities and not wait for us to do so for them.



NORTHERN QUEBEC-DISPUTE OVER ESKIMO SCHOOLS- INTERVENTION OF MINISTER

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the hon Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Has the minister intervened, or has he been called upon to do so, in the dispute now existing in Eskimo schools of northern Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, nobody has called on me to intervene in this dispute which, if I have not misunderstood, is taking place within schools under provincial jurisdiction.



TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-PROVISION OF CANADIAN OIL TO UNITED STATES DURING EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE

David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of which I have given notice to his office. In light of American concern over their supply of oil during the two-year period required to evaluate alternative transportation routes to the trans-Alaska pipeline system, may I ask the minister whether he has made clear to his United States counterpart Canada's willingness to make oil available to the United States during this period so that a proper evaluation of a route can be undertaken free of short-term security considerations?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Both in my discussions with Secretary Morton and other officials of the United States administration in Washington and recently with Secretary Rogers last week, I made it perfectly clear that Canada was prepared to supply additional quantities of oil to the United States not only for a two-year period but a longer period and that this would be facilitated by their lifting their quota system.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-GOVERNMENT POLICY

['Not yet, Mr. Speaker, because no definite plans have yet been made for that test.']
Steve Eugene Paproski: What is the government's present policy on the Mackenzie pipeline? Was the policy made clear during the President's visit?

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines
and Resources): Yes, Sir, both during the President's visit and in the course of my discussions with White House officials and Secretary Morton. In particular, I would reaffirm in the House the statement I made yesterday in the standing committee that the sooner we see some concrete proposals with respect to the Mackenzie Valley corridor for both oil and gas pipelines the sooner we shall be in a position to evaluate them and resolve the problems they raise.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I should like to know why this information was withheld from parliament. Why did the Prime Minister not give this information a couple of days ago in answer to my hon. friend from Calgary North who asked this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that last fall the Canadian government made representations to the United States prior to the Amchitka nuclear tests and in view of the fact that the obscenities of nuclear contamination exist regardless of which nation undertakes such tests, has the Canadian government communicated with the government of France regarding its forthcoming nuclear tests in the Pacific.


Mitchell William Sharp: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, because no definite plans have yet been made for that test.



BROADCASTING


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It has to do with his appearance on an open-line program over CHQR in Calgary on March 28. I ask the hon. gentleman in his capacity as Secretary of State, having jurisdiction over various areas of broadcasting, whether he complained to the broadcasting company concerning something which took place when he uttered a vocal vulgarity and made a ministerial faux pas?


An hon. Member:: Speak to George.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the incident referred to by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Had he been the butt of the nasty trick which was played on me, I should have consid-
April 19, 1972

ered myself as the protector of the right hon. representative's language and would have intervened with the CRTC. As I was the one involved, in effect a much less important and perhaps more tolerant personality, I have lodged no complaint.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, realizing the diffidence the minister always exhibits in treating some of these private stations with contempt, I ask him whether he complained either directly or indirectly to the ownership of the station with the result that the broadcaster was removed from his office for vulgar language used by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I just said I made no complaint and I am surprised that the right hon. representative should so phrase his question since he personally outside the House professed to sympathize with me because I was pushed into resorting over the waves to unbecoming language at a time when I believed microphones had been turned off.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I never deny what I say inside or outside the House. The minister used vile language over the station when he thought the line was not open, and when he found out the line was open he was annoyed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PENSIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the reciprocal agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany, respecting the payment of pensions, has been ratified by West Germany, and can he say at what date the payment of pensions to thousands of Canadian citizens of German origin will be put into effect?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what date it will be in effect but I will check and get the information back to the hon. member very soon. I believe ratification by the German parliament is very imminent, indeed. I have forgotten precisely what is the projected date, but it is very soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will have to seek the cooperation of hon. members at this point. There is not
Inquiries of the Ministry
much more than five minutes remaining before the end of the question period and we might try to limit the number of supplementary questions. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley. Order, please. I did not notice the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stand to ask a supplementary question. I will allow him to ask it now and return immediately to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he will check to ascertain if this agreement has not in fact been ratified, and will he make a statement on this matter in the House, perhaps tomorrow?


John Carr Munro: I will be glad to consider that, Mr. Speaker.



BROADCASTING


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the remarks of the Ontario Minister of Communications in that legislature yesterday expressing his opinion in respect of cablevision, and in view also of the opinions of the Quebec and Alberta legislatures in this regard, does the federal minister intend to call together the various ministers of education to sort out these conflicting claims of jurisdiction in the cable field so we will not have chaos in the regulation of cablevision?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, we have already made some attempts in that connection and the hon. member is aware of that.
I have not seen the actual statement made by the Ontario minister yesterday afternoon, but I know-as does the hon. member-that the position of the federal government is quite clearly established at the moment, that we have also stated on several occasions that we were ready to discuss the matter with the provincial authorities when they wished to do so.
I must add that the minister quoted by the hon. member has never approached my department to undertake such discussions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a short supplementary question. I appreciate the minister's answer to a point, that he is disposed to discuss this matter, but does he intend to take any initiative regarding a joint discussion with all the ministers across the country, or is this going to be done piecemeal with each minister having to come to Ottawa to discuss the subject individually?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has surely missed the first part of my answer where I said that on the initiative of the federal government, all the provinces were visited last year and that I got in touch with all the

April 19, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
provincial ministers responsible for communications. On the other hand, nothing has yet been done in the other direction.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister?
Recently, the Minister of Finance of Quebec, Mr. Gar-neau stated in Toronto that the government of Quebec would object to any federal policy to limit foreign investment. Can the Prime Minister of Canada tell the House whether he intends to discuss this matter with the government of the Province of Quebec before announcing its policy on foreign investment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I should say, Mr. Speaker, that at the last federal-provincial conference last fall the provincial premiers and myself dealt with the issue of foreign investment and at that time I asked all premiers to indicate their views on that subject during the following months. I am happy to say that some premiers replied with specific suggestions, but I believe that most of them are in the position of the Conservative party, that is to say, they reserve the right to criticize government measures but have nothing to propose.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I suggest to the Prime Minister that the Conservative party is not in power and that, if it were, it would have made a decision long ago in this respect.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member ask his
supplementary?


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is as follows. As the statement of the Minister of Finance of Quebec seems to contradict the Prime Minister's allegations to the effect that he consulted with the provincial premiers, does the Prime Minister intend to obtain a statement from the premier of Quebec on this important matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Quebec Minister of Finance was present when this discussion was held here, at the conference centre. But let's forget the past. When our policy concerning investment has been announced, we intend to consult with the various provinces regarding comments that they would care to make concerning legislative measures which might follow.



RIDEAU RIVER-ACTION TO REMOVE ICE AND MAINTAIN FREE WATER FLOW-SUGGESTED DYKING PROGRAM

Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the present serious problem of flooding on the Rideau River, particularly in the towns of Kemptville, Kars and Manotick in my constituency, and is he satisfied that his officials have taken all necessary steps to clear the river of ice and to maintain the free flow of water?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware of it, and it has been called to my attention by the hon. member and others. I am satisfied that we are taking all necessary steps. As I believe everyone is aware, this has been an extraordinary spring with regard to water runoff.


Duncan Gordon Blair: In view of the fact that flooding has become a recurring problem on the Rideau system, is the minister prepared to consider a program of dyking to enable better protection to be given the built-up areas?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The short answer is obviously yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be glad to look at that suggestion. My recollection is that some work of that nature has been going on, but if there are specific proposals we will be glad to consider them.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Because of the increasing number of complaints concerning the administration of the Immigration Act and other immigration problems, including the delays and procedures with regard to appeals, will the government order an inquiry into the operation of the Immigration Act and the anomalous and often cruel situations created by the Immigration Appeal Board over which the government has no control?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. An inquiry of the nature suggested by the hon. member is not intended nor do we believe it to be necessary, but the government has considered and will consider measures for improving the situation on the immigration front where it is possible.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Could he inform the House whether or not the results of the Gallup Poll due to be released today have caused the Prime Minister
April 19, 1972

to conclude it would not be in the national interest to have a June election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that another season is about to open on the Tobermory-South Bay ferry service, which for the past two or three years has been ill-equipped to cope with the traffic, has the government any plans to remedy this situation.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as a result of representations by the members from that general area and discussions with the Ontario government, some months ago proposals were made to the Ontario government with a view to modernizing this ferry service and my recollection is that at the moment we are awaiting a definitive answer from the government of Ontario.



HOCKEY-PROPOSAL THAT WINNIPEG BE SITE OF GAMES BETWEEN RUSSIA AND CANADA

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. With reference to the new ground rules which have been announced in relation to world hockey competition and in relation to any part Hockey Canada might play in the promotion of the planned series between Russia and Canada next September, will the minister use his good offices to prevail upon Hockey Canada to recognize the city of Winnipeg as host in order to compensate for the washout of the last world tournament which was to have been played in that city?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and other members on this side of the House have brought this matter to my attention. I will make their views known to Hockey Canada.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the expressed desire to establish a second national highway, and having regard to the representa-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tions made by the Yellowhead Interprovincial Highway Association to the Prime Minister and the cabinet, is the minister now in a position to indicate whether it is the intention of the government to officially recognize the Yellowhead route as part of the national highway system and will funds be made available for the construction and upgrading of this facility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really think some of the questions that are being asked, such as the question just posed by the hon. member, should be placed on the order paper. It seems to me that if this kind of question were asked day after day the House could sit all day on the question period. I am sure there is not one member who does not have one question or many questions of this type which could be asked during the question period. I think an effort should be made to limit questions to matters which are of national concern rather than of local interest. I do not say that this matter is not important. I am sure it is. The question has been asked and the minister might reply, but I would hope hon. members would not forget that questions ought normally to be placed on the order paper and it is only in circumstances of urgency and national interest that questions should be asked orally. Having said this, and recognizing the importance of the question asked, the minister might reply very briefly.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I met with the Yellowhead group and have communicated with them. The last response I had from them was that what I had indicated to them was quite satisfactory, that is, that the route is in fact being recognized and that every effort will be made to ensure it is given the prominent place it deserves in the Canadian highway network.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to reply directly to my question. Will the federal government be prepared to contribute financial aid for the construction and upgrading of this facility since it is a national problem and a national highway?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I would suspect that any initiative with regard to the upgrading of that or any other highway within the province is clearly within provincial jurisdiction. To my knowledge at the moment there is no specific request from the province in this respect-


An hon. Member:: Any province.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: -or from the provinces. I am well aware there are three provinces. What I started to say was we are discussing the question of some form of co-operative effort in this regard. Mr. Speaker, I think the comments clearly indicate the wisdom of your admonition a few minutes ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order. Before calling orders of the day I will recognize the hon. member for Richmond. I think it is only fair that the hon. member should be allowed to ask his question, but the hon. member for Vegreville rises on a point of order.

April 19, 1972
Family Income Security Plan


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated this is a matter which has not been dealt with and is strictly under the aegis of the provincial government. The Yellowhead Highway Association has met with the minister and requested recognition of the highway as a second national trans-Canada highway. Is the minister prepared to answer my question? Is the government prepared to accept its responsibility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is no longer a point of order. The hon. member for Richmond.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN FUNDS TO ENABLE APPROVAL OF MORE PROJECTS

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the statements that the minister has made recently regarding the Opportunities for Youth program, to the effect that there have been about 20,000 applications and that the budget amounted to $85 million, and in view of the fact that it has been recognized that this budget was insufficient, could the Secretary of State say whether this government intends to increase this budget, so that more projects can be approved?


Mr. Speaker:: I am under the impression that this question has already been put several times recently, but the minister may answer briefly, if he so desires.


Gérard Pelletier: I would simply make a correction, Mr. Speaker: $85 million is the budget for all summer activities. The Opportunities for Youth program gets only $34 million. So, the answer is, as you put it yourself, Mr. Speaker, the one that I gave whenever that question has been put to me over the past 15 days.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 18, 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.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I said during the few minutes I spoke last night, we have had an opportunity since the Easter recess to study the bill before

us further and the more one studies it and its effect, the more it becomes clear to us that it is unacceptable in principle. It is a veritable nightmare from an administrative point of view and is indeed a hoax on the poor as well has low and middle income families. My colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I have therefore concluded that we cannot support the bill on second reading and that indeed we must oppose it as vigorously as we can at each of its stages.
Of course, I know that my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in leading off for our party in this debate said that we were prepared to give the bill second reading and send it to the appropriate standing committee. At that time, he said what all of us had concluded. However, throughout his speech the hon. member made clear his criticism of the principle of the bill, and insisted that it would have to be changed before we could be satisfied with it. As we studied the bill further, it became obvious to us, to my friends and colleagues, that even if certain improvements were made in the bill we would still be left with a law which has abandoned universality, that has ignored the basic philosophy underlying payments to help in the upbringing of Canada's children, and which of course threatens to involve families of Canada in an administrative jungle even worse than the one in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Therefore, we shall vote against the bill on second reading. I want to emphasize that we shall do so precisely because we are strongly in favour of substantially increased family allowances and because we are opposed to the principle of the bill now before the House. Indeed, before I am finished I hope, with your permission, Sir, to move an amendment and, as my amendment will show, we make three simple points: one, that family allowance payments should remain universal as they have been. They should be paid to all mothers in Canada to assist them in bringing up Canada's children.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Second, that the family allowance levels should be raised substantially. At the very least, they should be at the level required by the rise in the cost of living since 1945, a rise which is now equal to 230 per cent. This means that the amounts of $15 and $20 proposed in this bill are the minimal amounts that we should countenance because they are just about at the level of the increase in the cost of living since 1945. These benefits should be made universally applicable.
The third point is that we say to the minister and to this government, if they are concerned about making payments to the wealthy, if they are concerned about making payments for children of families that really do not need those payments, then the proper way of doing that is to make the necessary changes to the income tax where that kind of thing can be done on a fair and progressive basis instead of the selective manner now proposed. The fact is that the minister and the government are trying to change the family allowance concept which we have had into an anti-poverty measure. Not only is this a perversion of the idea of family allowances, but as an anti-poverty measure it is disgraceful tokenism. What the government is doing is
April 19, 1972

making the not so poor in Canada provide a few additional dollars to the poor. I want to emphasize, as I will show in a moment, that this bill does not even do that for the poorest of families on social assistance in Canada. It is not a redistribution of income, it is a shameful redistribution of anxiety to the families across this country.
I was not here during much of the debate that has taken place before but I have read most of the speeches. I have studied some of the speeches made by hon. members from Newfoundland and hon. members from the province of Quebec and I wondered whether they had even read this bill. I cannot imagine how any member in this House who has actually read the bill can support it in view of the fact that one of the things which the bill provides is that the children of families on social assistance within the meaning of the Canada Assistance Plan will be entitled only to half the benefits provided under this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


David Lewis: Those are the poorest in the land. The minister talks about this being an anti-poverty measure, a redistribution of income, and he provides in the act that children of families on welfare within the meaning of the Canada Assistance Plan shall get half the benefit; in other words, shall get almost nothing above what they get now.


John Carr Munro: Children in institutions.


David Lewis: I expected the minister would say that. Somehow I had a hunch he would say that. I want to tell the minister that he should read the bill which he is piloting through the House. If he reads the bill, he will find in section 3(l)(b) that the person dealt with there is not only a person in an institution but a person under 18 years of age who is wholly or substantially maintained out of moneys administered or provided by a department or agency of the government of Canada or of a province, and the children in institutions are dealt with in a separate subparagraph. The minister should read it. What the bill says is that not only children in institutions will get half the benefit but that children of all families on social welfare in Canada will get only half the benefit.


John Carr Munro: That is not so, even on the basis of the hon. member's own reading.


David Lewis: What a shameful thing to do. Is this a war on poverty? How is this bill directed to such a war, indeed how is it for meanness shown to the poorest children in this land? I ask hon. members to read clauses 3 and 5. I usually try to avoid saying things that are clearly wrong, and that I know are wrong. No matter how many times the minister interrupts, I tell him that he does not know what this bill does. What it does is shameful, and if he read this bill he would see that every word I have said is right.


John Carr Munro: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. member would not want to intentionally mislead the House. If he is using that wording to indicate that all families with children who are receiving social assistance in Canada are going to get half the family allowance, then he is misreading the clause to which he just referred.
Family Income Security Plan


David Lewis: I am not, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: This is hardly a point of order. It is a point of debate between the minister and the hon. member. The hon. member who has the floor referred to a particular clause of the bill and gave it an interpretation. The minister disagreed with him. That is debate. I do not think that clause can be debated in this form and at this time, so I suggest to hon. members that this is the kind of debate which normally should take place at the committee stage rather than on second reading.


David Lewis: I want to underline that so far as I am concerned the minister is not sliding under. Subclause (2) of clause 6 of the bill which provides for the benefit refers to children with respect to whom I read the subsection, namely, children maintained through public funds, federal or provincial. It says that if these children receive assistance within the meaning of the Canada Assistance Plan, they will receive half the benefits. There is no doubt about the words. There is no doubt in my mind that the words are there deliberately and that the people advising the minister were looking for money in order to give a few more dollars to some of the working poor while taking it from everybody else. They took the money from those on welfare because they say they pay half of it under the Canada Assistance Plan, and they took it from the people in the $7,000 to $11,000 income range which at this time in this country is not the range in which the wealthy families of this country are found.


Mr. Peters:: The same as the Unemployment Insurance Fund.


David Lewis: We will have nothing to do with the kind of callous, pennypinching that this clause represents, and which describes the whole of the situation. In fact, I say to the minister and to members of the House that, in addition to the specific provision in the bill, children of families on welfare will not benefit in any way from this legislation because anyone who has had anything to do with welfare agencies and welfare departments-and you can ask any agency in the land-knows perfectly well that changes in welfare payments must be made for one reason or another on some basis of need, and family allowance payments are bound to be taken into consideration in the future as they have been in the past. The result will be that the really poorest people in Canada will benefit not one whit from this measure.
This is not the place for an anti-poverty program. This is not where or how you fight poverty in this country. Family allowances are not intended to serve that purpose, and when you try to make them serve that purpose inevitably you produce inequity, inequality and injustice, as this bill has in fact done. What the minister has done here has been what the government did in the case of old age security pensions when it froze that pension at $80 a month and increased the guaranteed income supplement. The result is that as one travels across this country, as I do, one meets literally thousands of pensioners who cannot quite qualify for the supplement but who still live in squalor, insecurity and unhappiness That is what the government did to old age pensioners by freezing the pension at $80. It is now producing precisely the same

April 19, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
results with this measure. It is introducing precisely the same principle into this bill dealing with family allowances.
The philosophy of family allowances was that they were to assist in the upbringing of Canada's children, the most important asset that any country has. Making payments in this area selective destroys that purpose. No one suggests that it is possible to make payments that will totally pay the cost of rearing children, but the intention was to give some meaningful assistance to families with children, although it has not been meaningful thus far, in recognition of the fact that families with children have special needs and that all children should be given at least a modicum of equality of opportunity across this country. And it has been just a bit of equality; that is all it has been. To introduce arbitrary selectivity into this kind of social security program is to ignore this principle and introduce inequalities. Let me deal with this for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker.
The minister in his speech said that over one million Canadian families will get nil benefit out of this bill. I would like to ask any member of this House, any member of our society in Canada, whether he believes that there are more than a million rich families in this country? I would like to ask the minister if he really thinks that paying nothing on behalf of children in over one million families in Canada is a fair thing to do, and whether he really believes there are one million families in Canada that do not need some extra assistance for the upbringing of their children? This, itself, proves the iniquities in this bill.
The minister says that about 1 \ million families will get full benefits, and at one place in his speech he says that 900,000 will get maximum benefits. I think I now understand the difference between maximum and full benefits which I mentioned last night. Now, I believe that the people who wrote the minister's speech did know what they were talking about. The maximum benefits in this case are related to those who get the $15 and $20, and the full benefits are those the minister provides in the bill, including half the benefit that children of social welfare families get, so that of the 11 million families there will be 300,000, 400,000, 500,000-who knows the number-families on welfare whose children will not get more than half the benefit the minister provides in the bill.
No one will deny that there are a good many families that will get more under the scheme that the minister proposes. So what, Mr. Speaker? When you have given them $6 and $8 for so many years, with the cost of living going up all the time, and then introduce a bill which gives a little more to some of the families, it is supposed to be acceptable. I say to the minister no, because you have to look at the bill and see what it does to all families in Canada. I will deal with a few examples if I have time, Mr. Speaker.
I want to put on record what a child under 12 will get. If a family consists of one child under 12 years and has an income level of $7,500, that child will get $1 less than it gets now. It will get $5 instead of $6 under the present bill. If the family income is $8,000, the payment to the child

will be $3.45 a month. If the family income is $8,500 the payment is $1.80 a month, and if the family income is $9,000 the payment is nil.
Then, look at a family with two children under 12 years. At $8,000 and above they get less than now. At $8,000 the child gets $5.10, 90 cents less than the present $6. At the $9,000 income level, each child will receive $1.80 instead of $6, and at $9,300 the two children will get nil from this bill.
A family with five children under 12 years and having an income of $8,000 will get for each child $10 instead of the present $6, an increase of about two thirds, but we must remember that the cost of living is 230 per cent higher than it was in 1945. A family with five children and total family income of $9,000, under the plan proposed by the minister will get about the same per child as was received before, and at $9,300 will get less than the $6 per child, while at $10,000 income the allowance will be $3.45 a month.
I want to say that this group of families with incomes between $7,000 and $10,000, or $7,500 and $10,500, are not rich. They are not rich in our present society. All these families are usually in debt to finance companies. They are the families of working people, of people who work in factories. They are the families of farmers who are trying to eke out a living. They are the families of salaried people in offices. They are families that are not wealthy, families that need the family allowance, who need a little extra for their children.
In summary what we have is that for families on social assistance there is no improvement or hardly any improvement. Children of families with income from $7,500 to $10,500 will receive substantially less, and a third of the families in Canada are completely cut off from any family allowance. I think that is a correct summary of what the bill proposes. I say to you, Sir, not only for myself but for my entire party that this is a shameful, rotten system to foist on the Canadian people at this time in 1972.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: In my humble and profound opinion, it is an uncivilized act to deal in this way with social security in a country as wealthy as Canada, in a country where the gross national product keeps on growing all the time, in a country where we hand out hundreds of millions of dollars each year to large, poverty-stricken corporations, most of them multinational, to enable them to increase their profits, in a country which will make a $6 million Christmas gift to Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited, a subsidiary of Sun Oil, a country that writes tax laws so that one can obtain a monopoly for a newspaper in the largest English speaking market in the country and make the public pay for it. In such a country, to foist this on the people of Canada is a shameful act for any government, even this government.
Furthermore, the income market I am talking about, those with incomes from $7,500 to $10,500, not only are they not rich, not only are they in trouble all the time, but they are the families that carry the heaviest tax load in this country. All you have to do is study our tax system to see that. To deprive them of the little additional assistance that would have been available under a decent plan is
April 19, 1972

really something we cannot accept. I want to say to the minister that the evil of this kind of thing will surely come out in months to come, just as I am sure that the majority the government now has will push this legislation through. It will result in dividing communities, in humiliating people.
Most families that receive family allowance cheques will cash them somewhere in their own locality. Everybody will be watching everybody. With a little bit of calculation people will know what somebody else's income is by the size of the family allowance cheque which a person cashes in the local grocery store or in the bank on the corner, and everybody will resent it if someone else gets more than they get. It is the kind of thing that divides communities. People who make $7,500 get so much and those who make $8,500 get so much. Nevertheless, people who live in the same neighbourhood are in the same economic and social stratum in society; they live side by side and deal with the same people. Everybody will know exactly what his neighbour's income is and how much he receives in family allowance. That will divide communities into the have and have not segments. A thousand dollars more income or a thousand dollars less income will create the kind of tension that government ought to remove rather than produce in legislation that it brings before parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Those who do not receive benefits because they earn a few dollars more than their neighbour will bitterly resent those who get benefit, especially when they realize that they pay a little bit more tax than their neighbour. One man may earn $6,800 and another $7,200; the first gets benefit but the second pays as much or more taxes and this will be bitterly resented. Those who receive the benefits will be unnecessarily humiliated by the fact that their neighbour, who earns a few dollars more, does not receive them. By definition, they must be in need, Mr. Speaker. These are threats to social harmony in a society. They produce a backlash against the social system, against the welfare system, against the taxation system instead of making people realize that there is a unity in this country, that we are trying to create a Canadian family of harmony and decency. This is another reason this is so unacceptable in my opinion to every sensitive thinking person.
As far as the question of administration is concerned, the plan is a bureaucratic nightmare and this should be obvious to everyone who thinks about it, Mr. Speaker. It certainly must have been obvious to the people who conceived it. Payments are scaled to the number of children and to thfe precise income. If you earn $100 more, 33 cents a month is dropped from the benefit. The increase has to be in the $500 bracket. This means that every time a family's income increases by $500, every time the husband or wife is laid off during the year, the farmer whose income varies from $3,000 one year to $7,000 or $8,000 the next because he cannot control the market price of his product, every time there is this kind of change in the family income or when a child passes the age of 12 or 18 years or there is a new birth, it is necessary to make a new application supplying the additional information to the
Family Income Security Plan
department and the bureaucrats who will deal with it. This will create a nightmare, even in comparison with the administrative mess created by the unemployment insurance administration. There are provisions for penalties for infractions. As I read the bill, Mr. Speaker, there will be endless infractions because the ordinary Canadian cannot be expected to follow these bureaucratic instructions. To be acceptable, a social security program ought to be simple in administration, ought to cost as little as possible to administer and ought to be worded in such a way that every Canadian can "read as he runs" as the phrase goes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Instead, this is an administrative jungle, a complex and complicated piece which inflicts a mean-hearted injury to Canadian society.
The minister has admitted that this plan will require double the number of employees to administer it, if I remember correctly, that is from 730 to 1,470 but I could look that up. I know it will be twice as many. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members of this House that from the experience we have all had, we know that if the minister has estimated the number of employees to be double we can be sure that it will be double that by the time Parkinson's law takes effect. Instead of some 1,500 employees administering this plan, we are more likely to have 2,000 or 2,500 and the costs will go up and up.
What is much worse is that families in Canada will be under constant pressure to send in new information and applications and the red tape by which they will be tied will be staggering. This is another reason we cannot accept this bill, Mr. Speaker.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Ti udeau) is so fond of saying as he goes across Canada, this is a very great country. We have a great people in Canada, perhaps not greater than any other country but a very great people none the less. Our people have produced great wealth in this country but what has been wrong has been that the wealth with which we have been endowed and that the people have produced, has not been equitably and fairly distributed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: We have grown from a country which only a few years ago had a gross national product of $31 billion or $32 billion to a country which today has a gross national product three times that. We have a more educated and skilled people than most other parts of the world. In fact, as I have said on a number of occasions, we have a country where Canadians can realistically dream of greatness because we have the resources for it. It only requires courage and imagination to produce that greatness and to get the Canadian people to work toward it. In order to induce that kind of commitment to our country, all the people of Canada have to be given a sense of involvement in society, a sense of getting their fair share of the wealth and income that they collectively produce, and that ordinary social security programs will adequately take care of the upbringing of the child.
I want to say to the minister that the $15 or $20 does not come anywhere near the cost of raising the child. On the

April 19, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
basis of the standard health rules, food is calculated as costing $27; shelter, $15; doting, $7, minimal; dentistry, $2, making a total of $51 a month to bring up a child. I am doing this from memory, but I am sure I am not wrong. Those figures do not take into account toys, treats, educational material, transportation, games or anything else, so that even the $15 or $20 that is suggested in the bill and in our view should be made universal, does not come anywhere near the cost of raising a child.
If we make the $15 or $20 universal across the country- and I would prefer that it be higher-then we give encouragement to the person who works in a plant and has managed to get up to a wage of $3 an hour. This is all he needs to have in order to get an income, depending on how many children he has, that will take him out of any meaningful contribution on behalf of his child or children. There are now hundreds of thousands of Canadians with those skills, and the person who works in an office or has finished university or college and is able to make $7,000 $8,000 or $9,000 a year and is bringing up a family deserves the assistance of a decent family allowance benefit. If those families are given at least this modicum of assistance for bringing up their children, there will be a new spirit toward the community, toward our society and toward building the great Canada that we all, collectively, can build.
If one considers this bill from every point of view, I suggest that it is wrong. If we consider it from the point of view of social philosophy generally, from the point of view of the idea behind family allowances, from the point of view that it will deprive children now getting social welfare assistance of even the benefits put forward in this bill, from the point of view that large numbers of middle income families will get nothing out of this legislation and from the point of view that the administration of this bill will present an administrative nightmare, I submit to you, Sir, that, if we think about it carefully, all of us in the House ought to tell the minister to go back to his office, convene his mandarins again and tell them to bring forward a sensible and humane family allowance proposal in place of the monstrosity we have before us.
For that reason I move, seconded by the hon. member
That Bill C-170 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the government should give consideration to the introduction of legislation amending the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act to provide for a substantial increase in the allowances paid thereunder, for continuing the principle of universality, and for related changes in the income tax legislation.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today on Bill C-170, an Act to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children.
It is, I suggest, the privilege and the duty of each member of this House to acquaint the government with the thinking of his constituents about the substance of the bill now before us. I shall therefore call your attention, Mr. Speaker, in behalf of all citizens of Richmond, to the multiple aspects of the family allowances bill.
We all know that the family Allowances Act was passed some 25 years ago and came into force on July 1, 1945.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to point out that at that time all Alberta Creditiste members voted unanimously in favour of the bill, in 1944.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out a few weeks ago, some election-tinged events surrounded the implementation of family allowances. I should like to quote, if I may, a paragraph from what the hon. member said in 1944.1 quote:
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Mackenzie King dismissed accusations of electioneering with all his usual skill. That legislative measure was dealt with in the House in June and July 1944. He rose in his place and with his usual solemnity declared: This is not an election promise; I made it clear in this bill that the benefits will take effect only from July 1,1945 and everybody is aware that an election will have to take place until then, according to the Constitution. Therefore it was not election propaganda. It so happened that the bill was passed in 1944 and that an election took place in June 1945. And the Liberals could say: We succeeded in getting this bill through and you will get the benefits on the 1st of July.
No it really was not election propaganda-definitely not. That's Mackenzie King for you!
Now, we all know that a bill almost similar to the one before us was introduced by the government during the last session. It was Bill C-264. It sank into oblivion at the end of the session and the government would like us now to pass Bill C-170.
Nevertheless, there is something that worries me: in the previous bill, it was clearly stated that Canadian mothers would get the extra family allowances on May 1, 1972. In Bill C-170, no date is mentioned.
I believe the government is considering the possibility of an election taking place at an early date; thus it will not be able to pass the family allowances bill and will use that for exclusively political purposes.
I can see the government members saying to their electors: Elect us and we will see that the family allowances bill goes through.
Mr. Speaker, some members opposite are shaking their heads and one of them even said-


An hon. Member:: The people know-


Léonel Beaudoin: -the people know. Perhaps I agree. It is why I say that because each time this bill is delayed the mothers are losing a substantial income.
Mr. Speaker, I admit that I am very much concerned about the constitutional aspect of this bill. I cannot understand why the Quebec government allows this breach of our constitution to perpetuate and waives a genuine right.
I would like now to quote from a speech of my colleague the Creditiste member for Champlain (M. Matte) who said in this House on March 27 last:
They will say: That is once more a very particular opinion which does not reflect reality. But 1 would like to prove it by reading an editorial from the newspaper La Presse of Thursday, March 16, and I quote:
The former deputy minister for intergovernmental affairs in Quebec-
That is a man who has served under three different regimes in Quebec and who must know quite a bit about such things.

April 19, 1972

This is an agreement between the prime minister and a provincial premier and not between two governments. Here is what Mr. Morin has to say:
-if the "administrative compromise" proposed by Ottawa were accepted by Quebec and then sanctioned in constitutional legislation, the Province of Quebec would then formally recognize a right to which the federal government is not entitled in the field of allowances. Mr. Morin even voiced the opinion that mere agreement from the premier of Quebec to Ottawa's proposal would be sufficient, in the absence of constitutional legislation, to establish a precedent.
According to Mr. Morin, when all is said, there is more cause fo_ concern than for celebration at the moment if the recent fede al proposal is looked at closely. There is a danger that this prop jsal could annihilate all progress made by Quebec in the constitutional field and postpone for ever the basis of Quebec's claims which is a true sharing of powers.
Mr. Speaker, this is what Quebec wants: an adequate and fair sharing of taxation powers. That is what Quebec wants. As for us, we advocate decentralization in that area so that each region of this country may be allowed to administer itself better.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that Canadian taxpayers are going to take the money which they are given, no matter where it comes from. Nevertheless, we are renewing in this bill a past mistake and infringing upon a provincial jurisdiction.
Once again, these criteria should be reviewed when constitutional conferences convene and I think the time is long overdue for the federal and provincial governments to determine once and for all their respective powers.
I agree of course on the proposal to increase family allowances. I profoundly regret however that the government, if it intends to infringe upon a provincial jurisdiction, has tabled a bill that only raises family allowances by a few miserly dollars and to the benefit of only a few.
Indeed, family allowances have actually decreased since 1945. The cost of living and the average wage are conclusive proof in this regard.
In 1945, the average weekly salary was $32 and it was $132.72 in 1970. So, Mr. Speaker, there has been more than a 300 per cent increase while the average rate of family allowances went up by only 15 per cent. Not only is this unacceptable, but it amounts to a glaring inequity against large families which have to contend with the prospect of an income that is becoming, by the day, more incompatible with the cost of living in Canada in 1972.
Bill C-170 provides for payment of a maximum of $180 per year for children of 12 or under, and $240 per year for those from 12 to 18. This is both laughable and deplorable. I think that if the government stuck to the average salary principle, it should pay a minimum of $257 for the first category, and $334 for children from 12 to 18. This would at least help restore some balance in the family income, taking into account the average income level at present and the cost of living index.
So, the government is just making fun of Canadian families, and does not even offer the rate which it established back in 1945, considering the cost of living index and wage levels. It is giving less and less.
I am aware that we have serious problems in Canada. We are unfortunately the second largest country in the world. Canada has only some 20 million inhabitants, and
Family Income Security Plan
we face serious problems. Thus, we know that it would be easier to give a list of minerals we do not have than of those we do have. Mines are closing down.
Our land is so productive that western farmers have to stop sowing and are paid for so doing, because grain production is too high.
Here, in eastern Canada, we also face serious problems. We have too much milk, too much butter, too many shoes, too many textiles-too much of everything, really. What is scarce in Canada? Money!
Our fishermen have so much fish available that fishing has become unprofitable, because prices are too low. We even allow other countries to come and catch our surpluses 12 miles off our shores.
Our forest industry is also faced with a serious problem. We have so much hardwood that we have to grant other countries leases which allow them to come and exploit our rich forest for indefinite periods. The same problem arises in connection with our soft wood. We have too much of it. So, mills such as those in Trois-Rivieres and elsewhere in Quebec have to close and lay off workers.
Mr. Speaker, I would continue for hours on end in this manner. We have much too much of everything and, because of that, there are thousands of unemployed. And the government will not increase family allowances for fear of increasing too much the buying power. Consequently, goods remain on the shelves in the stores and plants shut down.
The government permits these allowances to be reduced more and more; compared with the average income, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The day is coming when our empoverished people, unable to find employment, will be faced with only one solution: to beget children. This plan is so discouraging that, when one thinks of it, either one laughs or one cries.
And, in addition to that, Mr. Speaker, payment of family allowances will be made on a selective basis, under Bill C-170. With this bill, we are re-enacting the absurd principle of depriving almost 40 p. 100 of all Canadian mothers of the allowances they now receive.
There are several aspects to this selectivity. First, we have the moral aspect. Every Canadian mother considers the family allowance cheque she has now been getting for the past 25 years as her sole personal income. I believe that for most of them, that money is the only one they do not have to wrench from their husbands. They do not have to beg month after month for that cheque which they receive on behalf of their children. To take away that cheque, whatever may be the husband's income, is absolutely unfair. This money represents a small measure of financial independence for them, but now, as I said a while ago, almost 40 per cent of those who do receive this cheque now will be deprived thereof.
The government will undoubtedly maintain that only the rich people will be affected. This is quite untrue, because under the new legislation, the gross income of both spouses will be added to make up the basic family income used for the computation of the allowance. People in Asbestos, Bromptonville, Windsor, Weedon, Disraeli, Richmond or anywhere else who earn $6,000 yearly can

April 19, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
hardly make both ends meet with four or five children at home. If one day the wife decides to help her husband by accepting a job in a restaurant which will bring in an additional $4,000 a year, then this family will no longer be entitled to family allowances.
I think that it is unfair. By introducing this selectivity feature, this government is running counter to its own statements. At this stage, I should like to quote the Comments and Recommendations made by the Canadian Council on Social Development on the Family Income Security Plan proposed in the federal government's White Paper of 1970, entitled "Income Security in Canada". This is a statement of policy which was published in 1971. I quote from page iii:
The Council believes that:
(a) (p. 10) 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-
This concerns the Family Allowances Plan.
-has this feature but F.I.S.P. would eliminate it.
This openly reproves the switch from universality to selectivity involved in this bill.
Further, on page 10 of their same document, one may read, and I quote:
Family allowances should be universal: i.e. paid to all families with dependent children. As such, they would be accepted as a basic social right and would avoid the division of these families into the "haves" and the "have-nots", eliminating any element of stigma in receiving the payments. This result is certainly evident in the present family allowances program in which the entire "community" of such families participates.
Mr. Speaker, in almost the same terms, the statement from the National Welfare Council, published in April 1971, on page 18, reads as follows:
The proposed Family Income Security Plan is very similar to the Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Plan because it suggests that couples with children who are better off will finance the increase in benefits paid to "have not" families. Obviously, this explains why this should not be expected to solve the problem.
It must be noted that the National Welfare Council was established by federal legislation.
The government thus makes a clear distinction between the rich and the poor. Those who will receive the family allowances are the poor and the others the rich. Is that the just society of which we have heard so much? Is that the just society about which it is said that proper legislation will be passed in order to finally set it up?
Mr. Speaker, why was the universality principle done away with? Some might claim that it would have been too expensive to do otherwise. So, instead of forever having to start all over again, why did the government not simply bring in a universal plan regarding the changes we are now considering? And there was no need to worry. Through taxation it would have taken back from the rich what would have allegedly been overpaid. It would have had only to declare that family allowances were taxable income. Mothers would also have been able to keep their cheques and we would have had an appearance of equality in Canada.

I am against this principle of taxation, but as long as we are reasoning about the system, we might as well go the whole way. Here, it should primarily be admitted that the family allowance cheque should be considered as strictly belonging to the mother who gives birth to the child.
Furthermore, it would be well to point out that the bill does not provide for automatic increase in keeping with the cost of living. It would therefore be necessary to repeat every two years the process of adjusting family allowances to the cost of living and there will always be a lag for Canadian mothers regarding the income they receive under the family allowance plan, which is most unfortunate.
It is urgently necessary that family allowances be considerably increased, as the inquiry on poverty in Canada has irrefutably demonstrated. The inquiry established that poverty does exist in Canada, although we have a surplus of everything, as I was saying a few minustes ago. According to the report of the Special Senate Committee on poverty, the total poverty rate in Canada is 25 percent, representing almost five million Canadians who, according to the report, are considered to be living in poverty.
At this stage of my comments, I should like to quote a few extracts from the said report, as follows:
The welfare system, at all levels, costs Canadians more than six billion dollars a year, yet it has not significantly alleviated poverty let alone eliminated it. The problems grow; costs go up and up and will, in time, suffocate the taxpayer. The welfare system is increasingly unable to deal with the needs of its clients. It has failed to achieve its humanitarian goals. It deprives its recipients of dignity and provides no incentive or rewards to escape from poverty. It has become punitive and demeaning. It is a mess-a social wasteland and an economic morass.
And the report states further:
Working Poor
Sixty per cent of the poor are not on welfare. They are active members of the labour force, working for little more, or, in some instances, less than they would receive on welfare. For them, there is not even the semblance of social justice. There can be no good reason for their continued consent to a political, social, and economic system from which they receive so little.
Can we afford to maintain a system where going on welfare is more profitable than going to work?
Mr. Speaker, poverty is certainly an inadmissible curse in Canada.
In La Presse of Tuesday, November 11, 1969, one could read that milk consumption was decreasing in the province of Quebec. Why? Because mothers have no money to buy any. Meanwhile, farmers are penalized for producing too much milk. Every care is taken so that Canadians do not receive too much money. Incomes are definitely insufficient in Canada. All those citizens run into debt and so does Canada.
In La Presse of March 9, 1971, one could read, and I quote:
The indebtedness of Canadians with banks, stores and finance companies has increased by less than 5 per cent for the year 1970 and this raise in consumer credit has occurred only during the later half of that year-
As compared to 1969, when the indebtedness had undergone an increase of 14 per cent-
Personal unwarranted loans from chartered banks, the most common type of borrowing, have increased from $4.1 billion to $4.6 billion during the year-
April 19, 1972

Unsecured personal loans went from $1 billion to $1.2 billion, whereas loans against insurance policies rose from $660 million to $745 million.
For 1970, total consumer credit would therefore have amounted to about $11.3 billion.
In the same newspaper, under date of June 16, 1971, one could find the following:
28 per cent of the family budget is spent on debt reimbursement.
In Quebec, indebtedness is a virulent social sore. It exceeds the total government budget of $4 billion, for consumer goods only, said Mr. Normand Caron, of the federation of family savings associations at the annual assembly of the Quebec women's cooperative association.
One has no idea of the disasters it engenders for the individual or the community, stressed Mr. Caron, saying that the percentage of the family budget put aside for debt reimbursement rose from 8 per cent in 1955 to 28 per cent in 1969.	.
According to the speaker, indebtedness puts the individual in a state of insecurity and tension and often leads to family disintegration on account of conflits it brings about between husband and wife.
Mr. Speaker, after such quotations, I do not believe it necessary to be an economist to realize that the Canadian people urgently need money and that the government has none. At least, so are we told. But, what is the government if not all the Canadian people?
In 1961, our gross national product reached $39 billion, or $2,143 per capita. Now, with all the sophisticated production facilities available, and also because the Canadian people work hard to succeed, our gross national product amounted to $84 billion in 1970. This means that our production capacity, which all Canadians should share, has more than doubled in 10 years.
Statistics show that the total income of Canadians, that is their purchasing power, amounted to $29 billion in 1961, a difference of $10 billion with the gross national product for the same year.
In 1970, the total income of Canadians amounted to $66 billion compared to a gross national product of $84 billion. As we can see, the gap is widening from year to year even though unemployment is increasing. How can Canadians manage not to get into debt when they only have $66 billion to purchase a production of $84 billion?
And we are aware of the current problems: unemployment, violence and poverty in the midst of an almost miraculous affluence. What are our problems? First, there is that of wealth distribution. This is a problem of justice and the government should take this opportunity to start once and for all distributing our wealth and helping the Canadian mothers by establishing a just society.
Why is the government so stingy when it comes to enabling Canadians to take advantage of their country's production? This is nonsense in 1972. There is no reason why family allowances should not be doubled and paid to all Canadian mothers. Even then it would not be enough, but it certainly would be a right step towards this just society I mentioned before and which everyone is yearning for.
What does the increase of $150 million that the minister was so proud to announce mean, when compared to a gap of nearly $20 billion of products which our wages and incomes do not allow us to buy?
Family Income Security Plan
They say that there would be inflation, that the value of our money would be reduced, that it has never been tried before, and so on. I do not believe so, Mr. Speaker.
My colleague, the honourable member for Bellechasse, proved on March 27 that this had been tried in the United States by Abraham Lincoln, more than a hundred years ago. As we already know, this great president of the United States, born of a humble but respectable family, contributed a great deal to the development of the United States, even though he was not an economist.
If I may, I shall quote a few lines from what my hon. friend had to say in this respect, as attendance was sparse in the House when he made his remarks. I quote:
International finance at that time had taken possession of America as well as Europe, keeping constant watch over its positions. One man dared one day insult it. He had to pay with his life. It was, I believe, the greatest president of the United States.
He was the son of a settler and never had the chance to go to school. But having learned to read from his mother and having studied law at night, after his hard day in the woods or in the fields, Lincoln finally became president of the United States at a critical time when the North and the South were at war.
Gifted with a staunch common sense and led by an unequalled rectitude of mind, Lincoln considered that if private banks make money and have people accept it, while passing it as debts, a sovereign government could make it as well and give it at least the same flexibility. So he asked Treasury Secretary Chase to float successively three issues totalling $450 million in 1862-1863.
In 1938, after a legal fight between financial powers and the government, $346 million were still in circulation, and had the same value as bank money.
Better still, contrary to the bankers' debt money, Lincoln's "greenbacks" did not saddle the United States public debt with one single dollar.
Had this issue come through the ordinary channel of banks, it would have increased the United States public debt from 1863 to 1938 by $10 billion, including compound interest. Were all their money issued by the government in that way, the United States would have no public debt.
The same can be said about Canada. The very existence of a public debt is the evidence of a defective system, of the money being corrupt right from the beginning.
I think that this is a very accurate statement and that we will never bring into effect distributive justice in Canada if we do not alter our indebtedness system by which the rich gets richer and the poor poorer; not the rich man who works, no, but the one who puts his money to work. In the winter, he basks in the sun on the southern beaches and in the summer, he lazes around our lakes fishing now and then, and in the meantime the worker pays exorbitant interests of 81 or 9 per cent for the fun of it.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like, as soon as this bill is referred to the relevant committee, that it be amended so that family allowances can be paid to mothers according to the cost of living and to the principle of universality.
Mr. Speaker, I greatly enjoy criticizing the government, but I do not like to criticize for critic's sake. I would like here to enlighten my fellow members. We, of the Social Credit party, claim to have imaginative solutions which would not be a cure-all because it is very hard to solve problems, since all money matters are by themselves somewhat difficult to tackle in view of the fact that money or the monetary system is always extolled by men. Since

April 19, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
man is not infallible, every monetary system has its problems. I do not give this expression the same meaning as does our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), but I suggest that we should have a more just society and we should start, right this minute to reorganize it on a sound basis.
Moreover, I think that this bill is extremely difficult in terms of its administration and accounting system. All benefit scales are variable: the number of children, their age, the couple's income level or even that of single parents, what is and is not an income, and so on.
I believe that all the troubles arising out of the legislation now before us are almost identical to those of the new unemployment bill we have recently passed. Problems arise every day because of the intricacies of this legislation.
I think that we should look upon the new unemployment insurance act as an example and that the difficulties it is causing should warn us against passing another one like it.
We, of the Social Credit party, have the solution, I believe. And it is unfortunate that there are still people like us who are always suggesting worthwhile solutions to the government. But they do not want to understand. They do not want to amend an act which they recognize, which some of them recognize, as being obsolete and because this act was drafted by some officials, no changes are allowed. Even when we point out the flaws of a bill, the government will never want to make any change.
I am sorry for all those Canadians who have to submit to such a system. One of these days, and maybe sooner than the members opposite think, people will realize how irresponsible is the system under which the present government has held them, and will become aware of the quagmire of hardships and injustice in which they are still being kept back.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this very important measure. I will not indulge in rhetorical repetition because that kind of repetition is no more valuable than most types of repetition.
I listened with great interest to the speeches delivered this afternoon and I support the remarks made on behalf of my party by my predecessors, notably the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) and the honourable and gallant member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). I listened carefully to the leader of the NDP who brought forth some very powerful arguments. I found myself less in agreement with the hon. member of the Social Credit party, although I agree totally with what he quoted his colleague as having said about the great Abraham Lincoln. That was not the only part of his speech with which I found myself in agreement. There are parts of this measure which are troublesome. I think every member of this Chamber realizes that something must be done about this sector of our social legislation, if I may call it that. We realize that gross and grave inadequacies have crept into the whole family allowance sector. So, to the extent that something is being done, even though at the eleventh hour, we are naturally in agreement.

It is a shocking thing, as other members have said, that in this country, so well endowed, so much poverty stalks this rich land, and that so many people have great difficulty coping with the day to day economic needs of themselves and their families. I am always struck and pained when I look upon the legislation in this country and use the gauge which the present government always uses in respect of affluence. I am sure that every member of this Chamber knows of countless veterans and old age pensioners who, day to day, are faced with the limits set by legislation. They write to us and ask, "Do you really think we can live with the amount which is listed as the ceiling for income?" I am sure that most of us know in our heart of hearts that they cannot live on those amounts which the cold bureaucracy has assigned to the citizen of Canada, whether he be a war veteran or an old age pensioner. They have so much and, therefore, they cannot get more. It is this definition of affluence that disturbs me.
I am worried, too, about something else. No matter how we camouflage it, no matter how many euphemisms we use, we are back again to the means test. You may call it something else, but we are back to the stage in this legislation where the citizen must go before some emanation of the state and give proof of poverty. I am just old enough, and I am not by any means the oldest man here being the same age as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), according to a revision, to remember when the old age pension was attached to a means test. I remember all the frightful and humiliating arrangements which had to be made, with old people turning over their properties to their children, thinking this was only a token matter and everything would be fine. Many of these poor souls discovered later on that this was not a token matter, and unless they proved their poverty they ended up without their little farms or small holdings.
I am never at ease with any form of means test, and this measure troubles me. I wonder whether in looking at this legislation in general terms, and it has been well examined in all its particularity, we are not obviously here shifting some of the burden of society from one sector to another. It seems to me quite clear that we are increasing the burden on one sector; that sector which we might roughly and loosely call, and I am always leery about sociological definitions, the middle-class sector in economic terms. We are doing a little more than that with this legislation. We are laying an extra burden upon the middle class people with children because those without children do not feel any pinch from this.
Another thing which disturbs me is that while this bill may be presented-there is a certain amount of truth in this which the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) mentioned-as representing a burst of new-found generosity, we all know when we examine it, even in the most perfunctory way, that the family purchasing power today is not what it was in 1940. So, let no one delude himself or the people of this country with the suggestion that we are moving into a great era of generosity. Another thing which troubles me is the growing ad hockery of the whole legislative program of the present government in reference to social welfare. We have this program, that program, and inconsistencies all across the line. In respect
April 19, 1972

of medicare, there was the utmost rigidity of formulae. Then, when we come to other techniques, we have all sorts of flexibilities which are sometimes so inflexible as to be incomprehensible.
My colleagues from all parts of the House, certainly from the opposition parties, have dilated upon the bureaucratic jungle which confronts not only the bureaucracy, which may be more familiar with that sort of thing, but also the victims of that hodge-podge. I am sure the cost of administering such a program will be absolutely enormous. We will have more and more agents of the state dealing with the citizens of society. This is, of itself, surely not a trend which people should recommend. The civil servants perform a fine role in society and most of them who I know are very fine people, but to advance the principle that there should be more and more emanations of the state dealing with the citizens is something I find not altogether welcome. I find, too, that there are areas in which we lack information. We do not know the whole story of the family allowance pattern or what will develop in reference to the new agreements we read about and have not been fully told about with one of the provinces. What does this mean for the future?
Another thing which always troubles me is that the human species fails to learn lessons which have been referred to in this Chamber and in committee each year time after time in respect of the inequities built into our old age security legislation because there is no automotic escalation for cost-of-living. Here we have another piece of legislation which would lead us to believe that this problem had never been brought to anyone's attention. This is another problem which faces us. I was impressed with what the hon. member for Richmond said about this piece of legislation being a callous, insensitive lack of appreciation for the role of motherhood in this society of ours.
I received a very interesting letter from a person who is obviously very intelligent, a mother of three children. She wrote some very cogent comments. I should like to read from this letter and, of course, since I read it, I endorse it:
One might logically decide to finance our war on poverty by taxing some of the more overpaid professions. But who could possibly believe that motherhood fits that description?
If there is any proposition which I have considered self-evident, it is that a mother earns every nickel of the family allowance. Yet the family allowance is commonly referred to as a government hand-out. And while in most areas of housework one can argue that a mother is working for herself, child care is the area where her contribution is undeniably to society as a whole.
Surely, if we have not abandoned completely our concept of the home and the mother, we would agree with that. What troubles me about this legislation is that someone has the idea that you take away something from many sectors of society and then you give that to help the others. I could perhaps embrace the idea of making a contribution to those who are clearly in need, but I cannot accept the idea that we should give the existing family allowance to a woman because she is poor and not because she is a mother, a mother of the children of Canada. I do not think it is at all progressive legislation to do otherwise. My correspondent, whose fine arguments I admire very much, goes on to say:
Family Income Security Plan
I am thinking of a friend of mine who has six children living at home, the eldest (age 20) attending university here. She no longer receives youth allowance for him of course but nevertheless she is getting over $400 a year in family and youth allowance, soon to be cut off. They can ill afford an extra bite like that, she counts every nickel.
And here is the clincher.
The childless couple next door to them, both working, are promised a 3 per cent tax reduction.
If that is the just society, I am Genghis Khan and I do not look like him at all. The Royal Commission on the Status of Women did not recommend this sort of finagling with the family allowance. It recommended that there be a higher universal family allowance. This group of people were commissioned to make a careful-and I believe they did-study of the status of women in our society, and this was the recommendation which issued from that illustrious group. I have heard someone say that the possibility of the system working is highly remote, and that if any citizen, after it got under way, could work his way through it he would deserve an extra bonus of some kind. I do not see that in the legislation. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) spoke about the farmers. Many of my constituents are lobster fishermen. There is no way under Heaven one can predict that 1973 or 1974 or 1975 will be good years. There will be tremendous variations in the income of these people and the burden they will have in this constant calculation to qualify before the state for a certain level of assistance will become, as many people have said, a nightmare, a costly inequitous one and I am sure an unnecessary one.
Legislation should not be designed to be as complex as possible. The law should be as easily comprehended as possible. But, especially under this government, there would seem to be a desire to make the laws as sophisticated as possible. The bills before us are becoming longer and more difficult to comprehend. I do not know, is it McLuhanism? What is happening that we can no longer have a piece of legislation before us which says in more or less clear terms what it means? But I am also troubled about this legislation, and I always feel this about the means test, because it does not leave too much room for incentive.
The Ottawa Journal editorial of September 9, 1971, was a very good one, I thought, and I will quote part of it:
-But doubling family allowance cheques represents only a little levelling of the valley between rich and poor. The real challenge is to provide greater opportunity for more Canadians in their own land. The very need for larger family allowances and the growth of the unemployment rolls show how far that challenge is from being met.
I feel troubled about the legislation. I think this government and this parliament can do a much better job to cope with a very important problem. I think that in recognizing it as a problem we are not divided. We realize that there is a challenge for something to be done but we are terribly disturbed-certainly, I am disturbed-by the fact that, when action has been decided upon by the government, we have so much diffusion, confusion, and built-in distortions, iniquities and inequities which, I am afraid, will result in a most inadequate response to a clear and present social problem and social challenge. I think that

April 19, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
changes are called for and changes are needed. While we know that something must be done, while I do not withdraw from anything which my colleagues have said in speaking for our party, I still think that there is tremendous need to look at this matter and see if we cannot inject into the legislation a little more simplicity and straightforwardness and, much more important than that, a little compassion, a little consideration, a little regard for the families of this country, and that we do not go too recklessly ahead in taking away from one group of citizens in the hope of improving conditions for another. The thing to do is to improve conditions for both, and that is what I invite the government to do.


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking for a few minutes on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), I would simply like to make a few remarks in the light of the speech he made earlier when we proceeded to government orders.
I would like to say how surprised I was to find that in such a proposal coming from the leader of the NDP, some people saw a purely demagogic attempt to try and establish the principle of universality in regard to family allowances.
When, on the one hand, the theory which he expressed earlier tends to show that too many people receive more from the government, and on the other hand, under Bill C-170 introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), we try to give poor people greater assistance, I really fail to see and understand the substance of the amendment proposed by the member for York South, particularly when he tries to establish the principle of universality-which, in my opinion, reflects his complete irresponsibility in matters of social security and administration.
When, as was the case a moment ago, it is contended that the first concern, when passing social security legislation such as that dealing with family allowances, should be the needs of the recipients, I suggest that this is a distortion of the concept of social security. Such legislation was never conceived, and logically cannot be conceived to correspond directly to the needs of recipients, without taking into account the government's disbursement capacity.
As the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) realizes, every dollar added to family allowances for Canadian children would create an extra load of $80 million a year for Canadian taxpayers. It is also understandable that the principle of universal family allowances, established, as suggested by governments, at $15 a month for children under 12 and $20 a month for children up to age 18 would, if applied, represent close to $1 billion more in family allowances than the system recommended by the New Democratic party. And of course there is no mention of increased taxes, no indication as to where the Canadian Treasury could obtain these additional funds.
I sincerely believe that it is unmitigated demagogy to oppose such basic legislation which corrects past inadequacy and attempts to give more to those who most

need it, to push an amendment calling for universality of family allowances, to stir up regrets of those who will be losing their family allowances owing to force of circumstances, although the reasons therefor are well explained in the bill and indicated in the speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. And I really do not see that anything serious can be added to the suggestions and proposals already brought forward.
Before considering carefully the proposed corrective measures designed to improve the family allowances plan, one must first say that the government intends to spend $150 million more in this area. And how does it go about it? Well, quite simply, by extending the age of eligible children from 16 to 18 years, by increasing the allowance to $15 for children of 12, and to $20 for those between 12 and 18. This will cost $150 million more, since the birthrate in Canada has dropped sharply and it is the government's duty to promote the birth-rate through an effective family allowances plan.
Of course, some heads of family who earn over $10,000 a year will no longer be eligible for family allowances. Those may be the families which the leader of the New Democratic Party tried to pit against the government, when the latter attempted to fight poverty through social legislation.
In my opinion, instead of fostering the hatred for the government of those who might lose their family allowances the New Democratic Party might have commended the government for having the courage to introduce a measure really designed to help the most needy in our society.
It is all very well, Mr. Speaker, to resort to all means, as the extreme right party is attempting to do. The hon. member said a while ago that they always wanted to double, multiply and remultiply social welfare measures because the money problem never did exist for them. Therefore, they can solve all issues this way.
Now, it seems to me that, before saying they will introduce welfare schemes, people who believe in reasoning, in thinking things over, and specially in making serious-minded people think things over, should be aware of our ability to pay. And if we do not have it, whenever they ask for new welfare measures, they should have the courage to say who will be taxed more in order to pay for those welfare measures, if they do not want to slip into the habit of the extreme right party-take out the "money machine" and print all you need.
There is no other logic than that, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, coming back to that philosophy, it is always the same thing in Parliament: whenever the government introduces a welfare measure, whenever they decide to give another $150 million for the families who need it most, we can see the opposition members rise in their seats. They would like the amounts to be doubled and tripled but they do not say who will have to pay.
Therefore, if we follow the thinking of the New Democratic party, we would have to find from $400 to $500 million more to apply universality to family allowances, unless they actually say that $15 per month for children
April 19, 1972

up to 12 years of age is too much, or else that $20 per month for children from 12 to 18 is still too much.
Now, if those two scales are to remain the same, it would cost from $400 to $500 million more to apply the universality principle to family allowances. I should like the New Democratic party, which in spite of that is proposing an amendment to this important bill, to tell us where it will get the extra $400 million and from whom through taxes. Then it will show that it has courage and stands behind its actions and is not only indulging in the sad demagogy that we witnessed a while ago.


Léonel Beaudoin: You are aware only of the tax machinery.


Ovide Laflamme: I did not understand the remark of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin). I believe that a while ago he read a speech that was prepared by somebody else, but I should like simply to point out to him that I am not very much in the habit of overtaxing the kindness of hon. members, as do the hon. members from the extreme right while taking the floor in and out of season and saying a lot of things that do not get us anywhere.
For instance, while a bill such as this is under consideration this afternoon in the House and irresponsible speeches are made, I think that instead of keeping listening to them, my duty is to tell some of them that they should have enough courage to talk with responsible people in their ridings and at least abide by some logical reasoning if they want the debate to progress.
For once in the whole history of social security legislation, we are going to make a correction by preventing, through adjustments which will take into account the number of children in a family, people with an annual income of over $10,000 from receiving family allowances, which will instead be paid to low-income families and to children who most need them.
This is justice and redistribution. Of course, a party which is preparing an election and wants to please the voters must try to prove that those who will lose their family allowances have cause for complaints and to say, as the NDP leader did earlier, that this will give nothing to the children depending on welfare.
It is a fact that welfare recipients come under the jurisdiction of public agencies. Naturally, whether they get $15, $20, $25 or $30, the public agencies will keep on meeting their needs and paying for their education. In a province such as Quebec, which I know very well, monthly family allowances of $15 or $20, those we are talking about, will be paid to all children. This will have a beneficial effect on the social welfare budget because when $15 will actually be paid instead of $8 as before, or when $20 will be paid instead of $12 to large and needy families, this will substantially reduce the taxpayers' burden.
In this connection, I did not understand the flights of oratory of the hon. member for York South, when he suggested that the children on social welfare will not be getting a cent more. In my opinion, this is playing with words. It is like an old man who is being cared for in an institution. Obviously, even if the old age security pension is increased, he may not get more since part of his needs are provided for in the welfare budget. This does not
Family Income Security Plan
mean, however, that what is involved is not clearly and in a secure manner-because this is a time to talk of security-the assurance of greater government assistance and of a healthier and fairer redistribution of family allowances, particularly in respect of children who most need them.
I say it again, Mr. Speaker: as long as we take the time, in new social security legislation like the bill we are going to pass, to correct errors and to use government resources to better advantage, the taxpayers' money will go to the children, to the classes in society, who most need it.
Without trying to give a lecture, I would say that this does not meet the vital needs of children. There are two well-defined approaches in this matter: the first whereby, subject to the state's paying ability, the riches are redistributed to the people who need them most; the second, which is unacceptable, whereby we should pay the full amount of the allowance to those who need it most.
Indeed, those who favour the second approach do not hold the responsibility of imposing the necessary taxes, so much so that, in general, the workers are evidently overburdened with taxes.
And if it is intended to earmark-because it is difficult to fall back in such a system-an additional amount of $400 or $500 million, those working sectors of society will, of course, have to sacrifice part of their income.
A disagreement might arise between the New Democratic party and the Liberal party when the enforcement of this measure by the Liberal party will mean that household heads earning in excess of $12,000, perhaps as a result of the number of their children, will cease to receive family allowances.
They will claim that an income of $12,000 a year is insufficient for one's livelihood or maintenance. This is a matter of interpretation, but I think that the people are able to judge by themselves.
I, for one, have convened forums in my riding to discuss this question. Those people earning $12,000 a year, or more, are normally capable of understanding the rationale behind this new legislation and even though they cease to receive family allowances, they are told by those who earn $8,000, $7,000, $6,000 and $5,000 a year: If I earned $12,000 a year, I would not need family allowances since that income would be sufficient.
In concluding my remarks, I would only say that we can go on making speeches and resorting to demogoguery on this question, but we should this once try and point out the correcting element of this bill. This characteristic should also find its way in all other pieces of legislation if we want to avoid reaching a point where the state will rely on individual incomes to try and guarantee complete security and well-being.
I do not think we have reached that economic stage yet. Indeed, we should be honest enough to recognize that if the resources of the state are sufficient to enable it to hand out gifts and donations in the future, the state being now unable to apply the principle of universality extolled by the NDP, has at least brought down essential measures, has seriously rectified the situation, is willing to pay
1456

April 19, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
an additional amount of $150 million and is endeavouring to better help needy families. On this basis, Mr. Speaker, the government and the people of Canada will appreciate the merits of this legislation.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on the bill, but before getting into those I should like to deal with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme). I have not heard this hon. member speak very often in this House, but I must say that he is a very able speaker. I listened carefully to what he had to say and I was impressed with his style. But I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that he has more brass than I have seen exhibited by any member of this House for a long time. I wish the hon. member spoke oftener because he is very good, but I would have been far more impressed if he had not raised the question of whether or not we can afford this program. I would have been more impressed had he argued during the tax debate for a more equitable taxing system to be applied to the mining companies with the same kind of fervour that I argued for the working people of this country. I would have liked to hear him say we should get the money from that source because that would have evoked far more sympathy than his present argument.
I would have been far more impressed if he had talked about the half million dollars going to Quebec under the DREE program rather than saying we cannot afford family allowances or bilingualism or the many other programs. Mr. Speaker, I say that there are many things we can afford in this country. We can well afford to encourage the people of Quebec in industrial development; we can well afford the bilingualism program but we can also well afford to have a fair and equitable arrangement for every Canadian who needs assistance to raise his family. That means everyone, and that is why the program has to be universal.
Let us not forget what the family allowance program is all about. The Liberal party is taking every sensible program that has been brought into being in this country and turning it into a welfare program. Family allowance is not welfare; it is, in a sense, the community saying that the market system distorts the allocation of resources, that our market system is not fair because it does not take into account a man's needs. The system does not care whether he has ten children or no children at all. The purpose of the family allowance is to redress that inequity in the market system, and that redress has to be applied at every income level in our view. The place for taxation is in the income tax scheme. That is the scheme you use to take from those who have more, by which you decide at what level you are going to tax. But you do not take away the family allowance or the old age pension and make people pay into an unemployment insurance fund. If we continue in this path, Mr. Speaker, a new revolt will take place in our society led by the man in the middle income bracket who is being squeezed to pieces.
The greatest enemies of poverty are the people who bring in inequitable programs of this kind. If we are to solve the problem of poverty in Canada, we must enlist the support of those in the middle income groups, those who pay the bulk of the taxes. If they become disenchant-

ed at any stage with the programs designed to combat poverty and feel they are being unfairly treated, that will be the end of any sensible approach to a war on poverty. We are on the edge of that, Mr. Speaker. We cannot say to a man with an income of $8,000 or $9,000 a year and a couple of children that he is not entitled to any adjustment. His own income may only be about $5,000 a year, the remainder coming from his wife who works the night shift in a textile mill in order to meet the payments on the house. Is he to be told that the family allowance does not apply to him? The minister had only so much money, but he had to make this program look as attractive as possible so he took money from one pocket and put it into another.
We feel that if plans of this type are continued, they will destroy the sympathy of the Canadian people who have always been sympathetic to the need for social legislation. A sense of alienation will be created in our society. Just look around and see what is happening. The group that has to pay the cost is becoming smaller; it is no longer a pyramid. The people who are paying the shot are the middle group. They have to support the young who are staying in school much longer and it is costing more to keep them there. They also have to support the old who, fortunately, are living longer. Also, people want to retire earlier with some sort of decent income so that they can live the last few years of their lives in comfort. The group in the middle is being asked to pay for all this; they are willing to pay and have paid.
I am very proud of the people of this country, not because we win wars and other things, but because we introduced the old age pension and the family allowance. This is the greatness of Canada, the fact that there are people in this country who are willing to take from their own resources in order to help others not much worse off than themselves. We must not destroy that willingness; we must not destroy the cohesion of our society.
When my leader was speaking, I looked at the minister and detected genuine surprise on his face. He seemed really surprised because we would not support this bill. I have known the minister for a long time, and have always regarded him highly. I do not like to see him surprised. Probably, he wants to know what happened. I can tell him. Time after time, the members of this party have gone along with measures of which they have not entirely approved. We have gone along with them because we thought it was best. The same can be said for the members of other parties. Even members of the Liberal party have arrived at some kind of compromise on some pieces of legislation. We are now reaching the point where we cannot continue that course; we must take a stand. If we do not take a stand, there is a great danger that what I have alluded to will happen. The ordinary people of our society may no longer be willing to meet the needs of the poor and disadvantaged.
May I now refer to some other debates. When the government froze the old age pension and brought in the guaranteed income supplement, we went along with the bill, even though we were not entirely happy with it. True, in one way it destroyed the principle of universality; however, many in my party were divided on it. Many felt that even though the bill abandoned in large part the principle
April 19, 1972

of universality, we should support it because, after all, it would give something more to the poor. Some kind of universality was preserved and the poor were to get additional benefits. Those arguments prevailed and we supported that bill. In a sense, that bill preserved some kind of universality.
What has been our experience with old age pensions. Has the principle of universality actually been retained; no, it has not. True, everyone is entitled to the old age pension of $80, but the pension is frozen at that level. Every year, the benefits to old age pensioners provided by that pension are being eroded. Every old age pensioner who does not get the supplement is being cheated. Trouble is brewing in that area. I think we all get letters from old age pensioners who cannot keep up with costs. Such letters are full of bitterness. For instance, some say, "just because I saved a few dollars, why should I be penalized." Others say, "merely because I get a small pension, does that mean that I must fall further and further behind?" That is what these people are saying, and that is happening. Before long such voices will become more strident. Those people will insist on justice being done.
We made a mistake by not insisting that some escalator provision be included in the basic old age pension. That mistake resulted in a basic denial of justice to old age pensioners of this country. I do not want the same sort of mistake to be made with this plan. For some, the escalation of benefits under this plan will be zero. It is interesting to note that the socialist government of Manitoba recently brought down a budget that made provision for a system of educational tax credits. These were geared to income. What is particularly interesting is that there were minimum benefits for all, regardless of income. That plan recognized that we have an obligation to all. People of all income brackets, including people in the lower brackets, were given benefits under the plan. Mr. Speaker, if you want to reduce inequities, the proper way is not by doing it indirectly through old age pensions, family allowances or unemployment insurance, but through the Income Tax Act.
The government's arguments about not being able to raise the necessary money, and similar arguments, do not impress me. After all, the government brought in what it called a progressive tax system which, nevertheless, left wide loopholes open for those who support that party. I am not saying this was done intentionally; nevertheless, it worries me to see that certain taxpayers are provided with benefits that are not available to others. In light of that, one can become pretty cynical about such cries from the other side as, "where are we to get the money?" I would have been far more impressed with what the hon. member for Montmorency said if, when high unemployment figures were mentioned in the House-I am speaking of times when unemployment reached astronomical heights-he had risen in his place and said to the government, "this is wrong; you should not create unemployment in an effort to fight inflation." If he had said that, I would have been impressed. I did not hear him say that.
Since we are talking about costs and where the money will be found, let me mention some figures relating to unemployment. Mr. Speaker, for every one per cent of unemployment in this country, we lose over $1 billion in
Family Income Security Plan
gross national product, one third of which would become government revenue. As a result of unemployment levels prevalent during the past few years of Liberal rule, it can be said that government revenues have declined by over $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, we kicked away $1 billion. How much money would it take to establish the kind of program we talk about? An equitable program of family allowances for all families in Canada would cost far less than that. This government has been willing to waste people and waste resources. It has created unemployment to fight inflation, and hardly a dissenting voice was raised from the government's back benches; yet, when we want to establish a fair family allowances program, the old cry is heard: "where will the money come from." Oh yes, they say "the NDP wants this; those great spendthrifts over there, they want to establish this kind of program. They want to give money away." I say the government has not been giving it away; it has been throwing it down the drain and no one has benefited.
What the government has been doing we find unsatisfactory. It is dismantling all those programs of which we have become proud. I am not speaking only for members of my party; I think members of all parties are proud of what we have achieved; and, certainly, many Canadians are, too. You know, at one time you could brag to other people by saying, "although your buildings may be taller than ours and although there may be more smog in Los Angeles than in Canadian towns, every old age pensioner of Canada is entitled to a certain pension." That pension was not paid as charity; it was paid as of right. Those people had worked to build up this country. Our older people made contributions to the tax system and through the sales tax. They were entitled to a pension, and their right was our source of pride. We felt the same way about family allowances, and we felt the same pride. Now, that pride has gone. These have all become welfare programs.
I might understand the government's attitude if these injustices perpetrated against people in the middle income group were to be matched by substantial improvements in the lot of the poor. Yet, I am afraid that they are not to be so matched by substantial improvements. What my leader said is only too true. To the extent that you place people on welfare, the welfare system will accommodate them. To the extent that certain payments which come out of the family allowances pocket, so to speak, are to be increased, the payments which come out of the Canada Assistance Plan pocket are to be reduced. When the former minister of labour introduced the amended Unemployment Insurance Act, he said, "Oh yes, we will take people off welfare, because those now on welfare will collect unemployment insurance." He was not wrong. We took people off the welfare rolls as a result of passing that amended Unemployment Insurance Act. What he said was not far from the truth, because that amended act, instead of adhering to the principle of insurance as the previous unemployment insurance act had, became to a large extent a welfare program. This sort of thing goes on and on but there is a limit to how much people are willing to take in this field. Perhaps they are close to that limit now.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with changes in the family allowances structure, as pro-
25104- 33}

April 19, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
posed under Bill C-170, it might be reasonable to consider the whole question of poverty in Canada and our method of dealing with it. I think we are all aware of the fact that over the past six years the budget of the federal government for welfare has doubled from somewhere around $2.4 billion to $5 billion. We are aware also there have been many programs of one type or another which were originally designed to deal with one phase or another of the poverty situation in Canada. In general, what we have seen has been a piecemeal approach which has failed to come to grips with the real issues and fundamental problems that people below the poverty line face. As a result of this piecemeal approach, we have not reached any kind of a reasonable solution to this whole question of poverty.
I am a little amazed at this particular government which came in with a slogan of which we are all aware, but which they would rather forget. They have been resistant to taking a new and bold initiative in this area of combating poverty, a new approach to the welfare problem and a general re-assessment of whether the old programs have been of any real value in dealing with this whole question of poverty. What we have seen in the past four years have been marginal modifications of this or that old program, little adjustments here and there and tinkering with things that have been ineffective in the past. Under the present circumstances, such actions will continue to be ineffective in the general area of overcoming poverty in this country. As examples of this kind of tinkering, adjustments were made in the old age security program, the unemployment insurance program and adjustments are now being proposed in the family allowance and youth allowance program. In fact, this bill is just further tinkering. It does not really come to grips with the problems that face the country. It is a continuation of a traditional approach which has proven itself to be inadequate in dealing with the problem with which we are faced, namely the eradication of poverty on a permanent basis.
I do not deny that some of these modifications of old programs have, in small ways, had some beneficial effects for some people, but I do not deny that they have had any real significant effect from the point of view of eradicating poverty from that one fifth of our population that is unable to do it on their own. We must consider some bold new approaches. We must take a more progressive look at what really needs to be done to solve this problem or at least give the impression of seriously wanting to solve the problem. I am not saying it will ever be possible to completely eradicate poverty, but it has been shown that piecemeal approaches in the past have failed. Continuation of piecemeal approaches in the future will not likely be any more successful. We need to look at the development of a co-ordinated approach to the whole problem. There should be a co-ordination and consolidation of the various types of programs which we now have. The whole structure should be a more efficient and less costly proposition, certainly from the administrative point of view.
One of my major criticisms of this bill is that it does not come to grips with the problem of an incentive to become self-sufficient, more productive and more capable of looking after one's self and one's own dependents. It is simply a little larger hand-qut to a certain group. It is nothing

more than that. It would be reasonable to suggest amendments accordingly. I also want to say that, realizing we have to deal with the bill which is before the House rather than the general question of overcoming poverty in this country, I have ambivalent feelings about the bill. I support about half of it and disagree with the other half. This is a problem I have faced in this House on many occasions in the past. You come to the situation of what to do. You cannot vote for each half separately. You have to decide whether or not to vote for the whole package.
We have heard a lot of talk today about the question of universality and selectivity. In general terms, my tendency is to support selectivity. However, I think this bill covers more than the question of whether you support selectivity or universality in the family allowance program. This bill also touches a part of life which I would place in the category of established rights of Canadians, something Canadians have enjoyed for more than 20 years. For this reason, Canadians have come to feel there are established rights. When we talked about the language bill, we talked about certain Canadians who had certain language rights in certain areas. It was felt they should not be deprived of these because they fell into the category of established rights. I think that the family allowance program, as it has existed, quite easily fits into this category of established rights.
I agree that people with a high personal income do not expect a continuation of the allowance because they need it for economic reasons, but they probably consider it to be an established right which they have enjoyed for many years. What have these people done with the allowance they have been receiving? I think in the lower income group it is fair to say they have spent it in the direction that it was intended, for the purchase of clothing, possibly school books and contributing to shelter as well as the other basic needs that Canadian children in their growing years require.
We know that in the middle or higher income groups, this allowance was not particularly used for these purposes. In many cases, investment plans were established for the children involved. When the time came for a secondary education, a fund existed to assist these children to continue their education. For that reason, it will probably upset the parents in this category substantially. What has been a savings plan contributed to through the receipt of a cheque from the government will now have to be continued by a contribution from their own income.
I want to deal briefly with the fact there was a substantial increase in income tax last September for most Canadians. I recall the then Minister of Finance saying that the income tax bill would remove from the income tax rolls somewhere in the vicinity of 3/4 of a million Canadians. That, of course, was a great fallacy. I have in my possession a letter from an official of the Department of Finance. The true figure is more like 30,000 or 40,000 who will be removed from the income tax rolls. Those in the middle or higher income group will experience a very marked increase in their taxation. For this reason, I object to removing the family allowance payments from the middle income group. These people have already been imposed upon very strenuously by the income tax legislation which was rammed through the House last December
April 19, 1972

by the use of that very democratic principle known as closure. Removal of the established right which these people have come to enjoy has the same effect as increasing their income tax that much more.
While I do not support the idea of universality in all areas of social welfare, I do not think it is contradictory to say that I cannot approve the removal of family allowances from the middle income group. Bearing in mind the measures recently taken to increase taxation, I believe that if these allowances are removed from the middle income group a corresponding reduction should be made in the income tax to compensate for the change. We have heard some members ask: Where will the money come from? I shall comment on this aspect in a few moments. To elaborate further on my point, we might draw a comparison at this point between family allowance and the old age security pension. Here, provision is made for a basic pension which everyone receives as an established right, if you like-a contribution by the state to senior citizens who have contributed throughout their lives to the productivity, growth and development of this country. They receive this benefit even though they may not need a pension. They are still entitled to it as a reward for their efforts on behalf of the country in the past. I would be inclined to say that the family allowance which is now distributed to Canadians across the board should continue for the same reasons. I recognize, though, that the allowance as it presently stands is nowhere near sufficient to meet the needs of those who live below the poverty line. For these people, I would suggest a plan somewhat similar to the guaranteed income supplement granted in certain cases to old age pensioners, a supplement which would be based on need and which would be more realistic in terms of meeting the basic needs of the children of poverty-stricken families.
Where will the money come from? Hon. members will gather that I am suggesting not necessarily a redistribution at this time but an additional expenditure which will prove of assistance to a particular segment of our population. In the first place, it could come from the revenue produced by the massive increase in income tax which was imposed last December. There is no question that this increased taxation will produce a very substantial return to the federal treasury by way of general revenue. Then again, large amounts of money might be saved by abolishing useless structures such as Information Canada which in my view is an unforgiveable waste of the taxpayers' money, established basically for the propaganda purposes of the Liberal party. No one, I think, doubts that this particular institution is of little value and cannot justify its existence in terms of its present cost. There are other areas in which money could be saved for the purposes I have indicated, areas of expenditure which the Auditor General has characterized as wasteful and inefficient. Large sums could be saved by more efficient planning, by more realistic projection of the cost of new structures. I have in mind, for example, the National Arts Centre, the final cost of which was more than double the original estimate; I think of the money wasted on the Bonaventure and on the hydrofoil project, of huge sums spent on the purchase of aircraft which, in fact, the defence depart-
Family Income Security Plan
ment did not need. One need only glance at the report of the Auditor General to find examples of millions of dollars wasted in this way.
I will summarize briefly, Mr. Speaker. In my view, we should not deprive the middle income group of an established right, although I realize that people in the lower income group need a greater measure of assistance. We should do something about this. The bill is, really, a useless tool in the general endeavour we ought to be making to combat poverty among one-fifth of our population. We should be looking toward something much more progressive and much broader in scope, including incentives to individuals to increase their productivity through seeking methods of improving their skills and earning capacity. A massive co-ordinated effort should be made to combine all the existing piecemeal programs into one, thereby making the administration less expensive, and putting together all the forces which are presently working separately into one combined operation which would offer a much greater possibility of success in dealing with the poverty which now exists in our country.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated some of the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), particularly his suggestions as to the way in which more money could be raised for programs such as this. Certainly, I think some of it might be recovered from what the government misspends, for which we receive no adequate reward.
During a visit to Newfoundland, I heard someone say that many of the housewives of that province gave Joey Smallwood the credit for the baby bonus. This individual said Joey Smallwood did nothing to discourage these women from thinking that way. It is true that the baby bonus was started, as far as Newfoundland is concerned, when it joined Confederation and obviously these women appreciated receiving this money. Certainly, they needed it and it did much for the poor people of that day.
I am a bachelor so I do not receive any baby bonus, and I was too old for my parents to get it. We live in an age during which a man who has a way with a woman will get a bonus from the government in the sense that his wife receives a cheque from the government to help raise the children. If anybody in this country is discriminated against, I suggest it is the bachelor. Unlike the minister, I can make no claim to having a way with women. I should like to find out from him something about his attitude toward this bill. I have asked housewives what they think about it in order that I might be able to make some comments on what they believe should be included in a bill of this kind. I have found that wives who feel they might lose this baby bonus cheque are very indignant. If the minister does not think this is the fact, I suggest he go out in the country and talk to these people.
I have often suggested to these women that their husbands are making good money, and have asked what difference the change in this measure would make to their income position. I have been told that these women consider this money as theirs, in comparison with family money. They budget on the basis of receiving it. I suggest

April 19, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
that once you establish a precedent by allowing a wife a separate form of income, she will be very unhappy if you take it away. Perhaps this is a social problem, but if the minister is going to take away the baby bonus he better pass a law requiring husbands to give allowances to their wives to replace this lost income. I heard one woman, in the presence of her husband, suggest that if she was not going to get the baby bonus he would have to give her so much money. Perhaps the minister would consider some appropriate change in the legislation to this effect if he intends to remove this particular income from the pocket-books of these women.
Let me talk for a moment about the universality of legislation we have before us, or the lack of it in this particular case. The question is selectivity versus universality. The government is not being consistent in its approach to this particular problem. The Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) and the Minister of Manpower (Mr. Mackasey) are both involved in this field and they insist on universality, yet the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) emphasizes selectivity. There is inconsistency here, and I cannot understand why, if universality is good in respect of unemployment insurance, it should not be good in respect of the baby bonus. The minister should discuss this matter with the Minister of Manpower. Perhaps the other ministers would come into this Chamber and discuss this particular aspect of the legislation. We have heard the minister of health arguing in favour of selectivity. I should like to hear what the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Manpower have to say with regard to their preference for universality. If one can argue in favour of universality on the one hand, why could the same argument not be applied on the other? This is a reasonable request. We should have some consistent approach by government in these various measures.
The cost of living has increased by leaps and bounds and we are only now getting around to increasing the baby bonus for some people. We are going to take it away from others. I do not know whether you have children, Mr. Speaker, but I certainly do not. However, I am sure you can appreciate the problems of a housewife in clothing and feeding children. I have been asked on many occasions by housewives how much I thought it cost for children's clothes, and how much it cost to pay a babysitter to look after the children while the housewife went out to work to increase the family income. I was frankly horrified when I was told of these costs. These people do not have grandmothers who will take care of the children for nothing as used to be the case; they now pay for such services. The fees charged by babysitters are often high enough that these people have to pay income tax on their earnings. I suggest the cost of raising a family is tremendous, and often even too much for those with better than average incomes or two incomes in a family.
I was discussing this matter with a young couple in my constituency. The young chap said he would rather have an increase in his exemptions for children than a grant or increase in the baby bonus. I suggested that might be alright for him because he had a fairly adequate income but would not be suitable for those whose income is not adequate, and that a baby bonus increase would be more realistic. There is a great deal of interest among the people of my constituency in this bill. As a bachelor, I

naturally did not pay as much attention as I might otherwise have to this particular measure, but when the news reports about it came out, and after wives had a chance to consider them, I know they became very concerned. They are particularly concerned as to how this measure will affect them. Naturally, those in lower income brackets who will receive an increased grant are happy about this measure. I suggest they need that additional money and I commend the minister in this regard. However, those who will receive less or nothing at all will not be happy and some awkward political problems may develop for the minister. I should like to listen to a number of women asking him questions about this particular legislation, and I should like to hear the answers he might give.
Let me refer to the administrative problems involved in such a measure as this. The government will have to decide which people in which income brackets will receive money and which will not. This reminds me of the story about a farmer back in my part of the world who had a hired man. One day he went to town and gave the hired man a job of sorting potatoes into three different groups according to quality. The hired man, who normally is an excellent hard-working individual, was all played out when the farmer returned. The farmer asked him why he was all played out and the hired man replied that it was because of all the decisions. I suggest that the administrative cost in respect of a situation of this nature will outweigh some of the advantages derived from the money saved by not paying those who have larger incomes.
It seems to me a plan should be quite simple in its construction so that everybody can understand it. Anyone looking at the different clauses in this bill, trying to determine what they mean and how they will affect him, will find difficulty. For instance, farmers ask me whether it is gross income that is involved and I tell them that, logically, it should be the net income. Some of the confusion I believe comes from what I would call the administrative problem in respect of different levels of income. There would not be this problem if we had the universality concept because every one would receive the benefit. The point has been made today that awkward social problems are involved in a community where people have to prove income. I think this is unpleasant to all of us. One does not always like his neighbour to know what his income is, although it might be evident in some cases. I like to think we are moving toward a classless society. It would seem that the reverse is the case. When we do things of this nature, we introduce an old concept about those who have and those who have not. This is something from which I believe we would be wiser to move away.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) on the motion for second reading on March 24, the thought crossed my mind that I was listening to the best condemnation of the policies of the present administration I had heard in quite a long time. Last night as I listened to the debate and observed the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the former Minister of National Health and Welfare, now the
April 19, 1972

President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), shall I say skulking around the vicinity of the Chamber, I thought that perhaps the minister, along with his colleague, was realizing the mistake he made in introducing this bill. I have had a good deal of affection and respect for both these ministers to whom I have listened and whom I have watched in this House over a period of years. However, I have been wondering just what has been going on in the back of their minds. I am convinced both of them realize this bill is a very basic mistake.
I would say frankly to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is here, and to the President of the Privy Council if he were here at the present time, that my respect for each of them would increase very substantially if either or both of them were to resign from the government of which they are members on this very issue. I think they realize this bill is a step backward, a step not in keeping with the best traditions of the Liberal Party. Indeed, so far as I am concerned, the action which has been taken by the government in introducing this bill confirms something which has been growing in my mind during most of the years I have been in this House, that is, that actually the real Liberals are becoming fewer and fewer within the ranks of a party which calls itself the Liberal party of Canada. Over the years, the party to which I belong and its predecessor have been associated in the minds of a great many of the people of Canada with what is often referred to as a welfare state. That term, in the minds of some people, at least in this country, has rather an unpleasant connotation. Actually, it has been difficult for those of us who belong to the party to which I belong, those of us who consider ourselves to be democratic socialists, to make clear to the people of Canada that we are the party which is unalterably opposed to the welfare state.
Many spokesmen of this party over a long term, and I cite such members who are sitting here in front of me as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), have made many eloquent speeches and have fought many battles on the question of the level of poverty which exists in this country. They have argued that effective measures should be taken to deal with it. Many people have tended to equate that concern for poverty and that concern for the things which happen to people who are poor, particularly when they suffer from accidents or ill health or other misadventures, with an advocacy of the welfare state. I think this one particular step taken by the present government drives home the difference between the position we take in this party and the position of the government. It is now becoming abundantly clear that the advocates of the welfare state, with all its unpleasant connotations, are the people who sit on the government side of the House. They believe in welfare for the rich as well as for the poor, and they want the rest of us to shoulder the burden.
I believe that point was made very well a short time ago by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), when he dealt very effectively in my opinion with some of the nonsense that was being peddled by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme). It is quite true, as the hon. member for Waterloo said, that the hon. member for Montmorency is an eloquent speaker even when one has
Family Income Security Plan
to listen to a good part of what he has to say through an interpreter. I did listen to that speech, and despite its eloquence, I have to say it sounded like a worn-out phonograph record. I have listened to it time after time from people who supported the present government and some of its predecessors when welfare measures of this type were introduced.
I listened to speeches of this type, for example, during the great fanfare when the Liberal administration under Mr. St. Laurent introduced such acts as the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act. After studying the fine print, we found these welfare measures meant, as someone said, that one had to be confined to a stretcher, so far as disabled persons allowances were concerned, and unable to lift more than one finger.
We have listened to this kind of debate when we have had arguments about the levels of benefit that should be paid under the War Veterans Allowances Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, under the Canada Assistance Plan, and indeed to a certain extent under such measures as the Canada Pension Plan which was introduced with fanfare as something which would provide a pension as a matter of right as a result of contributions paid into it. It is only now beginning to register on some of the people who thought they had accumulated pension rights under the Canada Pension Plan that it, too, has its social welfare aspects. If anyone accepts a casual job and earns more than $75 in any one month, his pension is reduced accordingly.
It does not matter where one turns in the record of legislation brought in under governments calling themselves Liberal, we have this building of what many people describe as a welfare state. In distinction to that, there have been one or two measures introduced which, in my view, did not have welfare state implications. One of them was the universal Old Age Pension Plan and the other was the family and youth allowances plans.
When the minister introduced the bill, he said, and I quote from page 1133 of Hansard of March 24:
With this bill, two universal payment plans are being replaced by a family income security plan based on the guaranteed income concept.
One could argue whether what is in this bill could be equated with a guaranteed income concept, but I do not intend to launch upon that particular argument at this time. What I am trying to emphasize is that in this bill as well as an earlier bill with which we dealt in respect of the freezing of old age pensions and the introduction of what the government called the guaranteed income supplement, we have abandoned the trend which some of us hoped might be expanded by the present government toward universality. Because of the way this measure has been developed, we have moved further in the direction of providing, under the auspices of the present government, welfare for the rich and welfare for the poor with the mass of people in between footing the bill. I suggested that the minister, in his speech, had really condemned the general policy of the government to which he belongs. I think one of the figures in his speech which, to me at least underlines this, is the statement that he made in regard to

April 19, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
what he refers to as the impact of the FISP proposal. On page 1134 he is recorded as saying:
Full benefit under FISP will go to 1,249,000 families, or 35.5 per cent.
That is a straightforward statement from a minister of the government indicating that 35.5 per cent of the families in Canada are at the income level of $4,500, with perhaps a little above that for those who have large families. That is an admission of the general results of the policies of the government which have left 35.5 per cent of the families in Canada able to qualify for full benefits under this plan. That is an indication of the tacit acceptance of the government of the perpetuation of this welfare state concept, and an indication that apparently they are satisfied that from those in the middle income brackets they will have to take funds to support 35.5 per cent of the families in Canada.
I am trying to assess this in relation to the impact it will have on many of the people in my constituency who go out into our mountainous wooded hills and harvest the products of our forests, who process those products through the converting plants into lumber, plywood, shingles, or pulp and paper. These people work hard and, it
might be suggested, earn good money, at least by the yardstick that is set as the income level at which it is appropriate that family allowances should be paid under this bill. Those are the people who are going to realize suddenly, when this bill becomes law, if it does, the real difference between those of us who believe in a state that is a place where people have an opportunity to make a full contribution toward increasing the wealth under arrangements which will equitably distribute that wealth and the members of this government who offer no leadership in ensuring that all people have opportunities for employment at decent levels of income. This government is content simply to take away benefits from the children of those people in order to pass them on to others who are either unemployed, under-employed or employed at low levels of wage in other parts of the country.
I believe you are indicating that it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, April 20, 1972