1972-03-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts-Mr. Reid.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Speaker:: Last week, a number of bills were proposed for introduction to the House. The Chair expressed reservations about certain procedural aspects of those bills. While three were then accepted for introduction after serious consideration, seven were held in abeyance. On Friday last, hon. members were given an opportunity to express views on a point of order which queried whether these bills might not affect the financial initiative of the Crown. A number of members participated in the interesting procedural debate and I have now had time to study their arguments.
The hon. member for Skeena suggested that the bills in question proposed to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and argued that they do not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown. The hon. member suggested that if in fact all these bills or any of them are found by the Chair to affect the Crown's prerogative in this respect, the rule should be disregarded as being archaic. The hon. member will appreciate, I am sure, that the Chair can hardly be expected to disregard a rule that is so fundamental. If in respect of any of these bills the Chair is convinced that the financial initiative of the Crown is in fact affected, it has no alternative but to set them aside. That is the conclusion which I have reached in connection with three of the seven bills in question.
The bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Broadview purports to be an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. In fact it is a bill to amend the Income Tax Act. Clause 1 repeals section 158(2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, but clause 158(2) repeals section 10(l)(h) of the Income Tax Act so that in fact clause 1 of this bill should not set out that it repeals
section 158(2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act but that it repeals section 10(l)(h) of the Income Tax Act. The Unemployment Insurance Act says that benefits are taxable but the purpose of the bill is to make benefits nontaxable and to make workmen's compensation also nontaxable. This to my mind is purely taxation legislation and is not acceptable unless initiated by the Crown.
The bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West also purports to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act while in fact in my view it is an amendment to the Income Tax Act. The purpose of the bill according to the explanatory note is to make unemployment insurance non-taxable when the benefits are received by Indians living on a reserve. This of course affects the taxing initiative of the Crown and is out of order.
I have the same reservations concerning a bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West. That bill proposes to change the method of payment of that part of claimants' benefits which is to be deducted at the source as taxable income. This again to my way of thinking deals clearly with tax legislation and as such is irregular unless introduced upon the initiative of the Crown.
I have extremely serious reservations about the four remaining bills. Generally speaking, these bills tend to increase the benefits payable under the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act or to extend the period during which benefits might be payable under the law.
The question is whether legislation providing for such additional payments affects the financial initiative of the Crown and requires as a condition precedent the recommendation of the Crown. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has argued that amendments have been allowed where the purpose was to relieve individuals of taxation rather than to impose a tax on someone else. I do not disagree with those rulings which were made in committee; I point out, however, that they were amendments and not new initiatives as in the present case. Citation 265 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition is the authority to establish that distinction.
I am more impressed by the argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and other hon. members that the moneys required for the payment of proposed extended benefits would not come out of the consolidated revenue fund and that they would not in any way affect the balance of ways and means. It is certainly a moot question whether these legislative proposals would in fact, in one way or another, directly or indirectly impose an additional burden on the public treasury and thus infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown. One might well wonder whether government legislation tending to alter the benefits payable under the act or perhaps tending to shift the burden from one group of contributors to the other should not be accompanied by

March 27, 1972
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971
the usual recommendation. I somewhat suspect that some hon. members in this House would insist that this kind of legislation, if it were sponsored by the government, should be accompanied by a recommendation.
At the same time, there are precedents, particularly in British parliamentary practice, which tend to indicate that such legislative proposals, because they do not, strictly speaking, impose a tax or an impost as referred to in Standing Order 62, are outside the rule which protects the financial initiative of the Crown.
Because of the difficulty in interpreting the statute which these bills propose to amend, and because these bills, if they had been included in the original group filed at the opening of the session, would now be before the House along with all the others, I feel it would be fair to give the sponsors of these four bills the benefit of the doubt. The conclusion would be that the two bills sponsored by the hon. member for Timiskaming, that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and that of the hon. member for Skeena would be acceptable for submission to the House at this time.
However, I have an additional reservation regarding the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Skeena. This does not have to do with his use of Latin in his explanatory note but rather with another aspect of the explanatory note. It has been ruled that such notes ought to be an explanation and not an argument. The mover of a bill cannot introduce in his explanatory note the speech or the arguments he might want to present on second reading. Somehow, I feel that that is what the hon. member for Skeena has attempted in his explanatory note which to some extent is poetry. It sounds lyrical to the Chair. I strongly urge the hon. member to make his explanatory note conform more with existing practice and the form that is usual for such explanatory notes. That is the only reservation I would have in connection with his bill. I hope the hon. member will find it possible to make the necessary correction, perhaps in consultation with learned parliamentary counsel, after which the bill could be introduced. The other three bills standing in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can be introduced at this time.



AMENDMENT RESPECTING HOLIDAY PAY

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-180, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (holiday pay).


Mr. Speaker:: It is my impression that an explanation was given of this bill when it was first brought to the attention of the House last Friday.


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

William Arnold Peters: for leave to introduce Bill C-181, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (retirement benefit).


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

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-182, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (benefits at time of retirement).


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Howard (Skeena)-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act".
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena has given notice of a further bill standing in his name, an act to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. I have examined this bill and find nothing procedurally wrong with it except, again, the explanatory note which I believe is in many ways argument rather than strictly speaking an explanatory note. I would hope that by tomorrow this might be corrected and both bills standing in the name of the hon. member for Skeena might be introduced at that time.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-183, to amend the Canada Labour Code.


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


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-184, respecting the reporting of marine traffic off the west coast of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, as explained in the bill, is to require vessels approaching the west coast of Canada to make certain reports with the eventual view of providing a greater degree of safety on the west coast than there is at present.

March 27, 1972


[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. Broadbent: What percentage of total federal tax revenue was paid in each year between 1939 and 1970 by (a) individuals (b) corporations?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: The
federal tax revenues for Customs and Excise and Taxation for the period 1939-1970 are shown in the Department's Annual Reports tabled in the House each year. The revenues collected by the Taxation Division are generally shown separately in the Annual Reports for individuals and corporations. However, import records are not kept in such a way as to provide such separate figures in the case of duties and taxes.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-OFFICE SPACE LEASED IN HALIFAX, N.S.
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many square feet of office space are leased by the Post Office Department in the City of Halifax, from whom is the space leased, at what annual rental and for what period of time?
2.	How much office space is presently in use by the Post Office Department that is located in buildings owned by the federal government?
3.	What is the present total of members of the Public Service who are employees of the Post Office Department, how many of this number are full-time and how many are part-time employees, and what are the comparable figures for the years 1969, 1970 and 1971?
4.	Of the total number of employees of the Post Office Department in the Halifax area, how many are associated with local services, how many are associated with regional services and what are the comparable figures for the years 1969,1970 and 1971?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and the Post Office Department as follows:
1.	The following space is leased by the Department of Public Works for the Post Office Department in the City * of Halifax:
Area in	Annual
Square Feet Owner of Building Rental	Period of Lease
407 Canadian National	S 814.00 During pleasure
Railways
3,700	Dresden Arms Ltd.	9,000.00 4 years terminating
January 3, 1973.
8,219	Halifax Development	55,889.50 3 years terminating
Ltd.	March 31, 1974.
Questions
2.
Area in		Crown-owned		
Square Feet		Building		
116,642	Federal Building-Bedford	Row7,758	Armdale postal	Station	2,703	North	End Postal Station	3.	31-3-69	31-3-70	31-3-71	31-1-72Full Time Employees	35,437	36,455	36,980	37,836Part Time Employees	5,947	6,591	6,898	7,0214.	31-3-69	31-3-70	31-3-71	31-1-72Local Services	424	440	450	448Regional Services	90	85	71	89


CANADIAN GRAINS COMMISSION-SALARIES OF MEMBERS
Mr. Burton: What is the salary of each member of the Canadian Grains Commission?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Chief Commissioner, H. D. Pound, $23,500-29,000. Assistant Chief Commissioner, C. L. Shut-tleworth, $20,000-25,000. Commissioner, F. M. Hetland, $20,000-25,000.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT-INVESTIGATION OF REAL ESTATE AGENTS TARIFFS
Mr. Robinson: Does the government intend to investigate real estate agent tariffs under the Combines Investigation Act?


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No. Real estate agent tariffs do not come within the purview of the Combines Investigation Act


REPRESENTATIONS TO SUDANESE GOVERNMENT CONCERNING ITS UNDECLARED CIVIL WAR
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Has the government made any representations to the Sudanese Government concerning its undeclared civil war?
2.	Will the government make representation to the United Nations regarding the situation in the Sudan?
3.	Has the government contributed anything towards refugee relief in the Sudan and, if not, will it consider making a contribution towards the refugee relief program?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The government has not made any representations to the Sudanese government on the subject cited,

March 27, 1972
Questions
which evidently is in the domain of Sudanese internal affairs.
2.	The government does not consider it appropriate to make representations before the United Nations about a Sudanese internal matter.
3.	Canada does not have a bilateral aid program in the Sudan. However, Canada does contribute to the World Food Program, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and various other relief agencies which administer aid programs within the Sudan. If in the context of a special United Nations program Canada were asked to provide aid specifically for refugees from the Sudan, such request would be considered in the context of the government's multilateral aid priorities and any other considerations relevant at that time.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM
Mr. Korchinski: Under the Local Initiatives Program, in each province (a) how many applications were made (b) how many programs were turned down (c) what was the cumulative amount of the federal grants requested (d) what was the total amount granted for projects?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Under the Local Initiatives Program in each province:
(a)	Records as of March 8, 1972 indicate that the following number of applications were received: Newfoundland, 1,142; Nova Scotia, 1,009; Prince Edward Island, 258; New Brunswick, 712; Quebec, 5,215; Ontario, 2,238; Manitoba, 594; Saskatchewan, 493; Alberta, 607; Northwest Territories, 109; British Columbia, 1,323; Yukon 36; Total, 13,736.
(b)	No separate records are maintained only for those applications turned down. Records as of March 8, 1972 indicate that the following number of applications were turned down, withdrawn, or cancelled. Newfoundland, 683; Nova Scotia, 573; Prince Edward Island, 133; New Brunswick, 326; Quebec, 3,088; Ontario, 1,190; Manitoba, 373; Saskatchewan, 321; Alberta, 299; Northwest Territories, 66; British Columbia, 655; Yukon 14; Total 7,721.
(c)	Latest available information indicates the following cumulative amounts of federal grants requested: Newfoundland, $34,285,000; Nova Scotia, $29,109,000; Prince Edward Island, $6,184,000; New Brunswick, $24,015,000; Quebec, $205,487,000; Ontario, $71,042,000; Manitoba, $28,083,000; Saskatchewan, $15,910,000; Alberta, $20,635,000; Northwest Territories, $2,948,000; British Columbia, $42,141,000; Yukon $755,000; Total, $480,594,000.
(d)	Final approvals are now being processed and the last of the contracts finalized. When this is completed the total amount granted will be compiled.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-REMOVAL OF CROWN FROM BUTTONS AND INSIGNIA ON UNIFORMS
Mr. MacKay: Is the symbol of the Crown being removed from buttons and insignia of the military and, if so, at what cost?


Mr.   J.-R. Comtois@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence: No; not applicable.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-ACQUISITION FROM CHINA OF SUPERSONIC COMBAT AIRCRAFT
Mr. Robinson: Is the government considering the acquisition from China of a quantity of supersonic combat aircraft, such as the F-9 or other aircraft capable of flying at twice the speed of sound?


Mr.   J.-R. Comtois@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister on a matter that needs clarification, especially in view of reports in the press. Has the government received information implicating members of the staff of the Soviet Embassy in Canada in espionage activities?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Members of my staff, Mr. Speaker?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would never accuse members of the Prime Minister's staff of that, whatever else. I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has received information implicating members of the staff of the Soviet Embassy in Canada in espionage activities, as reported in the press?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is referring to anything recent the answer to that is no, but I must go on to say that in a matter of espionage and security information it would not be customary for any member on the government side to volunteer information publicly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Prime Minister indicate whether the government has requested the withdrawal from Canada of any members of the Soviet Embassy on the basis of alleged espionage activities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, having answered no to the first question, certainly the answer to the second question follows.



PROVISION OF EQUIPMENT BY RAILWAYS TO MEET EXPORT COMMITMENTS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement by the president of the Saskatche-
March 27, 1972

wan Wheat Pool that to meet export grain commitments from west coast ports 800 cars will have to be unloaded daily, and at Thunder Bay 1,700 daily after May 1, and that this level will have to be maintained through to November, can the minister responsible for the Wheat Board inform the House whether he has received any commitment from the CNR and the CPR to provide the equipment which would enable these levels to be maintained?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the figures quoted might perhaps even be considered minimum requirements in view of the tremendous sales prospects for Canadian grain. The Wheat Board has held discussions with the railroads and so have members of the government. We shall be continuing to hold such discussions. The railways have indicated the number of cars they are able to provide in connection with the movement of grain. The number of unloadings that can be accomplished tends to depend in part on the manner in which the system as a whole operates, the manner in which the terminals and the elevators operate. As I say, discussions are continuing. I expect to have a further meeting in a week or so with the railways and the elevator companies in connection with this matter.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Does the fact that the minister has found it necessary to call such a general meeting of the grain companies, the railroads and the Wheat Board for April 6, according to news reports, indicate that the transportation committee, which is representative of the railroads, the Wheat Board and the department, has been unable to secure adequate commitments and co-operation from the railroads to move the grain into export positions? Is that the conclusion one should draw?


Otto Emil Lang: I do not think that is really a fair conclusion. The present committee is doing a very good job to make the existing system work to the maximum. Some additional policy decisions on the part of some of the companies may be involved, and at this point a meeting at a higher level seems to be in order. There is always a danger in times like these that one part of the industry may accuse another part of the industry of causing the problem in increasing total movement. Only the opposition is consistent in always accusing the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -when we are trying to solve the problem rather than to leave people simply pointing fingers at one another.



WITHDRAWAL BY WHEAT BOARD OF OFFERS TO SELL

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether it is a fact that the Wheat Board has withdrawn all offers to sell wheat ex-Pacific until the situation at the coast returns to normal, which could be several weeks from now?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not a fact. The Wheat Board is continuing to sell wheat for many dates out of Vancouver. I have a report only ten days old of a further sale in that connection.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Selling is continuing even while every effort is being made to catch up on the backlog of grain shipments from Vancouver.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister get to a date closer than ten days ago? I am reading from a report by James Richardson and Sons, of which the Minister of Supply and Services was at one time the head. It states that all offers have been withdrawn by the Wheat Board for export sales of wheat. Is that correct or not?


Otto Emil Lang: As I have indicated, not long ago another sale was made by the Wheat Board out of Vancouver. This shows that selling is continuing for different periods and times. Of course, for the immediate period, the rest of March and the month of April, sales were made by the board a long time ago to the maximum of the handling capacity.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not seem to be able to get my question over to the minister. I asked him whether it is a fact that as of March 23 the Wheat Board has withdrawn offers for export sales of wheat ex-Pacific, or is this statement by Richardson and Sons fictitious?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman knows he should not ask for verification of a statement. He can, however, ask the question directly. The question can be asked and answered on that basis.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to give the statement prestige. Will the minister, without the suggestion that came from-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member will be the expur-gatorious member if he doesn't watch out. I ask the minister: Is it a fact that no orders are now being taken by the Wheat Board for shipment of wheat from the Pacific coast and that there will not be such orders for several weeks?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I made clear to the House before and in my answer to the right hon. gentleman again this afternoon, for a particular point in time offers are not being taken. The Wheat Board is continuing to accept offers for future deliveries of grain beyond the period of the immediate catch-up-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. A number of members are seeking to ask supplementaries, but the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar asked the first question and in fairness I think he should be given an opportunity to ask a supplementary at this time.



PROVISION OF EQUIPMENT BY RAILWAYS TO MEET EXPORT COMMITMENTS

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the minister was quite specific. Has he been able to obtain from the railways a commitment to provide adequate equipment, and has the minister been

March 27, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
able to get the kind of co-operation that is required to move our grain into export positions?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, not only is the question very specific, it is also very simple, but the answer is very complex. The railways have indicated the equipment they have available under the circumstances to move an export volume of 800 million bushels of grain. Under certain additional circumstances some additional movement of grain is possible. Our targets continue to be higher than even the present unheard of figures. Therefore we are continuing to discuss additional ways of moving grain.



PROVISION OF MAXIMUM STOCKS AT LAKEHEAD FOR OPENING OF NAVIGATION-NUMBER OF DIESEL ENGINES UNDER REPAIR

Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that stocks of all grains at the Lakehead on March 1, 1972, were down by 22.2 million bushels from stocks held on the same date a year ago, is the minister prepared to state what measures the government is taking to ensure maximum stocks for the opening of the shipping season at the Lakehead?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the last report I had from the Wheat Board indicated that the schedule they have for adding to the stocks at Thunder Bay is being exceeded. The report shows something of the order of 70 million bushels of grain in store, though that figure is now some days out of date. The Wheat Board is satisfied with the progress being made in having ready the necessary quantities at Thunder Bay when navigation opens.


William George Knight: I wonder whether the minister is prepared to state how many 3,000 horsepower diesel engines are in the Montreal yards for repair and whether or not this is having an adverse effect on the movement of western grains?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if the question refers to the CNR I am sure my colleague the Minister of Transport will be glad to obtain that information for the hon. member. I am not sure whether this information could be obtained for the CPR.



SUGGESTED USE OF UNIT TRAIN TO MOVE GRAIN TO VANCOUVER

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In light of the reply the minister gave me and other hon. members last Thursday that there were over 20 ships waiting at Vancouver, and also in light of the experience gained from the unit train which was inaugurated last November and moved over a quarter of a million bushels of grain, is another unit train of that order being made up in order to load the ships now waiting, avoid demurrage and at least try to catch up on some of our commitments?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the use of the inland terminals and the

extra expense involved if they are used in certain ways is being actively examined. I am looking forward to deliveries being made by farmers to inland terminals in the fairly near future and we will take the necessary steps to ensure that those deliveries take place. It seems to me that with the peak movement we are likely to face, as well as the immediate problem at Vancouver, the movement of clean grain in that fashion may add to our efficiency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie on another supplementary question and then will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse. We can return to this matter in due course.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether at the present time the Wheat Board has authorized the terminals at Saskatoon to take grain directly from producers in anticipation of such movement?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, for some time the inland terminals have been taking in grain on behalf of specific elevator companies which made this arrangement with the Canada Grain Commission. In addition, I have asked the Wheat Board to examine with the commission the use of these terminals as alternate delivery points for all producers, and I expect a reply on this subject from the Wheat Board almost momentarily.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
May I ask him whether farm producers' organizations have submitted any list of names of persons whom the cabinet could appoint as members of the National Farm Products Marketing Council?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the minister.
Now that he has replied affirmatively, may I ask the minister whether he will take into account the suggestions submitted by those organizations, and when will the Council members be appointed?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The answer to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, is yes, they have been taken into consideration. To the second part of the question the answer is, I hope very soon.
March 27, 1972



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ROLE OF INDUSTRIAL REFERRAL CENTRE-CONSULTATION TO ACHIEVE PRIVATE FUNDING OF PROJECTS NOT ACCEPTED

Mr. David MacDonald (Egroont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the answers given and reports issued last week by the minister, in recognition of the fact that there are some 7,000 more project submissions under the Opportunities for Youth program, and in view of the government's inability to increase very much the capacity over last year, with the likelihood that five out of six projects will be rejected, or 160,000 young people will not be receiving a satisfactory answer, can the minister elaborate on his answer to me last Wednesday regarding the use of some industrial referral centre and what kind of consultation is going on for the private funding of the many projects that will not be accepted?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the hon. member that action is being taken to that effect. On the other hand, were I to start giving all the details in reply to a question, Your Honour would have to reduce me to silence.
If, at any time, I do consider or the House does consider it important enough to justify a new statement on motions, I shall be happy to oblige.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister might take under consideration either the making of a statement on motions or taking the opportunity to make some public elaboration of this important question. In view of the fact that some 75 per cent of the students last summer found employment in the private sector, and in view of the great need for expanding employment opportunities in the private sector, would the minister say briefly whether he or any other member of the government has taken any initiative in terms of encouraging the private sector to develop some over-all plan for meeting the potentially very large amount of unemployment facing our young people this summer?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for asking another supplementary but I think the minister might assist if he would indicate, even briefly, what the nature of this consultation has been or who is taking responsibility for this important area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope this can be done briefly because normally the information sought by the hon. member would require a general statement on motions. If the minister can reply briefly he will be recognized for that purpose.


Gérard Pelletier: I cannot do so briefly, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: May I ask a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking leave to ask a third supplementary. He will be recognized for this purpose but I believe the hon. member for Gaspe also has a supplementary and his turn will come in a moment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the imminence of many hundreds of thousands of young people coming into the labour force, temporarily or permanently, within the next few weeks, can the minister indicate when, and in what form, we might have some elaboration in terms of an answer to these important questions?


Gérard Pelletier: What is the question exactly? I heard the dissertation but not the question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: When may we have an answer in some detail to the questions I have been putting?


Gérard Pelletier: Soon.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-MEASURES TO LIMIT PARTICIPATION TO CANADIAN CITIZENS

Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In connection with the 1972 Opportunities for Youth program, do relevant regulations provide that American or European youths in Canada on a temporary basis or on holidays are not eligible for that program? And what steps will be taken to ensure that this program will benefit Canadians exclusively?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the regulations provide that it applies to Canadians or legal residents of Canada. Besides, the publicity and the criteria of the program did mention that condition. If the attention of our agents is drawn to a litigious case when they visit the projects, steps will then be taken to straighten out the situation.
* *
*



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN NEGOTIATIONS ON PROBLEMS OF INDIANS AND ESKIMOS

Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding the protest march held by 200 Indian youth in order to draw public attention to the plight of Indians, Eskimos and Metis in respect of the James Bay hydroelectric development. Is this the kind of negotiation taking place when the parliamentary secretary stated that the Indians in the James Bay area are

March 27, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
negotiating for themselves with the provincial government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member is not suggesting that his question is in order in procedural terms. The hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Brewin:: My question is addressed-


Raymond Rock: I should like to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps it might be better if I recognized the hon. member for Lachine first so that he may rephrase the question and put it in proper form.


Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker, is there any federal participation in negotiation of the Indian and Eskimo problems in the James Bay area?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question on several occasions.
The Quebec Indians are now conferring with the government of that province in connection with the James Bay development. I keep informed regularly about the talks. Indeed, last week I met the president of the Indian Association as well as the president of the New Quebec Indian Association and I can assure hon. members that we are closely following the situation. However, at the present time the Quebec Indians have asked us not to intervene.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since the federal government has direct responsibility for looking after the best interests of the Indian people, will he inform the House why he or the government is not taking direct action in the negotiations that are taking place on behalf of the James Bay people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, because we are less paternalistic than the previous government used to be.



AIRPORTS


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In suggesting that if 51 per cent of the people to be served by the new international airport in Ontario do not approve of the site the proposal will not be proceeded with, is the Prime Minister envisaging a plebiscite, or how will he determine the views of those concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement about the 51 per cent is a fair view of democracy. With regard to a plebiscite or referendum, the hon. member knows they are not customary in our form 
of government. We have a representative form of democracy and, as far as I know, the representatives of Ontario, particularly the Toronto area, have indicated they are in favour of and support this airport. If enough M.P.'s from the opposition wish to indicate to me that they are against the airport in the Toronto area, I will consider other ways of determining where the majority lies.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning discussions with the French government regarding ownership of underwater territory between St. Pierre-Miquelon and Nova Scotia. Can he advise whether negotiations are in progress with the government of France on this matter, and what is this government's position in respect of what Premier Regan calls outrageous French claims?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been negotiations from time to time and we hope they can be renewed in the near future. The French have suggested the boundary should be on the basis of equidistance. Our position, which of course is the same as Mr. Regan's, is that "special circumstances" justify another boundary giving a smaller area of shelf to France. If a settlement satisfactory to Canada cannot be reached on the basis of negotiation, this government would be prepared to refer the matter for arbitration.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say whether on this very important matter he is keeping in touch with the embattled premier of Nova Scotia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on such matters we do keep closely in touch with those who are likely to be affected.


FISHERIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government, either through the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, officially protested the recent incident of intimidation by a Russian vessel of a Canadian ship off the east coast of Canada? If so, what was the response to that official protest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will take notice of that question on behalf of the minister responsible for fisheries.
March 27, 1972


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I ask it with a certain feeling that the Prime Minister has neglected to protest this incident officially. Has the Canadian government under any type of surveillance the 75 Russian ships that are now launching naval war on the marine resources off the east coast of Canada? If so, has the government made an official protest? This is not a light question as might be indicated by the rather jocular response across the way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me everybody was listening; I know I was. In any event, the hon. member should ask his question.


John Howard Lundrigan: There are a lot of people not paying attention to this type of problem off the east coast of Canada. Has the federal government, through the Prime Minister or the minister, in fact made any protest to the Soviet Union with a request to discontinue this type of slaughter of our marine resources off the east coast of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been making representations to many countries, not only the Soviet Union, about the need to conserve the fisheries resources, of which my hon. friend is so well aware. But, as I said earlier, our purpose is try to get co-operation. It is not the satisfaction of making protests that interests us. What we are trying to do is to get better conservation of the marine resources surrounding our shores.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should recognize the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock and we will return to the hon. member for St. John's East later.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION OF SIMILAR PROGRAM FOR AGED
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Having in mind the report of the task force on the Opportunities for Youth program, which contained a recommendation that there should be opportunities for all people including senior citizens, is any consideration being given at this time to the recommendation of the task force, namely, the establishment of an opportunities for age program?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, that part of the report was not really included in the terms of reference of the task force. Therefore, it is a recommendation which is outside the scope of the study. We know that a similar recommendation had already been made several months ago by the task force on youth.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Those questions are now being studied and considered by the government to find adequate solutions.


FISHERIES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs similar to the question I directed to the Minister of Fisheries on Friday. Has the government protested the incident during which three Russian trawlers in a gang fishing operation very nearly collided with a Canadian trawler and the subsequent refusal of the Russians to discuss with the Canadian fisheries patrol vessel the rules of the road in fishing off the east coast? Has there been a specific protest to the Russian authorities regarding this incident and their refusal to discuss safety precautions with our people?


Mitchell William Sharp: I myself have not entered any such protest. It may have been that some of my officials have discussed this with the Russians; I will try to determine that.


ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN DRAGGERS IN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: My
question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he indicate to the House whether he has been made aware of the intensity of activities of foreign draggers in the Gulf of St. Lawrence off the southwest coast of Newfoundland, and what action is being taken in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will make inquiries, Mr. Speaker. I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, has been very actively following these events.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, but I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that there are 15 or 20 members seeking an opportunity to ask questions and we should give them an opportunity to do so.


INCIDENT WITH RUSSIAN SHIPS-CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES-SUGGESTED REPRESENTATIONS BY PRIME MINISTER
John Howard Lundrigan: My supplementary question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact the only protest came from the director of fisheries for the province of Newfoundland, would the Prime Minister himself consider a primeminis-terial representation to the Soviet Union to try to emphasize the dangers involved in the incident referred to and, second, the impact of that kind of attack on the resources of the east coast of Canada?

March 27, 1972


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister, with his accustomed diplomatic attitude, would speak to the representatives of NABET I am sure he would convince them to the same extent that he does the members of this House.


DISPUTE WITH NABET-NATURE OF NEGOTIATIONS- GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE TO SETTLE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question that does not make accusations against the employees of the CBC. Can he tell us whether the negotiations which have been resumed are taking place under a mediator or conciliator and whether the CBC as the employer is making some moves to make possible a settlement between the two parties?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: None of the answers given to this series of questions support the premise put forward by the hon. member.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that we should embark on a debate. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, he might be recognized for this purpose. Then we will try to go on to the next subject.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order brought on by the remark by the Prime Minister that no answers given to hon. members in respect of these incidents support the premise. If the Prime Minister would check with the Secretary of State for External Affairs he would find that the latter referred to the fact that the Minister of Fisheries was following this incident closely.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course that is not a point of order; that is debate. We have to try to proceed. A number of hon. members and right hon. members are waiting for an opportunity to ask questions.


John Howard Lundrigan: I would simply ask the Prime Minister whether he would officially protest the recent incident to the Soviet Union and as well express the concern of Canada about Russian fishing activity off the east coast of Canada at present?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have nothing to add to the answers that have been given.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, mine is a non-controversial question directed to the Secretary of State. It has to do with the NABET strike and the degree to which that strike is interfering with the pleasure of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are being denied hockey broadcasts. Has the minister brought to the attention of the CBC that there is an aroused antagonism to what is taking place, and can he advise whether the CBC is prepared to relieve the viewers of Canada from being held up to ransom on the part of the employees of the CBC?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, there was no need for me to bring these facts to the attention of CBC management which is very well aware of them.
As for the action taken to bring to an end those labour problems within the CBC, I made a report to the House on every stage. I must say that right now negotiations seem to have resumed but, and I repeat what I have said several times, it is not for the government to settle that matter or to negotiate in place of CBC management. The latter has that responsibility.
[Mr Lundrigan.]


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I already answered this question last week. It is understood that in this meeting that has been referred to as "a summit meeting", it is the union management and the CBC management that have met around a table. But, as far as I know, this did not eliminate the role of the mediators who are still at work, as far as I know.


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that negotiations have gone on for many months and that after the conciliation board report that the CBC would not meet except on the basis of that report, and in view of the fact that the minister answers to parliament on any question dealing with the CBC, may I ask him whether it is not appropriate for him and the government to take some initiative in getting these negotiations going on a proper basis instead of the feet-dragging that has taken place for a year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member's question is at the same time a suggestion and an argument.


DISPUTE WITH NABET-MEASURES TO AVOID LOCKOUT
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
Could the minister say what steps the government intends to take if the members of NABET impose a lockout to other CBC employees?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the hon. member will recognize that this question is hypothetical and cannot be put in these terms.


Georges-J. Valade: May I clarify my question, Mr. Speaker?
I should like to ask the Secretary of State what are the steps that the government intends to take should the union members involved in the labour dispute with the CBC decide to keep the regular CBC employees from going back to work?


HHHHHHHI
[Stage Direction]
March 27, 1972
Mr. Speaker:: Even rephrased, the question is still hypothetical.


REQUEST FOR OUTLINE OF POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES OR STATEMENT FOLLOWING PRESIDENT NIXON'S VISIT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of the reported statement of President Nixon that very basic disagreements exist between the United States and Canada. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to outline to the House and to the people of the country in a precise way what these disagreements are?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, no secret that in some of the trade negotiations we have not been able to conclude agreements which would be acceptable to both sides. As to the issues themselves, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on previous occasions has indicated what certain irritants were on their side and on our side. I think, as he has added quite properly, that it would not be in the interests of the negotiations from the Canadian point of view for me to say now what the Canadian government is offering and what the United States does not think is enough.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister be prepared to make a fuller statement following the visit of President Nixon as to what disagreements continue, or are we to assume from the statement made over the weekend by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that this whole thing might be put over until after the election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that would depend, of course, on when the election takes place. So far as we are concerned, we have made offers to the United States which we hoped would settle this matter. They have not been formally accepted. The door is still open so far as we are concerned and, I am sure, so far as the Americans are concerned too. Informal contacts are being made to know when the negotiations might take place. Once again, whether they would take place before or after an election, or whether they would be successful or not, depends on a hypothetical event about which I know nothing.


WELFARE
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning Bill 49 of the British
Inquiries of the Ministry
Columbia legislature which would give the provincial minister complete power to decide who gets social assistance and who does not. Have the minister's legal advisers now told him whether or not in their opinion this bill violates the Canada Assistance Plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure exactly of the terms of the hon. member's question. If the hon. member is asking merely whether the minister has received an opinion, perhaps in those terms the question is acceptable.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Not formally, Mr. Speaker, but I am under the impression it is not clear at all that any type of illegality has taken place. This is due to several factors. I would advise the hon. member for one thing that my information-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the minister will appreciate the distinction I made. I think the hon. member appreciates that she cannot ask whether legislation is legal or illegal but can ask whether an opinion has been received. I believe the question is in order to that extent.


John Carr Munro: Without making specific reference to the legality or otherwise of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, I would advise that the legislation is in the process of being amended. The word "absolute" is being taken out of it, and the minister's discretion is subject to the regulations made under the act. Subject to further clarification, I have nothing more to add.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he would try to get further clarification and make a statement in the House about the whole situation before the Easter recess?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make a statement in the House before the Easter recess if at all possible. Whether this is done by statement or by answer to another question perhaps could be left to me.


AUTOMOBILES-IMPORTATION DUTY FREE FROM PARENT COMPANIES IN UNITED STATES- JUSTIFICATION FOR HIGHER PRICES TO CANADIANS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As the government allows Canadian branch plants to import duty free cars and parts from their parent companies in the United States has the minister, since taking over his portfolio, carefully examined the reasons put forward by these Canadian branch plants to justify the fact that they are charging an average of 8 per cent more to Canadians than to Americans for exactly the same model cars, particularly in view of the fact it takes no more today to manufacture or sell a car in Canada than it does in the United States?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I have got the message the hon. member wants to give me, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary-

March 27, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Malpeque. The hon. member might allow the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Malpeque since we have just about reached the end of the question period.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CENTENNIAL
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Could he say whether he has reached agreement with the government of Prince Edward Island as to what is appropriate in the way of a contribution to the celebration next year of Prince Edward Island's centennial of its entry into confederation, and whether the financial grant which is made by the federal government is made upon condition that it be spent for certain purposes or is an unconditional grant?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I really think this kind of question normally ought to be placed on the order paper, but as it has been asked perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the amounts were awarded quite some time ago, or rather determined. The amount has been determined. As for the program on which it will be spent, I had an opportunity to discuss the matter last week with the premier of Prince Edward Island and the promoters seem to have an extremely interesting and diversified program, which will be announced in due course.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has dismissed as mythical the suggestion that government decisions are influenced by corporate contributions, would he have any objection to tabling the list of the 95 corporate contributors to the Liberal party and, if not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot ask a question in those terms. That question is clearly out of order. The hon. member is asking a question of another hon. member in a capacity other than his official capacity in this House. Again I do not think the question asked by the hon. member is in order.


John Edward Broadbent: Maybe I could rephrase the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a supplementary.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the Prime Minister provide to the House, either by a statement on motions or in some other form in the near future, a list of all those corporations

that are also supporters of the Liberal party and that have received-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have ruled that that type of question is clearly out of order and I cannot allow it. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: The point of order is that some dozens, in fact more than dozens, of corporations receive millions of dollars annually from the taxpayers of Canada. This has continued for many years. The question I am posing, and I would like to know why it is not in order, is that I would like to get from the government a list of those corporations that have received financial assistance in any form-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is asked in the wrong forum. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings had a supplementary to a previous question and perhaps he might be allowed to ask his supplementary. I assume it will be in order. I have to apologize to a number of hon. members in the back rows who have not had a chance to ask their questions. Perhaps we might all make an effort tomorrow to give an opportunity to our distinguished colleagues in the other rows to participate more actively in the question period. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


AUTOMOBILES-IMPORTATION DUTY FREE FROM PARENT COMPANIES IN UNITED STATES- JUSTIFICATION FOR HIGHER PRICES TO CANADIANS
George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as always it will be in order. My supplementary question relates to the fact that neither I nor anybody around me could hear the answer given by the minister. I have an idea that he said, "I got the message." If that is correct, does that mean he will look into the matter immediately and report to the House as soon as possible?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation that the hon. member describes. He does have a point, and we are reviewing it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is never my position to question a ruling of the Chair, but I do believe a very important issue was brought to the attention of hon. mem-

*HHHBHHHHHHHHHUHnni
March 27, 1972

bers this afternoon regarding the site of the new international airport in Pickering Township. I believe that the Prime Minister's statement, holding out hopes to so many people as to the possibility of there being another choice, does demand some clarification, particularly in view of the fact the choice of this site was made in conjunction with the province of Ontario. I would hope that perhaps the Prime Minister would indicate whether he did, in fact, discuss this matter with the province of Ontario before making that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have previously sought to ask supplementary questions by way of points of order, and I have suggested that this is irregular. Hon. members may feel that during the question period they do not have a chance to ask their questions or supplementary questions. Obviously, if a large number of hon. members are anxious to ask questions, and we have only 40 minutes, there will be some who will not have that opportunity. I doubt very much that it is regular, when we have gone more than five minutes beyond the end of the question period, for hon. members, on a point of order, to seek to ask a supplementary, even when it relates to a matter as important as the one brought up by the hon. member for Hamilton West. Having said all this, if, of course, there is unanimous consent to allow the minister responsible to reply to the hon. member's supplementary question, which I repeat is not a point of order, the Chair has no objection to allowing the minister to reply to it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the question has now been asked. I am not sure to whom it was directed, but if someone will reply to the hon. member's question I will then call orders of the day.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is supplementary to the questions asked of the Prime Minister earlier regarding the site of the Pickering airport. In view of the fact that when this decision was made it was made in conjunction with the province of Ontario, did the Prime Minister have any discussions with the authorities of the province of Ontario responsible for this decision subsequent to the statement made by the minister when this whole matter was aired, and prior to the time the Prime Minister made the statement, whereby he gave some indication-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -that if in excess of 51 per cent of the people disapproved-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that not only is that not a point of order but I would not think it qualifies as a legitimate question that could be asked during the question period.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let me rephrase it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can shorten the question to the point where the Prime Minister can answer yes or no. Prior to the time the
Family Income Security Plan
Prime Minister made the statement regarding the 51 per cent, did he discuss the matter with the provincial authorities, and did they give him authority to say that if 51 per cent of the people did not want it there would not be an airport?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, my authority is the constitution of Canada.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I put a question to the hon. Secretary of State. Because of the way I worded the question, there might be some ambiguity as to its substance and I should like to clarify it in order to prevent prejudice to the members of NABET.
I did not intend to suggest that the union could force a lock-out, but rather that the CBC could do so in regard to its employees.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, March 24, 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.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned last Friday I was saying that the first duty of a responsible government is to provide the funds necessary to ensure satisfactory operation of the economic life of Canadians. I know that some people may accuse me of again talking about money. In fact, did the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) himself not talk of this all through his speech-and yet, none of my colleagues will blame him for it.
I said before that we live in society in order to be assured of a greater opportunity for comfort and wellbeing, and I must add that the government which society has chosen is in a sense a board of directors which manages common funds and which should govern from above as a sovereign and supreme adjudicator, with complete impartiality, and only in the interest of the common good and of justice.
In 1971, the members of our society produced through their work about $95 billion worth of products, but because of the modernization of our means of production and of our association, the buying power distributed between the members of society during this production cycle is lower than the volume of production, which shows that there are surpluses.
The board of directors-i.e., the government-should therefore distribute this surplus equitably by issuing new funds-that is, by increasing the volume of buying power in the same proportion and at the same rate as Canadians

March 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
increase production-in order to ensure a satisfactory economic life for Canada.
Society is a type of federalism within which an economic system is established. Ours is a capitalist system which is not bad in itself, but has been distorted. Its structure, though, is sound. However, order is violated when capital always receives the largest reward and the people are but a means of enhancing still more the money capital with no regard for the rights of human capital, of human dignity or of the social nature of economic activity, or even of social justice and common good.
To be true to ourselves and just towards others, Parliament has the duty to recognize that in order to effectively participate in this capitalist system, everyone should necessarily enjoy a basic capital, that is a capital related to his individual and family responsibilities, otherwise we contribute to a greater distortion of the capitalist system.
This system is in need of reform and it will be reformed by men of order with and for us, or else without and against us.
If accepted, the economic and social security systems proposed by the Social Credit party of Canada would already amount to a most worthy reform since Canadian families would receive a supplementary capital enabling them to share in Canada's plenty.
We have already shown that due to the increase of the cost of living, it has become necessary to increase to $5,000 the tax exemption for a married couple plus $500 for each child, and to $2,500 for a single taxpayer.
We have also shown that it would be possible to give family allowances of $250 a year for children 17 years of age or less and to make available an initial capital of $1,200 to those 18 and over.
Since participation in our capitalist system requires capital and most younger people do not have any besides whatever money they can save on their salary and since it is presently impossible for a great many to find a job, there is no more efficient means than the one we propose. And they can double, triple and produce even more with that capital which is practically a minimum, and the whole country will benefit from it.
This formula would accomplish the opposite of what welfare and unemployment insurance do, both of which force recipients to remain inactive and unproductive.
Achieving this plan will require money and in order not to strip those who are working and paying taxes, there is only one way: our sovereign government should regain the right to cash in on our credit by setting up a national credit board which would guide the Bank of Canada. This way we would have a truly social credit instead of a debt credit as is the case now.
High finance servants sometimes retort that if that were possible, it would have been done in other countries. Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out a fact that happened in the United States a little more than a 100 years ago, under president Abraham Lincoln.
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 the 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 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.
This is why we are clamouring for a monetary reform while it is still time. I am sure that our reform proposals in this field would lead to a restoration of our social economic system and put an end to the jurisdiction conflict in fiscal matters between the federal government and the provinces. And more time could be devoted to other sectors of administration, in the best interests of all Canadians.

Mr. ]ames A. McGrath (St. John's East): Mr. Speaker, there are serious discrepancies between the bill presently before us and the bill on the same topic introduced in the last session. That, I think, was Bill C-264, and it died when the session ended. In that bill, the government committed itself to increasing the benefits on May 1, 1972. Every week from the moment that bill was introduced in September of last year, until the end of the session, members of the House asked the government to bring that legislation forward. I am thinking particularly of mv colleaeue from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) in this regard. On behalf of our party, he put forward a number of suggestions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) that this bill be brought forward so that parliament could deal with it, since there was a general disposition in the House to pass it. Certainly, every member of this House was in favour of that legislation. Why the government did not proceed with the bill remains one of the great mysteries of this parliament.
March 27, 1972

The government has introduced a similar legislative proposal designated as Bill C-170 in the present session. There are a number of departures from provisions contained in the old bill, of which the most serious is the one to which I am about to allude. Under the bill now before the House, the government has discretionary power as to when the provisions of the bill regarding the payment of the new benefits will be implemented. Frankly, I am not happy about this, because I do not trust the government. I have already said that I do not see why provisions such as those this bill contains could not now be in force. The government has no legitimate excuse for not bringing them forward. There is no reason why families in Canada, especially the lower income families, should not now be enjoying the benefits of this bill. Consequently, I fail to understand why the government has refused to commit itself to a target date for implementation, as it did in the bill introduced in the previous session.
The government wants to leave the door open, so that proclamation of this legislation, once it has been passed by parliament, can be kept in abeyance until the election is called. Then, payments could be made to families in Canada a few days before the next federal election. I consider that to be the real motive behind that particular change in the bill, and it is regrettable. I feel that the needed benefits under this legislation should now be going to families in Canada, many of which desperately need these increased benefits.
In September, 1958, the Economic Council of Canada reported:
Poverty in Canada is real. Its numbers are not in the thousands, but the millions. There is more of it than our society can tolerate, more than our economy can afford, and far more than existing measures and efforts can cope with.
I have just read an excerpt from the Economic Council's report on poverty, published in 1968. Obviously, the poverty problem was too large and, indeed, too painful to ignore. On May 21, 1968, in Stratford, Ontario, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised during the election campaign that new financial plans he would make would be directed at the poor. It is interesting to note that, as a first step in fulfilling this promise, the government directed the Deputy Minister of National Health and Welfare to undertake a review of existing social policies. His report was accompanied by a series of recommendations, but unfortunately that report was never made public.
By November 30, 1970, two and a half years after the election, the government introduced a white paper on income security. It contained three main proposals, the first of which recommended a doubling of family allowances for all families with incomes of less than $4,500. Those with incomes between $4,500 and $10,000 would receive allowances on a sliding scale. Families with incomes over $10,000 would receive nothing.
On the basis of Bill C-264 introduced in the previous session, that being a bill similar to Bill C-170,1 sent out a circular to constituents of mine living in the rural parts of my district. I asked them to tell me by return mail the number of children they had and the size of their existing family allowance cheques. I said I would calculate for them, on the basis of the bill then before us, how much they could each expect to receive in new benefits if and
Family Income Security Plan when parliament passed that legislation. About 90 per cent of the people who responded to my survey qualified for maximum benefits, because their income level kept them below the requirements set out in the bill. Of the 10 per cent who could not expect to receive maximum benefits, payments, in the majority of cases, would be cut by only $3 or $5; that is, if you were over the income ceiling, benefits would be reduced by 33 cents for each $100 of income over that ceiling. Thus, since the incomes of those people perhaps were $1,000 or $2,000 over the income ceiling, benefits would be reduced by, say, between $3 and $5 per month.
However, Mr. Speaker, the point is that only a handful of people were to be cut off completely because their incomes were so high. A very small percentage, as I say, were to be cut off completely because their income level was so high that they could not expect to receive benefits. This group formed a very, very small percentage of the whole. I admit that Newfoundland is probably unique in this respect. We have large families. Statistically, I think, the largest families in the country are to be found in Newfoundland. Probably, the percentage of our population under 16 years of age is the largest in the country. I think one can include Quebec in these figures, although I am not sure. So, most families with large numbers of children could expect to benefit from this legislation and receive substantially increased payments. Also, Mr. Speaker, the increased payments would represent a substantial supplemental source of income for many of these people. Many of these families, largely because of their size and often because the breadwinner has been unemployed, unfortunately have had to depend on welfare payments made under the Canada Assistance Plan. As I say, these increased benefits would represent to them an important supplemental source of income. For them, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is an absolute necessity.
Although there have been some improvements in legislative proposals, the government seems to have dragged its feet on major recommendations. In replying to the white paper, the National Council on Welfare said that the government still has not shown a social philosophy which is directed towards ending poverty in Canada. I submit that comment for the consideration of the minister, in order that the government can develop that philosophy, can develop an over-all plan to do something about the serious matter of poverty in this country.
Although the Economic Council of Canada issued its report on poverty almost four years ago, the family income security plan which was drafted late in 1970 and was to revise the Family Allowances Act, is still being changed at this late date. I do not doubt that by the time we get to the committee stage with this bill, there will be further changes in the form of government amendments. That seems to be the pattern this government has followed with legislation introduced in this House. No attempt has been made to sort out the problems that will develop under the family income security plan as a result of certain provisions of the Canada Assistance plan. I am not at all satisfied with the minister's references to this aspect. They were far too limited, bearing in mind the scope of the problems that could develop.
1168

March 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
Under the Canada Assistance Plan, and the minister knows this, the provinces are entitled to lower their rates of welfare assistance to families. They can lower these rates in proportion to the higher family allowance payments that will be made under this program. There is a great danger of that happening. The minister has not been able to satisfy the House that the provinces will not indeed be tempted to do just that.
It is rather interesting to note that the Canada Assistance Plan, which is one of the main social programs of the government, has been the subject of study for some considerable time. The provinces have made a number of representations to the government at federal-provincial conferences. Indeed, a number of representations have been made to the government in this House, asking for changes in the Canada Assistance Plan. For some strange reason, the government seems loathe to do so. One can only conclude that the government lacks an over-all social philosophy, an over-all sense of direction as to exactly where we are going with regard to the problem of poverty which we have in this land of plenty.
According to the Economic Council of Canada, there are five million Canadians whom they have designated as living below the poverty line. In this regard, it is rather interesting to note that large families constitute the majority of the poor in this country. Of those who are designated as poor, 23.3 per cent have families with four or more children under 16 years of age. That group represents by far the largest portion of those who qualify as being poor under the definition of the Economic Council of Canada in the province of Newfoundland.
Another aspect that concerns me, and this was alluded to by my colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), is the eroding effect of inflation on the social welfare payments. People on fixed incomes, people who depend to a disproportionate extent on family allowances and that kind of social assistance as a very important part of their income, suffer most from the erosion of the dollar by inflation. These are the people who really have to suffer from the consequences of inflation. It is interesting to note that since the initial dollar amounts for family allowances were set in 1945, when the average weekly wage in Canada was about $32.50, the average weekly industrial wage has increased more than four times that level. In 1970, the average weekly wage in Canada was $132.72. However, in contrast to this more than 300 per cent increase, the average family allowance per child has only gone up by 15 per cent since 1945.
Therefore, simply to restore the original relative relationship of family allowances to wages, the proposed maximum FISP payments should be even larger than the $180 a year now proposed for ages 0-11 and the $240 a year proposed for ages 12-17. Rather, it appears that the maximum annual FISP amounts needed to restore the shrinkage over the years in the relative size of these baby bonus payments would be at least $257 and $334. In each case, the proposed FISP maximum payment amounts are less than 75 per cent of these updated amounts. As a result, far from representing an advance and breaking new ground, the Family Income Security Plan will merely restore part of what has been lost because of inflation and

even then, because of the selectivity in the scheme that will cut off families in higher income brackets, only some will be able to regain the lost ground.
There is another way of viewing the erosion of the family allowance dollar since the 1945 inception of the plan, and that is to look at the effect of inflation on the family allowance dollar from that date. Between July, 1945 and September, 1971, when Bill C-264 was introduced into the House of Commons, the Consumer Price Index had more than doubled, reaching 230.7. If the amount of the baby bonus cheques had kept pace with this rise, the payment for a child, for example age 11, would have risen from $7 a month in July 1945 to $16.15 a month in September, 1971. Instead, a child aged 11 will be receiving, if and when Bill C-170 in its present form and with the same payment schedule is finally passed, a maximum of $15 a month, and most children aged 11 will be receiving much less or nothing at all.
I would like to get back to the relationship of this bill to the Canada Assistance Plan. I do not think enough has been said about that. The Canada Assistance Plan contains provisions that, unless remedial action is taken before FISP is enacted, could undermine completely the objective of the bill before the House. The only way we can be reassured in this regard is for the minister to undertake to negotiate with the provinces to obtain an agreement with them that there will be no reduction in welfare assistance. The problem in a nutshell, as I already said, is that under the Canada Assistance Plan, the provinces are entitled to lower their rates of welfare assistance to families in proportion to the higher family allowance payments these families will be receiving under this proposed legislation. There is nothing in the present plan to stop them from doing that.
Under the present Canada Assistance Plan, many provinces find it an increasing burden to meet their commitments. In my own province of Newfoundland, the 50 per cent portion of welfare payments which the province must pay represents a very disproportionate part of our budget. My province finds it very difficult to continue to assume this burden. We must bear in mind that we have the highest rate of unemployment in the country. This is a direct consequence of the federal government's failure to implement proper policies to combat inflation and to implement proper policies to combat regional disparity. It is because of the shortcomings of federal policies in this regard that Newfoundland has a higher rate of unemployment than any other province in Canada and, consequently, we have a much larger proportion of our population on welfare than any other province.
Under Section 2(b)(iii) of the Canada Assistance Plan, there is a provision that the provinces, in determining the degree of need and arrangements for social assistance to applicants for welfare, shall take into account all income maintenance payments through unemployment insurance, old age pension security, Canada Pension Plan and Guaranteed Income Supplement schemes. However, it is optional for the provinces to take into account family allowance and other schemes; this is a decision for each individual province to make. Because of the exceptionally high welfare payments that many provinces are forced to make because of unprecedented high unemployment, we
March 27, 1972

wonder how many provinces will be tempted to take advantage of that provision which exists in the Canada Assistance Plan. Apparently none of the provinces now include family allowance payments in calculating income for purposes of assistance. However, it is possible and, indeed, highly probable, that after the family income security plan becomes law, and higher benefits are paid to larger families, several of the provinces will do just that: they will include family income security payments as part of a welfare applicant's income and will reduce social assistance payments correspondingly. This is especially likely to happen in the case of the poorer provinces.
Not only does the new family income security plan fail, in my opinion, to close the gap between the buying power of the allowance in 1945 as compared with the present buying power of the family allowance cheque, but in future the gap may become even greater in the absence from the plan of an automatic escalation clause in accordance with which payments would increase as inflation takes effect in the future. Although the present bill, unlike its predecessor, contains a clause providing for an increase in benefit levels and payments as the cost of living increases, the procedure is not automatic. I believe it should be. After all, we do not know who will be minister when the present minister leaves office.
A matter of this kind should not be left to the discretion of any minister. After all, regardless of the extent to which these men may be socially committed or how conscious they may be of the need, they will still have to persuade their colleagues in the cabinet of the necessity for granting increases. I feel, therefore, that the bill should contain a clause making the escalations mandatory. The lack of an automatic escalator clause in the present legislation means that neither benefit levels nor benefit payments take into account the eroding effect which inflation will exert in the future. Only a few days ago the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission stated that inflation was still a very serious problem. And inflation will continue to be a serious problem. Consequently, we feel it is unforgivable on the part of the government to fail to take this fact of life into account when drafting legislation designed to end poverty and make it easier for families on low incomes to live.
Since 1961, personal income per capita has almost doubled, rising from $1,613 to $3,092 a year. This does not mean that fewer people are living in poverty. Inflation has considerably eroded the buying power of the dollar in the last ten years. Though personal incomes have risen, cutoff lines for both maximum and partial family income benefit payments are stationary. If personal incomes double again in the course of the next ten years, increasing numbers of people will find themselves disqualified in respect of FISP payments, their incomes having risen above the stationary cut-off lines. Yet many of these people may still be defined by Statistics Canada or the Economic Council of Canada as living below the poverty line.
I do not object to the ending of the universality aspect of the plan. Until Canada reaches the stage at which we are prepared to co-ordinate all the social welfare activities of our various governments in the field of family allowances,
25104-15 J
Family Income Security Plan
old age pensions, blind persons pensions, veterans pensions and so on, and put some order into the chaos which presently exists by agreeing to some kind of guaranteed income arrangement, or negative income tax, if that is more acceptable, I have no quarrel with the government's proposal to end the universal application of family allowance payments. I say this because there are families in this country which do not need these family allowance payments, while there are other families who desperately need an improvement in their position, and I have in mind the majority of the poorer families.
It is interesting to note that two of the ten provinces already operate their own supplemental family allowance programs. I presume that negotiations have taken place in this connection between the federal government and the government of Quebec. I believe the minister referred to this. But I wonder whether discussions have taken place with the government of Newfoundland with respect to the supplemental program operated by that province. It is understandable, and in many instances necessary, that provinces should supplement federal social welfare programs, thereby exercising their constitutional option in this field. Since 1966, Newfoundland has provided a benefit amounting to $15 per year per child attending schools other than trade schools or universities. In 1967, the Quebec government also established a provincial program to supplement family allowances in respect of all children below the age of 16.
In conclusion, I trust that when he replies to questions during the clause by clause study of the bill at the committee stage the minister will reassure us on these points. I trust he will tell us, for example, that he has received commitments from the provinces that they will not exercise their option under the Canada Assistance Plan to reduce welfare payments proportionate to the increase which may be provided under this program. I hope he will be able to tell us, also, that the plan will not interfere with existing provincial programs such as those in effect in Newfoundland and Quebec, or with programs which may be contemplated by other provinces. Finally, I hope that the minister, who I believe to be personally committed to this principle, will be able to tell us in general terms when we may expect to see all the social welfare programs in Canada co-ordinated to the point at which we shall be able to take that final step which I believe to be so necessary, that is, to bring in some form of guaranteed income. In my opinion, this is the only way in which we can end poverty in this country.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, we cannot vote against this legislation, but I must say we shall not vote for it with the degree of enthusiasm we should like to show in connection with a program which purports to provide an increased measure of family security for children in this country.
It is a little like your feeling toward a leaky umbrella in a heavy rainstorm. You have to use it because it is the only protection available, but you sure wish you had an umbrella without holes, one which would really do the job.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A great statement. I will remember that.

March 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan


Winona Grace MacInnis: In our view this is a very shabby substitute for an adequate system of social security, and before I finish I hope to explore a few of the holes through which I believe the rain is bound to enter.
The hon. member who preceded me, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), said that he did not object to the doing away with the universality feature, because until such time as we could have a co-ordinated guaranteed income system we would probably have to put up with the selectivity system. I would point out to him that this bill is a retreat from the principle of universality that we have been moving toward over the years. It is a retreat from the concept of a Canadianism that could stretch from coast to coast and embrace every citizen, without regard to race, class, place or creed. Under this concept of universality, which up to a certain point in Canadian history we had been achieving, people pay taxes according to ability to pay. This is measured by their income. Universal benefits they receive without distinction. These benefits are then taxed back according to ability to pay of the recipient, as I say, measured by their income. It is simple, it is uncomplicated, it is fair and it works.
I remember that the old age pension legislation began in a restrictive way. Originally, the pension was $20 a month payable at age 70, and there was a means test. This test is now politely dignified by use of the term "selectivity". Over the years pensions were made universal, and this was finally achieved in 1951. Indeed, this universality was gradually broadened, as we know, to include people within a lower age bracket, until finally those who were 65 received the pension. Then began the restrictions which I will come to in a moment.
What this universal pension meant in terms of freedom, independence and human dignity was wonderful to behold. Prior to the universal old age pension, prior to even the partial pension, our elderly people during the years which preceded the great depression were forced to go to court to prove their children were not able to support them before they were given any public funds at all. Many of our elderly people were mortified at doing this. They were ashamed and hurt that they had to take their children to court and rob those children's families in order to get funds so they could receive support, if the court so ordered.
Finally, as a civilized country, we got to the stage of saying that this must not be; that the people who had built this country had a right to be independent, free, to have their dignity preserved and protected by a pension of their own. Then, later on we introduced family allowances. We went to the other end of the age scale and said that young children have a right to be independent and to be helped financially in the same way; that their parents have the right to bring them up properly and preserve their health, wellbeing and dignity. Thus, we instituted the family allowance program, children's allowances, on a universal basis.
Over the years there has been practically no case of cheating or dishonesty. I know this is a fact, because each year we question the officials before the health and wel-

fare committee and this is what they tell us. While this method of universal family allowances provided a measure of security for our children, it also provided for their mothers a recognition of the value of the service they gave. I shall come back to that a little later.
It now seems that this government is determined to turn universal legislation into class legislation. I know the government dignifies it with the term "selectivity", but selectivity requires a means test. It means that people will be degraded and demeaned, that they will be marked with a stigma just as horrible as the stigma that marks those who have to live in the high rise ghettos built for people on low incomes, ghettos in which it is so terrible for families to live. The government uses honeyed words to disguise the sharp sting of means test legislation.


John Carr Munro: It is not a means test, it is an income test.


Winona Grace MacInnis: This is means test legislation and no amount of beautiful English prose will ever disguise that fact from those of us who know what the universal application of legislation really means. Selectivity, means test-


John Carr Munro: It is an income test.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Let me give the minister another term. It is discrimination in the award of benefits to people. If you want real selectivity, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what kind of selectivity would be quite acceptable to those of us who want a universal pension. It would be the kind of selectivity that the Canadian Council on Social Development has been talking about. I refer to tax selectivity, to the idea of taxing people, as I say, according to their means, their ability to pay in the first place. It is paying pensions on a universal basis and taxing them back again according to the income of the recipient.


John Carr Munro: Taking it all back.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, taking it all back when a person's income is that high.


John Carr Munro: Then, what is the difference?


Winona Grace MacInnis: I will get to the difference in a minute, Mr. Minister. I am glad the minister has mentioned that point because I might have overlooked it, though I do not think I would. Nevertheless, I am grateful the minister is so considerate.
Tax selectivity was used during the first few years of the family allowance plan. The allowance was taxed back according to a person's ability to pay. My authority for this statement lies with people who at that time were bringing up families. I have never understood why, from the standpoint of sanity, efficiency and sound administration, it was ever found necessary to depart from that simple and just way of doing things. This is what the Canadian Council on Social Development meant when it referred to '.Uectivity and universality. It meant universality of payment and selectivity of taxation.


John Carr Munro: What a farce!
March 27, 1972


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, please do not let the minister tempt me. If he does I shall have to give him another wedge of quotations from the Canadian Council on Social Development, and I do not want to have to do that because I am sure he knows those quotations as well as I. If he did not he would not have paraphrased them the other day and thus avoided some rather awkward quotations. The minister knows the Canadian Council on Social Development wants universality of payment without discrimination, without a means test, and it wants selectivity of taxation according to a person's ability to pay.
I see the minister shaking his head so I cannot avoid quoting the council. They state:
Family allowances should be universal, paid to all families with dependent children as a social right thus avoiding divisiveness among families and any element of stigma. The present program has this feature but FISP would eliminate it.
Let me tell the minister that I am not paraphrasing but quoting directly. The government will not accept this principle. If you would like to know why, Mr. Speaker, all you need do is take a look at the tax bill, Bill C-169, which we dealt with recently. It provided a few dollars for the poor, many for the wealthy and a bonanza for certain forms of corporate wealth-oil, gas, and similar companies. In other words, in the tax system there is anything but equality and fairness. We had the Carter Report which recommended that people be taxed strictly on the amount of income they have. This very elaborate and comprehensive report was shoved into a filing cabinet early in the game. This is obvious because Bill C-169 does not tax on the basis of ability to pay. Even before the introduction of Bill C-169, this government was taxing not on the ability to pay but heavily in respect of those people who could least afford to pay and who were the most defenseless. The government has now found it necessary to take the steps it has taken toward scrapping universality in social security schemes.
The government's first retreat from universality was in respect of old age pension legislation. It divided old age pensioners of this country into two categories, the poor and the destitute. The government said to the poor it would allow a 42 cent increase in pension bringing it up to $80 per month, and it would remain at this figure in perpetuity or for as long as the Liberal government was in power. I hope the two will not last for the same length of time. I doubt if they will.
The appeal to destroy federal universality made by the minister over and over again when he spoke the other day is made to the heavily burdened lower and middle income groups, particularly to the one-third middle income taxpayers who are taxed more heavily now than they should be. The middle income third is taxed more heavily because this government will not tax the upper third the way it should be taxed. Consequently, this middle income group is groaning under its heavy tax burden, but the minister says to them that one place the government can really save is in that area of federal universality in respect of family allowances. He suggests the poor people need these allowances and that is where the money should go. In this way the middle income group will not have to pay as much tax. I think this is the area from which comes the
Family Income Security Plan
motivation of the government to destroy the universal feature of family allowances.
The minister introduced this bill as a strictly anti-poverty plan. I suggest that this government first impoverishes the people and then stigmatizes them. They will be impoverished because of the tax legislation and then they will be stigmatized. The minister says that the present family allowance figures of $72 to $120 are inadequate. No one quarrels with him in that regard. We all applauded his remarks that these amounts were insufficient to cover the annual cost of maintaining a child. The present figures are insufficient for this purpose as will be the prospective figures, and I will come to that later. The minister really overbid himself when he said that the primary goal of the present program is human development. I do not think this plan will do anything at all in the way of human development. It might help human survival, but that is all it will do. Forcing people with families to squeeze through the eye of the poverty needle is not the way to accomplish human development.
Let me deal with the faults of this legislation as I see them. First, this legislation divides people into categories of poor and indigent. This fault is similar to one in respect of old age pension legislation. It is mean, selective and discriminatory legislation, and we have heard how this works out in respect of those people near the borderline.
Second, it is extremely complex legislation and will be unworkable in many respects. It contains too many sliding scales and other special features which must be taken into account. The number of children, the size of benefits and the amount of income must be taken into account as well as what is and what is not income, and: there is a sliding scale in respect of payment. All these will make the legislation unworkable, as compared to the simple method of handing out universal benefits and taking them back through a nice, clean, computer technique. One can easily imagine the morass of bureaucracy this new measure will create.
Many people will be faced with these terrible and endless mathematical computations involving the number of children and other factors to which I have referred. Perhaps many of them will decide to have fewer children rather than be faced with these calculations. This family allowance legislation is so far removed from a method of adequately increasing benefits to big families that it may have the salutary effect of reducing the number of them. People may decide the calculations with which they are faced are too great in comparison with the benefits they may receive.
Third, just as in old age security pension legislation, there is no escalator clause in this bill. This is serious because the cost of living is going up relentlessly. Every forecast we see from the United States and from this country indicates that the cost of living will continue to move up in this fashion. How does this government justify the lack of an escalator clause in respect of security allowances with the lack of such a provision in this legislation?
Fourth, we must also consider the administrative cost of this program. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) estimated that this measure would require administratively 1,500 new public servants and would cost

March 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
in the neighbourhood of $12 million per year. I heard no denial from the minister who was here in the House when that statement was made. Nor did I hear a denial when the member said he calculated that under this type of program a recipient would receive about 9 cents of every dollar put aside for benefits. Great administrative armies are wonderful from the point of view of those armies, but they are pretty awful for the civilian population dependent upon these activities. This increased administrative cost will open the way for more red tape such as we have experienced in respect of other recent programs.
Fifth, let me refer to the impact of this legislation on those one million mothers who will not receive family allowances. Some 30.1 per cent of our mothers will be above the allowable level for the purpose of family allowance benefits. One might suggest they do not need these allowances. Let me point out that for many years all mothers in this country have been accustomed to these allowances. Many of them are in the low income groups and have had to use these allowances for urgent things such as food, clothing and rent. A great many mothers in the low and middle income groups have, by sacrifice, set aside the whole or a part of the family allowance cheque to pay for the educating of their children. Many women higher up on the income scale have set aside every family allowance cheque for the purpose of educating their children. For far too many women of either the high or low income group, the family allowance cheque has been the only source of ready cash which they could call their own.
This government has, through a very shortsighted, penny-pinching piece of legislation, swept these benefits from not only families in this country but from millions of mothers who have been setting aside these allowance cheques for various worthy purposes. This government has managed to alienate a good many sections of the population by its policy over the last few years, namely, the wheat farmers in the west, the fishermen down in the Maritimes, and quite a number of other people. I did not know that the government was quite prepared to adopt such a measure cutting off a million mothers across this country, but evidently that is what they are doing.
In case you might say that I am iust making a plea for the one million mothers who are in the higher income brackets, let me say that I will also urge you to look at the low-income mother who has to work outside her home, either because she is the single support of her family or because her husband does not earn enough money by himself to be able to provide for that family. Let us consider a mother getting $4,500 or a little more which qualifies her for family allowance. In order to go out to work she must hire babysitters. At $15 a week, which is certainly what she will have to pay to get most babysitters, she will be paying $780 a year. The most she can possibly get in family allowance for a child under 12 is $180 a year. What is this measure doing for the working woman who must work outside the home and hire babysitting services?
I am pointing this out to indicate that this measure is no great bonanza. By penalizing one million mothers in the upper income bracket in order to be able to get enough money for the other children, the primary goal of human

development will not be achieved. That may be the goal, but the minister will shoot so wide off the mark that he will forget where the target was. The minister may say that under Bill C-169 there is some provision for women who may get only partial family allowances for their children, but I want to point out that under the child care allowance provisions many women will be excluded from obtaining the deduction. I know that a woman in the $4,500 bracket who pays less than $500 in income tax does not qualify for a child care allowance deduction. When I was in Halifax about ten days ago a man with a family on a very low subsistence wage told me that he does not qualify for the $500 child care allowance deduction because he does not have enough income. So no one can tell me that the child care provisions in the Income Tax Act will partially make up to those families who do not receive the whole family allowance.
Let us consider a woman who is doing babysitting. Suppose she is married and suppose she earns $800 a year by babysitting. She must now declare her earnings and her husband must deduct her earnings from his exemption of $1,350 a year. On an average income that means that the babysitter's family unit will lose at least $137.50 cash on the husband's income tax return. So, the sitter assumes constant care and responsibility for a child for approximately 2400 working hours a year and earns, after her husband's taxes are deducted, only $600 instead of $800. Therefore, she receives exactly 24 cents an hour for her work. So, please do not tell me that the child care provisions will make up to those families who are unable to qualify for the family allowance.
I think this is a pretty poor deal all around. It is a hodgepodge, it is a bureaucratic jungle, it is a tangle of red tape, compared with what could be done if only this government would look at the economics of taxing people according to the amount of income they have, giving them universal, non-discriminatory family allowances and then taxing their income to the extent of taking back the whole family allowance and more if they do not need it.
The minister asks what the difference is. There may not be any difference to the minister, but let me tell him that there is a world of difference to the people who are on the receiving end because they would know that they are getting a non-discriminatory, fair amount and that they are paying for it. What they should pay is what their income indicates they must pay, and nothing more. We would not be going in for these unnecessary civil servants, the unnecessary paper work, the unnecessary computation and calculation and all the other things which only result in disguising the truth of the matter which is that this government is using measures of taxation which shield the wealthy. Then, they try to sell the poorer people on a scheme which does not protect them in anything like the measure to which they are entitled and which the wealth of this country, properly taxed, could give them.
In the Speech from the Throne which opened this session of parliament on February 17, the government included the following sentence:
In a period dominated by bigness, in an increasingly impersonal social system, one of the major challenges facing government is to remove the impression of isolation which so often surrounds men and women, depriving them of their sense of worth, of accom-
March 27, 1972

plishment, of fulfilment, and removing from them their identity as individuals.
In thinking of those one million Canadian mothers who will be excluded and those millions of mothers on very low income who are forced to go out to work and to hire babysitters, which costs so much more than the family allowance will give them, one is compelled to wonder why this government was finally driven to take this step of alienating all these women and at the same time destroying the universal character of family allowances. I hope that when this measure goes into committee and when we have a chance to look at it closely clause by clause, the minister may yet see what he is doing to the fabric of Canadian life; how this measure will downgrade and give lower priority to the job of homemaking and motherhood which we have been trying to raise in the eyes of the Canadian people. For years a small badge of status has been accorded to women in this country for bringing up their families, and a certain amount of help has been given them through family allowances. This has meant a great deal to women in all groups and in all income classes across this country. Let me beg the minister not to destroy the unity and good will of those mothers, but to use the opportunity and the second chance that he will get in the committee to make yet another modification in the family allowance legislation to bring it into line with the kind of family allowance legislation that is wanted by the Canadian Labour Congress, the National Council of Welfare, the Canadian Council on Social Development, and all the fathers and mothers across the country. Let us make this our greatest effort and experience in human growth and development.


Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about Bill C-170. May I first say I have always believed that any effort made to raise the income of the lower income group should be supported. I have also always believed that, so far as income is concerned, the goal of the individual is to reach higher. I have also believed that when increasing the income of the lower income group we should not do so by forcing a reduction in the income of those in the higher income group. I do not believe in a system where the have-nots take away from the haves until all are have-nots.
There are two areas of concern in Bill C-170. The first is the lack of an automatic cost of living escalator clause. The discretionary cost of living clause provided in the bill is inadequate, and inferior to an automatic escalator clause because it does not take into account the automatic erosion effect that inflation will have in the future. Inflation has always meant steady erosion in the buying power of the family allowance dollar and the pension dollar.
My second concern is the sliding scale by which the cut-off point is established at over $10,000. This calculation includes the husband's and wife's gross income, no matter what their expenses total. Working wives welcomed the latest tax reform legislation which provided compensation through deductions for day-care costs for their children. The new Unemployment Insurance Act provides for maternity benefits to be paid to women while they are away from work having their children. These two
Family Income Security Plan
reforms provided an incentive to women to remain on the job.
FISP takes a negative approach by penalizing working wives since the cut-off levels are based on gross family income. If a wife decides to work in order to supplement her husband's salary and help meet payments on their home, furniture, car, etc., it is more than likely that she will push the total family income above the cut-off level and forfeit part or all of her family allowance. Cut-off levels should be based on net income after deductions rather than on gross income, and the number of children in the family. I, personally, know people in the over $10,000 a year bracket who, because of their position, own a home and a car, and who must meet heavy mortgage payments and municipal taxes. After all their deductions and monthly payments, they are left in poverty so far as food and clothing are concerned.
What about a family with three to six or more children whose gross income is a little over $10,000? Surely these matters should be taken into consideration. The cut-off point should depend on how many people in a family have to work to earn the gross income. If a man is making $6,300, his wife makes over $3,800, and they have three children, they will lose an amount of $406 a year. This is actually a loss of income. It is a penalty. A couple with six children will lose $800 of income from both the federal and provincial governments. It is a penalty for those who try to reach a higher standard.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill whose principle is good. It is imperative to talk about increasing family allowances. Such an objective should have been dealt with quite sooner. Legislation providing for the payment of benefits in respect of children, Mr. Speaker, is evidently fine in principle.
I must however point out, as did other hon. members, its deficiencies: First, it is not sufficient enough since-and it must be admitted-benefits for children are increased to $15 and $20. This would add a bit to the extremely low amounts which families have been entitled to for many years, but it stills falls far short. There could be a comparison, for instance, with what a welfare service awards for the care of fosterchild.
Mr. Speaker, under the present welfare system in Quebec, approximately $40 to $50 per month are allocated for the care of a child under 6 years of age. At age 16 and 17, the amount awarded is $95 to $100 per month. Such provincial welfare legislation makes it possible for a woman-taking care of three or four children, for instance, who are not hers-to receive welfare benefits which really assist in the care of those dependent children.
But the defect in the system, and the proof of inadequacy of amounts granted under Bill C-170, is that families are faced with the following dilemma: a mother of three or four children whose income is inadequate, whether she is a widow or separated or her husband has disappeared for some reason or other, will receive from the welfare service only a pension of $150, $160, at the very most $200, which is already inadequate. She will receive family allowances of $15 or $20, as the case may be, under this

March 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
bill. On the other hand, if this mother were callous enough to abandon her children, whoever would be entrusted with their care would receive $50, $60 and up to $100 per month per child.
Mr. Speaker, one thing is sure and certain: if the mother were allowed to keep her own children, with a guarantee of adequate payments, there would no longer be the problem of this considerable number of children who now have to be placed in so-called foster homes.
It is ridiculous. I assure you that many mothers come to us as representatives of the people, telling us of their problems, saying: I should like to arrange to get rid of my children. I shall arrange with my cousin, my sister-in-law, my in-laws, to have them care for my children.
However mother-love still exists, Mr. Speaker, and the mother wants to keep in touch with her children. However, when it becomes financially impossible she sometimes has to consider such drastic solutions as parting with them, or at least pretending to do so as sometimes it is possible to place the children with the grandmother or grandfather and thus still maintain contact with them. But in such cases, the welfare service will move heaven and earth to oppose such a plan.
If there were an adequate children's allowance plan, such problems would be eliminated automatically, since mothers, parents with children they are unable to maintain decently because of an inadequate income would receive adequate allowances. This is why I find the principle is a good one but the amounts involved are inadequate.
Second, when one looks at this bill, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) put it so will, one finds it is all tangled up. I cannot get over how impossible it is to implement a bill such as this one without running continuously into problems begging description. One will understand that it is difficult to calculate income when because of the present economic instability the figures can change every week. One does not know exactly when a company will close down, thus creating unemployment. One does not know exactly when he will be a victim of the bad economic system, and even the position of those who presently have very adequate incomes is uncertain. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, the kind of trouble that can flow from the implementation of a bill such as the one before us.
I think universality always has this extraordinary advantage of guaranteeing a certain form of justice to all people. It will be said that it costs more, that it would be better to give more to those who need it and not to give to those who do not need it. Yes, Mr. Speaker, but there is an easy way to turn the difficulty. For example, why not make the benefits taxable? This way if we make those benefits taxable those who have incomes of $15,000, $20,000, $25,000 or $50,000 would have to add as income the amount of the benefits received in respect of their children and thus they would be simply paying back to the government those amounts which they received. As these amounts would be reimbursed, we could then increase them adequately and give the amount which is really needed rather than, once more, a kind of pittance, a small gratification on the eve of an election.

I think this impossible control, due to such legislation, should make us think. The minister should propose radical amendments in order to make this bill far more acceptable, especially if a distinction is going to be made to the effect that above a given income level, you do not need family allowances any more.
By making a distinction like this one, Mr. Speaker, what do we encourage? Once again, we encourage laziness, to a certain extent. In fact, we already face the problem of a certain class of people on welfare who, out of habit, and because of a wrong concept of our social legislation, would rather not work, not use their energy, not serve society, because it is easier to just sit back with your arms folded and your feet up on a case of beer and wait for time to go by.
Mr. Speaker, everybody deplores this system which results in the fact that in some municipalities, 30, 40, 50, or even 60 per cent of the people are on welfare. This is just encouraging laziness. I am not saying that those people are to blame; the system is.
When the government brings in a bill providing that from a certain level of income, the taxpayer is not entitled to family allowances, it is penalizing a worker whose energy and talents are normally used to increase the productivity of the country. The hard-working people are penalized, because they are resourceful, because they work, because they succeed with the wholesome ambition of receiving an adequate income.
This is another reason why the selective aspect of that plan is unacceptable.
I think that disregarding that indescribable chaos and impossible control, the government was concerned about one thing only-and that is regrettable-namely, the fact that it could tell the people that, from then on, family allowances would be $15 for children up to 12, and $20 up to 18. It seems that the purpose was, once more, window dressing, that is an increase which doubles or triples family allowances. This will look good but, in fact, what major change does this bring? We are still wondering.
Finally, in the analysis that I tried to make about this legislation, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that I am very reluctant to accept it because of the constitutional difficulties arising from it.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, we will not be against the fact that amounts of money will be made available to Canadian families, but this will not keep me from stressing the extreme shortcomings of this bill. Why? Because this bill deals with a matter which, by virtue of the constitution and even plain common sense, should be totally controlled by the provinces. Mr. Speaker, family allowances were not instituted because during the war Quebec had a very weak government, and thanks to some special acts, the federal government could take over various provincial prerogatives. It took advantage of the situation to gain a foothold in a field which does not belong to it.
And why does it not? I said a while ago that it is a question of plain common sense. And why? Because, in a country as vast as Canada, although basic difficulties may
March 27, 1972

be the same, there may be as many ways of understanding them as there are regions.
It may be that in British Columbia people see social matters differently from the people in Quebec. That principle must be protected, Mr. Speaker. To my mind, we meddle again and increase constitutional difficulties every time we are asked to study a bill that trespasses on ground that should fall totally within provincial administration.
Recently we were informed about a so-called agreement between the federal government and the provincial government, based exclusively on correspondence between the two prime ministers. I wonder to what extent this might be the confirmation of the wishes of most Quebecers. However I wish to stress that this confirms an infringement that has already been made and which is extended by the application of this bill. That is in my opinion a very unfortunate situation.
They will say: That is once more a very particular opinion which does not reflect reality. But I 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.
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 for concern than for celebration at the moment if the recent federal proposal is looked at closely. There is a danger that this proposal 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.
How can the Minister of National Health and Welfare know here in Ottawa the particular problems of each province? If too much money is accumulated and if it is then necessary to infringe upon provincial jurisdiction to re-allocate the surplus, there is only one thing left to do: reduce taxes.
It is a mistake for the federal government to collect too many taxes, and because there is too much money, it is necessary to infringe upon provincial jurisdictions. This is a mistake and it is merely a matter of correcting it.
A short while ago, I was saying that it is very pleasing to exert a small control of sort over what closely affects individuals. That is why we won't drop what we have
Family Income Security Plan
already taken. Family allowances and old age security pensions should be administered by provinces; otherwise, we do not seem very responsible.
That is why in analyzing this bill, I must describe clearly the situation. As for Canadian taxpayers, no matter where the money comes from, they know that it eventually comes from their purses and therefore, no present is being made to them. So, they are ready to take it, whether it comes from federal, provincial or municipal governments. They are aware that this money belongs to them. Therefore, they will take it.
Taxpayers, of course, either from Quebec, from Manitoba, or from British Columbia, will take this money particularly as it belongs to them.
When I deal with the constitutional point of view, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean that Quebecers would refuse allowances for their children, but that in terms of administration, a mistake has been made and the federal government should have simply granted provinces the necessary fiscal authority to enable them to take these matters into their own hands. Those provinces which refuse are free to do so, but when one realizes that Quebec is ahead of the federal government in this respect, and that the programs are all set up and ready to be implemented were it not for lack of money, then, Mr. Speaker, I think that this question has been given little consideration and that sooner or later, we will regret it since a consensus has emerged to some degree among all Quebecers on this subject; we want constitutional reforms and a real sharing of responsibilities irrespective of the party we represent.
I believe that the bill before us is sanctioning an abnormal situation; there is no reason why an earlier precedent should be maintained. I think that the reform will have to be undertaken sooner or later.
Mr. Speaker, I now conclude my remarks. To round up my statement, I suggest that Canadians, whatever their province of origin, do not regard this as a gift but simply as a redistribution, though inadequate, of money taken from them. Why? Because it does not emanate from where it should. For example, the Quebec government has already established through its Department of Social Affairs, a comprehensive program in the social field. Having established a well coordinated over-all system, it should have material prosperity in order to apply it. This is what is called decentralization, so that each one can provide better administration.
Mr. Speaker, again, if we had a basic financial and economic system governed by logic, common sense and respect for the individual, the human being, such problems would be inexistent. We submit that we should guarantee to each Canadian a minimum income allowing him to live decently. Then, we would no longer need that impossible control over the meager allowances being handed out to families.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, last week when I was in my constituency, I was surprised to learn from a telephone call made to my office
1176

March 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
that the government had decided to re-introduce the family allowances bill, now known as Bill C-170. It was introduced on Friday for second reading. I wonder why. According to my information, the government was not to introduce it in until after the Easter recess. Some of my colleagues who spoke in this debate on Friday seemed to think that it was introduced Decause of the Newfoundland election. If that is so, Mr Speaker, the government did a pretty poor job of getting the message across, because, apart from the one telephone call to my office, I did not hear from one Newfoundlander who was aware of the facts. I, therefore, think my colleagues were wrong in assuming that the bill was introduced at this time because of the Newfoundland election. I think the bill was held in abeyance as a political manoeuver, and it was introduced on Friday because a federal election is going to be called right after the Easter recess. I repeat, the bill has been kept in abeyance as a political manoeuver, and has been so treated ever since the white paper on income security was introduced.
When I returned on Saturday, it was obvious from reading the local papers that not much attention was given to the bill. I hope this bill will finally be passed because it will increase the benefits to Canadian children up to and including the age of 17 years. I have tried to be reasonable in making representations to the government. I feel that my criticisms have been reasonable, at least that is my opinion. Also, I do not think I have been reluctant in giving credit to the government when credit was due.
I welcome the reintroduction of the family income security bill. However, I am sure no one in this House will blame me if I am suspicious of the government's intentions this time and about how far we will get with it. Apart from any political motives, I feel very strongly that increases in benefits to children of low income families must be implemented as quickly as possible. I believe this is an important step to ensure the proper growth of our future Canadian citizens and thereby ensure a better Canada. Also, it will help in some measure to alleviate poverty in this country.
Apart from some weaknesses pointed out by my colleagues, this bill is vitally necessary because over the years all governments have failed to provide enough opportunities for Canadians or to provide for the steady development of our human resources over the years, especially our youth. This program is vital because we failed to foresee the needs of the sixties and seventies by providing a well-planned program which would contain incentives to all Canadians, especially those with initiative. In the past we have failed to provide the poverty stricken adults of today with a well-planned program for education, decent health services, recreational services and all those things that were necessary for the development of our youth of yesterday. That is why we have one quarter of our population living below the poverty line today. That is why we have reached the stage in our society where we must deal with crisis after crisis by adopting helter-skelter programs to relieve poverty, sickness, disability, under-nourishment and suffering of so many of our citizens.
The real tragedy has come about because of our failure to recognize our poverty-stricken Canadians as human beings. We have failed to recognize that we are dealing with people. The government is so blinded by technological progress and trying to get answers to the problem of poverty by computers and studies by experts who were never poor that it forgets it should be concerned about people, not punchcards and computers. That is why we have a poverty rate of 25 per cent. One Canadian in four is a member of a family unit with an income that is below the poverty line. That is why 89 per cent of low income families in Canada are headed by persons who have not completed high school. Almost half of these did not complete elementary school. The reason is that governments failed in the past to foresee the need for education.
As a result of the blindness which results from reliance on the advice of sociological experts, the government has pushed citizens out of rural Canada into the cities by false inducements. As a result of this, 55 per cent of the low income families now live in urban areas. There has been a complete lack of concern for humans as a result of our past failures. The Senate committee report on poverty points out that 27 per cent of all heads of low income families are 65 years of age or over. The reason for this is that governments in the past failed to give the senior citizens leadership, opportunity and the basic necessities for life when they were young.
I think it is worthwhile to look at the events leading up to the introduction of Bill C-170 to show the devious strategy of the government in using various social programs for political purposes. The Throne Speech of 1968, the year this government came into power, outlined what the government was going to do for the poor. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that everyone in this country deserved equality of opportunity regardless of where he lived. He also said we must provide a decent livelihood for the poor of this country. The government then produced the famous white paper on income security. Without dealing with the dribbles given to the senior citizens and the war veterans, I want to deal with the section on family income security.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

It being five o'clock, the House now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Manpower- Local Initiatives Program-Suggested ongoing program

March 27, 1972

to assist people in isolated communities; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)-Trade-Display of Canadian agricultural products at Peking fair; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Youth-Opportunities for Youth-Request for other programs to alleviate unemployment.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


James Aloysius McGrath: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of rescinding Order No. R.2673 of July 3, 1968 of the Canadian Transport Commission which gave authority to Canadian National Railways to discontinue rail passenger service in Newfoundland.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is almost 23 years to the day since Newfoundland became a province of Canada. It was on March 31, 1949, that the terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada were consummated. During the negotiations leading up to the terms of union, a number of services operated by the then government of Newfoundland were, as a consequence of confederation, to come under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. Allowance was made for the transfer of these services and utilities.
Included in the transfer was the Newfoundland Railway which was built at the turn of the century by the people of Newfoundland, at great expense and hardship, to open up the country. At that time it was a fully integrated rail service providing freight and passenger service, albeit a narrow gauge service. Term 31 of the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada accordingly made provision for the transfer of these services from the government of Newfoundland to the government of Canada. Term 31 reads as follows:
At the date of Union, or as soon thereafter as practicable, Canada will take over the following services and will as from the date of Union relieve the Province of Newfoundland of the public costs incurred in respect of each service taken over, namely,
It goes on to list the services, the first being the Newfoundland rail service.
On July 3, 1968, the Canadian Transport Commission by its order R.2673 gave authority to the CNR to discontinue rail passenger service in Newfoundland. Since the summer of 1969, Newfoundland has been without rail passenger service, the only province so deprived. As a result, our province is suffering the consequences of a most inadequate system of public transportation. There are those who would argue-I shall not fall into this trap- that a legal case can be made out for asserting that the maintenance of the Newfoundland rail service is a responsibility which the government of Canada assumed in 1949 under the terms of union. It could be said that
Newfoundland Rail Passenger Service
according to a legal interpretation of term 31, and under the Order in Council which followed, whereby the government of Canada placed the Newfoundland rail service in the hands of the CNR for operation, the government of Canada had assumed an obligation under the constitution to continue operating this service-it was merely a formality for the government to ask its agent, Canadian National, to take on the responsibilities of actual operation.
Much has been said since that order was made on July 3, 1968 by Canadian Transport Commission. I think it bears repetition to say that this order was attained as a result of a series of events which can best be described as acts of collusion between the Canadian National, the Canadian Transport Commission, the Canadian government and the then government of Newfoundland. Canadian National deliberately set out to downgrade the service for whose maintenance they had assumed responsibility in 1949. I can only conclude this was done because the CN did not want to be bothered by having to order the special rolling stock required for a narrow gauge railway, in other words a railway which did not fit into its own system. In any event, they deliberately set out to downgrade the service to the point at which they could appear before the Transport Commission and make application for its discontinuance on the grounds that they were losing almost a million dollars a year. In actual fact, they were only able to show one year in which the operating loss amounted to $900,000. Even this was open to question because of the nature of the railways accounting practices, practices which, as is well known, are difficult to understand.
For example, the total cost of the operations of the stations and the support staff necessary to keep them operating is lumped in with the cost of operating the rail passenger service. In our view, 75 per cent of this cost should have been designated as being the responsibility of the freight service division. In other words, the rail passenger service accounted for only 25 per cent of the $900,000 deficit which the railway was able to show the Commission. At one time the then president of the CNR indicated there was a move on foot to change the railway's long-standing accounting practices. When officials of the company appear before the Transport Committee of this House I shall be interested to learn whether these practices have indeed been changed; they had not been changed up to last year.
Rail passenger service was replaced by a road cruiser service, which is a fancy name for a bus service. It is interesting to note that this bus service, notwithstanding the fact that it enjoys a monopoly in the province, is currently operating at an annual deficit amounting to almost half a million dollars. In my submission, this bus service is operating at a greater loss than the rail passenger service ever did. At best, the bus service is inadequate. There have been a total of 54 accidents to date, I believe. And there have been a number of unrecorded near-misses.
Another important factor to be considered is the considerable personal inconvenience suffered by the travelling public who are obliged to stand, in many cases without shelter, waiting for buses which, generally speaking, have difficulty in maintaining a schedule. Then, there is the
1178

travel cannot compete with other modes over long distances and through sparsely populated areas. This is why the Ministry of Transport and the CTC, at my direction, have stepped up their research in this important field ... It is by no means inconceivable that out of this combination of research and testing will come ideas and new designs which will make wholly new and more rapid and comfortable means of rail travel possible in many parts of Canada, including Newfoundland.
The minister knows better than I that you do not need advanced technology to provide an efficient rail passenger service in Newfoundland. All you need is a recognition by the railways of the constitutional right of the government of Canada to provide a rail passenger service in Newfoundland. Some direction from the government of Canada to Canadian National Railways to maintain the roadbed, which has been allowed to deteriorate, and to cut down some of the curves, is required. If this were done, then according to the evidence I have it would be possible for a passenger train to cross Newfoundland just as quickly, and certainly a great deal more safely, than a bus can at the present time, even the CN bus.
So, Mr. Speaker, the matter is a very simple one. Unfortunately, most of the rolling stock has been sold abroad. However, perhaps that is a blessing in disguise anyway because it was old and outdated and should be renewed. If the decision is made to restore the rail passenger service, then obviously new roiling stock will be required. It has been proven that cars operating on the mainland road beds of standard gauge can be carried quite efficiently on the narrow gauge used in Newfoundland. But the roadbed must be properly maintained.
I could go on, as I say, Mr. Speaker, but a number of my colleagues would like to join me in this debate. They feel just as strongly as, and in some cases even more strongly than, I do about this question. Therefore, may I conclude by saying that at the present time one of the radio stations in Newfoundland is operating a network program that has sponsored a petition to be sent to the government of Canada for the restoration of rail passenger service in the province. I am referring to the program "Phone Forum" broadcast from St. John's over radion station VOCM. Within the short time of two weeks the moderator of the program, Mr. Ron Pumphrey, tells me that he has received 12,000 names and expects shortly to see the total reach 25,000 names. When he gets a sufficient number of names, it is his intention to come to Ottawa to present this petition to the government of Canada. I believe that the majority of the people in Newfoundland support our contention that the rail passenger service in Newfoundland should be restored.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate this afternoon I have no intention of trying in any way, shape or form to belittle the words of the previous speaker in respect of the discontinuance of railway passenger service in Newfoundland. As a member of the committee which conducted hearings on this matter, I travelled to Newfoundland to study the situation at first hand and I found it very interesting.
Like every member of this House, I come from a part of this country where the evolution of transportation is occurring. This evolution has been occurring literally for
Newfoundland Rail Passenger Service
years. We have all heard of the golden spike and we all know about the stagecoaches which made their final trips and were abandoned to storage in warehouses. There is a time for change in all types of transportation and we must give this fact serious consideration. Decisions must be made as to the future of various transportation systems. I submit decisions are being made in various parts of Canada in respect of the abandonment of rail service with which I do not agree. If I may digress for a moment, I should like to refer to a dangerous situation in the Fraser Canyon where an attempt is being made to discontinue part of this service. This matter will have to be given serious thought.
In perusing the information and evidence brought before the committee by many people, I found one or two points of particular concern. How many of these statements were made in an emotional vein and how many were made with a desire to keep the Newfoundland railway because of the use being made of it? It seems to me that the people of Newfoundland actually discontinued using the railway quite some time before the Canadian National Railways asked for permission to eliminate this service.
The last full year of rail passenger operation in Newfoundland was 1968, during which the total number of revenue passengers carried was 77,791. In 1969, the new CN road cruiser service was innovated. I agree with my hon. friend that this is perhaps a too fancy name for what is in fact a bus service. I say this because I have used this bus service in Newfoundland. In 1969 this service was implemented and carried 137,169 passengers. This increased in 1970 to 152,000 and in 1971 to 169,600.
There is a great deal of emotion involved in the abandonment of any traditional service. We all know about the old country stores in various areas, and I am not using that as a comparison here but rather as an example of how people cling to traditions because of emotion.


James Aloysius McGrath: You have no right to make that judgment.


M. Ervin Pringle: Perhaps we might call this the Canadian emotional railway rather than the Canadian National Railways.


James Aloysius McGrath: You have no right to make that judgment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Perhaps we could have order in the House. An hon. member who has the floor should not be interrupted.


M. Ervin Pringle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) stated there was a campaign under way in Newfoundland and that people were signing petitions. The figures he stated were very impressive, but I wonder whether the people who have signed these petitions will guarantee that they will use this service.
Amongst those who are charged with operating the various transportation systems across the country, there exists the saying in respect of these systems that you use them or lose them. I have been involved with aviation, and I know that many of the people who have signed petitions for certain services were not the people who used those services. I have a petition in my file now that I could use

March 27, 1972
Newfoundland Bail Passenger Service
as a case in point. The people who usually sign these petitions are those who want the other people to use the service.
I would be happy to support hon. members from Newfoundland in a request to the CNR to upgrade its road cruiser service. When the railway was constructed there was not a proper highway system. I would support hon. members in their effort to get better buses with better facilities, because I believe this would be more in line with the needs of Newfoundland. Newfoundland could make more use of the roads, both highway and secondary, if they were improved. I hope we can find sufficient moneys to make better roads available. This would improve the transportation services tremendously. Highways are very important to a transportation system which uses the vehicles available today. When considering priorities, I hope we will be more concerned about the construction of better highways and roads.
Let me make one point with reference to the suggestion that the Canadian government somehow failed to fulfil its obligation to Newfoundland because there was some guarantee the Newfoundland railway would continue forever and ever. That is not entirely true. Had the hon. member continued to read Term 31, he would have noted that the operative words are as follows:
-Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, is pleased to order that, effective April 1, 1949, the Newfoundland Railway, including rights-of-way, wharves, dry docks and other real property, rolling stock, equipment, ships and other personal property- the title to which is vested in His Majesty, be and they are hereby entrusted in respect of management and operation thereof to the Company on the terms in the Canadian National Railways Act expressly specified, namely, that such management and operation shall continue during the pleasure of the Governor in Council-
I should like to emphasize the last phrase, "shall continue during the pleasure of the governor in council" . I have here a very interesting newspaper article which appeared in the Clarenville, Newfoundland, Packet. We are all members of parliament here, and because there is some indication that what I will read has a political tinge I would ask hon. members to take it into consideration. The article reads:
The editor of the Clarenville, Newfoundland, "Packet" says that there are five Newfoundlanders in Ottawa who are going to be pretty red-faced should the Progressive Conservative party win the next federal election.
The five are those remaining of the six Tories this province sent to represent us in Ottawa in the 1968 federal election. Their faces are going to be red because of their present insistence regarding the CN passenger trains in Newfoundland.
Of the five, I always considered John Lundrigan to be the one who could and would be the most positive in his submission to Parliament, but it seems now as though he's been influenced by his four colleagues to get in on the "Newfie Bullet" campaign.
I wonder why our MPs keep on flogging a dead horse.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House is entitled to receive a submission from the hon. member, but it should be his submission and not that of some editor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) who is making a quotation should know the rule.


M. Ervin Pringle: I am quoting from a newspaper, Mr. Speaker, the name of which I gave. This is a very interesting statement although I admit that it may not be in keeping with the hon. member's view. It continues:
The trains are gone and good riddance. This statement should not be taken to mean that I agree with the decision of CN to terminate its rail passenger service in Newfoundland, but the decision has been made and we have not suffered too many !.! effects. The roadcruiser system can provide a good service if it can ever get operating properly.
There is a great deal more, but I agree with the hon. member that it is a little too political so I will conclude at this point.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay tribute to the mover of this motion, the very eloquent hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). He and my colleagues from Newfoundland have been valiant and vigorous opponents of any diminution of transportation facilities in their province and his motion today is just a part of that continuing expression.
As a member from another province I want to lend my support to his advocacy. I come from a province which has also lost its rail passenger service. We do not even have service to the water's edge of the mainland. People who travel by train to P.E.I. now must derail at Amherst, Nova Scotia, and come the rest of the way by bus. If they have luggage that is heavier than they can take by hand, that is too bad. So we know some of the problems. The causeway approaches to the water's edge but not the railway. I think that the expression "use it or lose it" is not a very comprehensive analysis of the transportation situation in Canada. I am convinced that the plethora of abandonments of rail services in this country is an example of outrageous shortsightedness.
Also, I believe that the hon. member who moved this motion is correct, there is the juxtaposition of the developments: one is that the carrier diminishes the service in its quality, frequency and quantity, discourages the use of the common carfier by the citizens, by the potential patrons, and then when statistics build up to indicate that it does not have increasing use, that in fact it has decreasing use, it goes to the CTC and says, "Let us abandon it". This is exactly the problem. It is a built-in development toward extinction. I have here the latest report of the Canadian Transport Commission and it begins with a rationalization of the rail service. The rationalization of the rail service is full-fledged abandonment. On page 4 we read the following:
Up to the end of 1971 the total of such applications was 69-CNR 49, CP Rail 18, Nipissing Central (part of the Ontario Northland) one, Northern Alberta one-
During the year the CNR filed 23 additional applications for the discontinuance of passenger train services and, apart from a few mixed train operations, all of its passenger services now are covered by applications.
This is the situchon which we face. Instead of confessing failure, instead of saying, "The service is not being sufficiently used; we will let the rails rust and then we will pull them up and find some other way of doing it," we

March 27, 1972

should be realizing that the railways in this country do in fact have a future and, at the same time, the imaginative zeal which preceded the first railway age should be recreated and restored at the present time.
I read every day of rails being taken up and I predict that before many of us are dead they will be laying them again because in this mobile, fast moving era-and it will become more mobile and more rapid-the transportation of people and goods by rail is a great boon to our society. We know, Sir, that today we cannot build highways quickly enough. We know that cities all over this land, large, moderate and small, are having great problems with the automobile and with finding space. Many countries in the world, instead of discarding are upgrading their rail service and encouraging people to make use of it. This is the kind of opportunity which should have been given to the people of Newfoundland, to the people of PEI and to the people at any of the extremities of this country.
Another feature for which the railways were famous was that they put the worst equipment in the remote areas of the land. I remember when many years ago the great moguls of the CNR came to Charlottetown and displayed at the Charlottetown railway station a museum car. They were impressed because one of the distinguished ladies of PEI who is in the Senate seemed not to be very excited about this. One of the CNR officials said to her, "You don't seem to be terribly interested, Senator" and she said, "Why should I be excited? The twin of this car is standing over there ready to go to Murray Harbour at two o'clock."
Newfoundland went through the same operation. The railways downgrade the facilities and then wonder why people are not excited and do not in ever increasing numbers make use of the diminished facilities. I think the hon. member is quite right and I do not think any Newfoundland Conservative needs to be red-faced or embarrassed these days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I say that if we abandon the rail system which this country built at such a cost, it will be a shortsighted policy. We will not be taking a forward step; we will be lacking in imagination and perception because we will need the rails to cope with the overload of other forms of transportation. From all the reports that I hear, and I hear a great many, the substituted service in Newfoundland is not capable of meeting the needs of those people.
I commend the hon. member for what he is doing. I suggest that all of us give thought to reversing the trend which is set out so fully in the Canadian Transport Commission report. What we have now is a sort of last-ditch stand that we hope will hold off this policy for a little while, while there is another line abandoned and then another. This sort of pay-as-you-go policy was such a colossal failure in one government department, the Post Office, that we should not be bemused into thinking that we are being somehow progressive or efficient when it comes to the question of railways. So I salute the hon. member and give him my full support. When the vote comes I will support the motion.
Newfoundland Rail Passenger Service


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Transport and Communications, I also had the privilege in 1969 to visit the Maritime provinces. During this visit we held hearings in Newfoundland as in the other provinces. The Committee received 105 submissions, of which 79 were heard. During these 15 days spent in the Atlantic region, the committee heard 125 witnesses during its 65 hours of sitting when studying transportation problems in the Maritime provinces.
One of the important submission that was brought to the attention of the committee was presented by the government of the Province of Newfoundland. This submission dealt with six major points. The first was highways; the second, maritime transport; the third, air transport; the fourth, rail transport; the fifth, terminal and storage installations and the sixth, communications.
As far as communications are concerned, as soon as we arrived in Newfoundland and in the towns of Wabush and Labrador City in particular, as a committee member, I saw very well that the main gap that existed here in Canada and particularly for the residents of this remote area, one of the major problems-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I must ask for order in the House. There are various conversations going on and it is difficult for the Chair to follow the speech that is being made.


Arthur Portelance: -one of the major problems, of which the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) is aware, I am sure, which has been brought to the committee's attention, was not so much the problem of the "Newfie Bullet", but rather the lack of communications in the area. There were complaints, particularly, that hockey games were not shown on television, or were shown ten days after they took place. With the new satellite Canada will soon be able to orbit, at least in the course of 1972, those people will see one of the problems eliminated and, like the great majority of Canadians, will have better communications with the rest of the country.
Mr. Speaker, from Labrador we went to St. John's Nova Scotia, going through Gander. At least the committee's visit to St. John's, Newfoundland was also for the purpose of hearing briefs and using the famous "Newfie Bullet". I believe we left towards 11.30 p.m., to reach a municipality not so far from St. John's but I found that the trip took quite some time. It was rather amusing. All those who took part in this historical trip were very kind, particularly the people from Newfoundland. And we had the good fortune to return by bus which is now part of the Newfoundland transport system. I personally was able to see that passengers on this bus have a definitely more comfortable and rapid system than the kind of train we had to use to get there.
I revert to the brief submitted by provincial authorities. It was prepared by the Minister of Highways himself, who insisted particularly on the developmem of a highway

March 27, 1972
Newfoundland Rail Passenger Service
network in the province. According to him, federal assistance to Newfoundland authorities was more urgent for highways than for railways. With regard to highways, shipping and air transportation, the minister stated the following in his brief:
It seems that the development of highways throughout the province will not require new services nor the extension of present C.N.R. lines. Further efforts should be made to improve storage and container facilities, in order to reduce freight rates through this new dependable method.
After an in-depth survey was made among the main users of railway transport, and because of the importance of subventions in respect of Maritime freight rates for the survival of their commercial operation, the minister recommended that in the case of the province of Newfoundland there be no provision for the establishment of an extra-regional subvention, but that the present intraregional subvention be maintained not only in respect of railway dispatch, but also for all other means of transportation.
You will note here, Mr. Speaker, that no mention whatsoever was made of passenger service in Newfoundland- and this, at the request of government authorities in that province.
On February 21, 1969, during our visit there, the St. John's Evening Telegram reported as follows:


James Aloysius McGrath: You just lost 33 seats, and you will lose all your seats down there next time.


Arthur Portelance: I am just quoting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I wish, again, that hon. members on both sides of the House would allow the Chair to follow the speech of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: It is pretty hard to restrain oneself when listening to this.


Arthur Portelance: We will wait and see what happens at the next election.

Mr. Speaker, the important points are mentioned-
Mr. Speaker, after quoting from the newspaper the government's recommendations, there is one paragraph in particular which I would like to put on the record: [English]
The government didn't take a stand on the CNR's move to replace passenger trains with its trans-island bus service. It expressed the belief that with the extension of highways in Newfoundland there would be no need for CN to expand its lines, and that the railway should concentrate on moving and warehousing of freight in an effort to lower transportation costs on goods.

Even government authorities do not see the necessity for this. And I believe that the committee recommended that subsidies for road construction apply to the province of Newfoundland and that the transport commission had

no other alternative but to provide the most efficient service to passengers from Newfoundland.
I think also that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) has mentioned figures showing that several passengers were already using the bus, rather than the train, contrary to what took place in the past. In fact, as far as I am concerned, the train has indeed been superseded by the bus.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in just about three minutes I should like to say it is a pleasure for me, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to support the motion brought in by the hon. member for St..John's East (Mr. McGrath). I also was in Newfoundland when the transportation committee visited various parts of the province and heard briefs presented to the committee.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that because we have in this country the wherewithal and knowledge with which to build large, supersonic planes, because we can build huge airports, because we can spend millions of dollars of public money to build a transportation system which should include a railway system, we should not be trying to apologize to people in certain parts of the country for not being able to provide transportation by rail.
We know very well that millions of dollars are being spent on everything except rail transportation. We know very well that the Canadian Transport Commission is preoccupied with one thing only, and that is the elimination of rail passenger service. The hon. member is to be congratulated for trying to rectify a mistake that was made some time ago when the order to which his motion refers was passed. I am certain that if we were to talk about the rationalization of rail passenger service today we would realize that it is not right to eliminate this service in any province. It should not be necessary for the people of Newfoundland to take the type of abuse they have taken since they entered confederation, as a result of the orders that have been handed down by the Canadian Transport Commission in respect of rail passenger service.
If we are really concerned about having a comprehensive passenger service in Canada which takes in all modes of traffic, we should be looking at the situation in a sane and sensible manner instead of allowing the hodge-podge of rail policy we have seen in the past. In the United States they have what they call "Amtrack". Millions of dollars are being spent there in an endeavour to find a sensible solution to their transportation problems. Perhaps in Canada we should have a counterpart of that program; maybe it could be called "Cantrack". We need an organization which would consider the efficient use of every mode of transportation. We have done everything we can. We have listened to advocates of anti-pollution measures who have come before the House and said we should spend millions of dollars in this area. Mr. Speaker, one way in which we could save money is by bringing about an efficient transportation system. This motion should be passed without further debate.
March 27, 1972


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only about two minutes because of the time factor. First I should like to express my bitter disappointment over the presentation of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), from British Columbia, and my Quebec friend. They are the first two members of this House of Commons to express the sentiments which we heard today. I wonder how members from Newfoundland would be classified if we had taken this line when the trains were taken off in the Gaspe area. Would we have been classified as anti-French, anti-Quebec, anti-Gaspe? It is a bitter disappointment to members from Newfoundland to hear representatives from Quebec and British Columbia disown their responsibility to Canada's most eastern province.
I am not going to touch upon the constitutionality or the economy involved. I want to make one point only: when our eastern province of Canada entered confederation in 1949 it brought with it hundreds of millions of dollars worth of resources. Some of these resources are being developed, but the vast majority of them, especially the resources of the continental shelf, would have belonged to the country of Newfoundland had we decided not to enter confederation in 1949. But these resources were contributed to Canada, and this area is absolutely vital to the future development of our nation. Our province is one of the last great resource frontiers in the world. We have made a tremendous contribution to Canada even if we have to look ahead, to the long run, to realize its potential.
We have not asked for special status or special consideration but just for some kind of equal status as a member of confederation. What do we get, Mr. Speaker? We see the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, quite rightfully, being allowed to retain passenger services at a loss of $15 million a year. The loss on the Newfoundland passenger service is less than $1 million a year, but my hon. friend from Quebec says the trains should have been taken off because they were poor trains. I wonder if they have ever thought of upgrading the system to a standard acceptable to the travelling public? That is what we are asking.
We are not asking to get the "Bullet" back; it has been scrapped and placed in souvenir stores all across Canada. We ask that the federal government give consideration to establishing a passenger train service that would be efficient and comfortable and would give the Newfoundland travelling public, the thousands of people from the mainland and the United States, equal treatment with the rest of Canada.
That is the issue, Mr. Speaker; not whether it was a poor train or a good train, whether it was losing money or whether it has been referred to a couple of times in the "Clownsville Packet" with a circulation of about 273. We consider we have been discriminated against. We see evidence every day in the House of Commons and from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that our province, which has half a million people and seven federal representatives, is being discriminated against. Our dissatisfaction will be manifested in a very unpleasant way unless this government starts to respond to our allegiance.
Newfoundland Rail Passenger Service [Translation]
Mr. ]acques-L. Trudel (Montreal-Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to realize during a debate how two hon. members can manage within a few minutes to present arguments on two opposite points.
I will merely say a few words because there are only a few seconds left.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) talked about security; he criticized our Canadian National Railways by suggesting at one point that the service provided in Newfoundland was not giving security. I even believe that his colleagues from the same area tried to make the same point.
I want to tell him that, before talking about security, if he really wishes to speak exclusively on railways, he should first be aware that recent articles have been published on the security of Canadian railways. Some of his colleagues are against railways because they do not offer adequate security. He suggests that we should establish a transportation service by rail instead of by bus.
When railroads are discussed, I wish mention were made of the various existing lines in Newfoundland. This evening, we heard about the bus service but no mention was made of the railway lines that still serve travellers in Newfoundland.
There is a CN railway service between Badger and Deer Lake. There are lines between Brigus Junction and Car-bonear, between St. John's and Argentia, between Claren-ville and Bonavista, precisely because those localities have no bus service.
The transport commission decided to tolerate the existence of those lines and give the people who live far from the Trans-Canada Highway the service they expect.
No reference was made either to the expenditures the province and the country would incur for developing the type of service that these people are demanding. Now, when one considers the surveys and refers to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Munro that Bill C-170, to provide for the payment of benefits in respect of children, be read the second time
[Stage Direction]
March 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, just before private members' hour at five o'clock I was trying to deal with the events that took place before the introduction of the white paper on social security. I was saying that the government was introducing increased benefits for children all across Canada; the benefits were to be given according to family size and income; they were to be forthcoming in September, 1971, according to statements in the white paper. I must say, with due apologies to the poor people concerned, that the government had no intention of increasing benefits by that date. Its intention in that regard was about as great as the power of the poor people in this country to bring this measure about.
It is obvious now that this move was as calculated as anything could be. Whoever was commissioned to come up with the program should be ashamed of himself as a parent. The cabinet ministers responsible who decided on this strategy should be even more ashamed. I do not blame the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), Mr. Speaker, because I remember that about a year and a half ago a press release was issued which indicated that six cabinet ministers of this government had refused to go along with the recommendations of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. They cut his proposed budget by some 50 per cent for social security measures. I wonder how their consciences are now-if indeed those ministers have a conscience. Mr. Speaker, was their move not all too obvious when they decided that the proposals in the white paper did not fill the needs of Canadians? And those proposals were brought in as a result of the advice of experts.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we had the Willard report, the report of the deputy minister of national health and welfare. At the same time, a study was undertaken by the Senate Committee on Poverty. It was decided to give Senate committees something to do and that committee was established. It went across the country studying poverty again; not because they were interested in human beings who were suffering in Canada but because it was politically expedient to use tactics to delay bringing in a bill which would increase family allowance benefits.
What happened after that, Mr. Speaker? The government introduced Bill C-264 in the previous session and, according to the government's political strategy, increased benefits under that bill were promised for May 1, 1972. What did the government then do? It shelved the bill during the Christmas recess. At no time during the 16 months since the white paper on income security was introduced has the government been honest with Canadians about progress in the planning of this measure. At that time the bill was known as Bill C-264.
Let us consider the negotiations with Quebec. Repeatedly, vague and conflicting statements have emanated from the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the office of the minister responsible for the bill. Now, after a delay of six months in the introduction of the family income security bill-Bill C-264 died after first reading in the previous session-Bill C-170 remains virtually unchanged despite constitutional negotiations. It now (The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger).]
appears that there is to be another delay because of the Easter recess which is to come in a couple of days.
How many times in this House have I asked the minister to bring forward Bill C-264? How many motions brought forward by my colleagues and myself have been refused unanimous consent? How many conflicting stories have been told in this House about negotiations in Quebec? Our party promised many months ago that if the bill were introduced we would ensure passage with the least possible delay. We were finally told that the bill would be introduced in spite of the ongoing negotiations with the province of Quebec. There is a word that we are not supposed to use in this House of Commons. Far be it from me to use it, but someone in the press gallery should examine Hansard of the past few months to see the conflict of stories as to what has been uttered by various people.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we need this bill in spite of its weaknesses. We need it because of the plight of the youth and our country. It must be passed as quickly as possible. I have not seen a bill introduced by the government and passed in this House which came up to expectations, in spite of the experts who draw up these bills. It is fairly obvious that there are many criticisms of Bill C-170 with regard to costs and inequities of universality and selectivity.
I said previously that I am willing to compromise for the good of the country, as is my party. I refer to the compromises between Quebec and Ottawa as contained in letters sent to the provincial premiers by the Prime Minister. According to the Prime Minister's letters to provincial premiers, the suggested system for family allowances would permit those provinces who wished to do so, to move toward an integrated system within their boundaries while maintaining certain general standards for poorer families. The federal government is willing to extend the principles involved to other income-support programs, and, if desired, a constitutional guarantee of the principles could be attempted in spite of the considerable difficulties that would be involved in making the generalized provisions necessary for a constitutional guarantee in an extremely complicated field.
The hope would be that such an arrangement would clean up the problem of social security to permit further progress in the process of constitutional review. The letters from the Prime Minister stated that the federal government would proceed with Bill C-170 in the current session and, after consultation with the provinces, would recommend to Parliament amendments to the bill at the appropriate stage.
Without going into the various inequities pointed out by experts on social legislation, the main failure of Bill C-170 is the lack of integration with other federal programs which are closely associated. An editorial in the Financial Times pointed out that the new family allowance legislation emphasises that the Minister of National Health and Welfare obviously never discusses anything with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to co-ordinate programs for the benefit of Canadians. For example, the adminis-
March 27, 1972

tration of the Family Income Security Plan is quite unrelated to the administration of other schemes such as unemployment insurance and income tax.
The Family Income Security Plan requires a new set of forms to be submitted to a special branch of the bureaucracy. Recent legislative changes have increased, but not consolidated the red tape and bureaucracy of income tax, unemployment insurance and now FISP. The principles of FISP are at odds with other social security schemes. For example, the government has opted for universality in medicare and unemployment insurance, but selectivity in FISP. Also, the "reformed" Income Tax Act has established uniform treatment for social benefits, but not FISP which allows tax free income.
Another example is that the Canada Assistance Plan contains a provision that, unless remedial action is taken before FISP is enacted, could undermine the object of the program to fight poverty. The problem is that under the Canada Assistance Plan the provinces are entitled to lower their rates of welfare assistance to families in proportion to the higher family allowance payments these families will be receiving.
Under clause 3(3)(b) there is provision that the provinces in determining the degree of need and arrangements for social assistance to applicants for welfare shall take into account all income maintenance payments through unemployment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan and guaranteed income supplement schemes. However, it is optional for the provinces to take into account family allowance and other schemes: this is a decision for the province to make. At the present time none of the provinces calculate family allowance payments as income for the purposes of social assistance; but it is possible they might, especially the hard pressed, poorer provinces. In all these ways the lack of integration of the FISP plan with other government programs and legislation means that the total package has a haphazard and sometimes contradictory effect.
Before five o'clock I spoke of the various other objectives of the bill. I said that I believed the Family Income Security Plan would provide benefits for the children of Canada up to 17 years of age to develop their education and allow a proper upbringing. The failure of past governments is the reason so many people in this country are today living in poverty.
I therefore urge the government to bring Bill C-170 to a successful conclusion as soon as possible. I hope the government will indicate its sincerity by bringing about increases in family allowance payments without further delay, and that the minister will be equally sincere when dealing with all the clauses in committee and properly amending the inequities that exist so that a meaningful effort can be directed toward improving the situation of our disadvantaged children in order they can be good citizens in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, we have already heard several viewpoints on Bill C-170, but it is not possible to examine the bill without considering the
Family Income Security Plan
actions the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) agreed to take toward Quebec.
The Prime Minister's proposal means precisely that if a province wishes to initiate its own family or youth allowances program, Ottawa is willing to make the necessary arrangements, and I quote:
-provision will be made for the federal scheme to be modified by a federal-provincial agreement so that the amount of monthly benefits, the levels of income at which the reduction of full benefits commences and the rates of reduction to be applied will accord with the standards of the provincial scheme. This will mean that the provincial legislation, within the ambit of certain limits related to national standards, will determine the design of the federal program operative in the province.
This provincial legislation will unfortunately be subject to some conditions.
The sharing option will be open to a province where its expenditure, apart from any funds raised by it through tax abatement provisions, is at least 15 per cent of the combined expenditures of the two governments for family allowances.
Bill C-170 provides that allowances paid in respect of youths shall be at the expense of the federal government, but if a province wishes to establish its own plan, like the province of Quebec, it will have to pay at least 15 per cent of all amounts paid as family allowances. This means that the province will have to tax its people by at least 15 per cent more than the other provinces in order to apply its plan under the provisions of Bill C-170.
Table 29 of the federal government's estimates for 197172 show that, for the 1971 fiscal year, Ottawa paid some 160 million dollars in family allowances in the province of Quebec.
Finally, Quebec will have to spend at least $25 million more than this amount, tax the residents of the province of Quebec accordingly, if the provisions of this bill are to apply, according to the Prime Minister's letter.
There is also another condition. At present, the province of Quebec gets a tax abatement for the allowances paid to young people of 16 and 17. According to the proposals of the premier of Quebec that abatement will disappear, because, in the letter from the Prime Minister of Canada to Mr. Bourassa, dated March 9, it is stated, and I quote:
It is proposed that such an option should be open to a province where the provincial expenditures on the allowances, apart from any funds raised by the province through tax abatement provisions, is at least 15 per cent of combined expenditures on family allowances by the two governments.
Mr. Speaker, that letter from the Prime Minister of Canada to Premier Bourassa is quite clear: provinces will have to pay at least 15 per cent of the total amount of the allowances paid by the two governments, and this supplement that Quebec will pay cannot take into account the tax abatements that Quebec gets for the young people of 16 and 17.
True, the implementation of the act will entail an increase of about $150 million in family allowances. Were we to consider the other side of the coin, we could deduce that it is not that bad. However, because the rate of family allowances must be the one which has remained most unchanged in this country, as compared with increases experienced in all other areas, we must admit that if this

March 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
bill is worth being enacted, it should be somewhat modified.
For instance, appropriations for family allowances in the 1965-66 budget stood at $601,800,000 while they amount to $618,500,000 in the 1971-72 budget.
For the same year, that is 1965-66, the amount spent by the Canadian government in servicing the debt reached $1,172 million; it will exceed two billion dollars this year. One can say without fear of erring that Canadian families have been sadly neglected.
With insufficient income, Canadians are going deeper into debt. Here is what La Presse reported on March 9, 1971, and I quote:
Canadians have sunk deeper into debt with banks, stores and finance companies by almost 5 per cent in 1970, and this increase in consumer credit occurred only during the last six months of the year ... compared to 1969, when the indebtedness increased by 14 per cent-
Secured personal loans, the most important group of loans, increased from $4.1 to $4.6 billion during the year-
Unsecured personal loans ... increased from $1 billion to $1.2 billion, while loans on insurance policies increased from $660 million to $745 million.
Therefore, consumer credit totalled approximately $11.3 billion in 1970.
Mr. Speaker, I shall quote from an article in the June 16, 1971, issue of La Presse, as follows:



TWENTY-EIGHT PER CENT OF FAMILY BUDGET FOR PAYMENT OF DEBTS

[Stage Direction]
Debt is a rampant social evil in Quebec. It exceeds total government outlays of 4 billion dollars, and solely for consumer goods, according to a statement by Mr. Normand Caron of the Federation des associations d'economie familiale at the annual meeting of the Association cooperative feminine du Quebec.
The disasters, both individual and collective, it brings about are inconceivable, Mr. Caron stressed, claiming that the percentage of the family budget earmarked for payment of debts had increased from 8 per cent in 1955 to 28 per cent in 1969.
According to the lecturer, debts place the individual in a state of insecurity and tension and are often a cause of family disintegration because of conflicts they cause between husband and wife.
Mr. Speaker, insufficient incomes leave us with unsold products which are reflected in bad lodging conditions, poor clothing and many other services, including food consumption.
According to the Tuesday, November 11, 1969 issue of La Presse, milk consumption was decreasing in the province of Quebec while the government was penalizing farmers for producing too much.
In fact, at the convention held by the Quebec Industrial Milk Producers Association, National Council of Milk Producers Vice Chairman Jules Lafontaine stated and I quote:
Annual milk consumption in the province of Quebec has decreased by 100 pounds per capita compared with the level of 20 years ago.
In short, while farmers are being compelled by the government to reduce their production, it is being discovered that milk consumption is lower than the minimum suggested by the nutrition guide published by the government.

In my opinion, it would be in the interest of some departments to consult more often with one another.
It is obvious that the increase in family allowances is socially desirable. And among the 30 per cent of Canadians who live in poverty, there are many thousands of families with many dependents which deliberately, out of self-respect, have succeeded in living without the support of welfare. It is likely that a good number of those families lack the bare necessities and often have a lower family income than their neighbour who lives on welfare.
An increase in family allowances in my opinion would represent a valuable financial assistance, if I may refer to a newsletter published by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce on the structures and output of the Canadian economy. It can even be asserted that despite the $150 million increase that is provided, Canadian heads of families will not buy more with these extra $150 million than they could buy in 1965.
Indeed, this quite significant table based on the value of the dollar in 1961 indicates that the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar which amounted to 93 cents in 1965 had decreased to 77 cents by 1970.
The consumer price index being set at 100 in 1961, the table shows that it went up to 107 in 1965 and reached 129 in 1970.
This means that in 1965, to purchase one dollar's worth of production, the Canadian dollar was worth 93 cents against only 77 cents in 1970.
As the figures which I have just given you were taken from a table published in 1970, I will quote once again an article which appeared in La Presse of May 12, 1971 and which was entitled: "The cost of living in Canada has risen by 33 per cent during a 10-year period." The following can then be read and I quote:
The cost of living for an average Canadian family has risen by about 33 per cent during a 10-year period.
Statistics Canada reports that the retail price index has gone up .7 per cent in April, largely due to raises for housing, clothes and food.
For each $100 spent in 1961 for goods and services, the consumer must now pay $132.20.
Mr. Speaker, these figures show that the Canadian dollar is now worth only 75 cents and that the $150 million suggested by the Minister of Natiortal Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) have no value whatever because of the rise in the cost of living and the dollar devaluation.
Another feature of the bill now before us is the selective system to be established, a system which will compell citizens to watch themselves, to evaluate themselves, and which will invite comparisons. The poor is compared with some one else who has succeeded in getting something. It will also force comparison between those who have attained a certain degree of success and those who have failed. It will provoke jealousy between those who give and those who receive.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, through the enforcement of such legislation, the government is simply going to distribute poverty. It simply wants to take money away from families which have too little as it is.
March 27, 1972
[Stage Direction]
Thus, since a universal family allowance scheme is essential for maintaining the brotherly feelings within families as well as the community spirit among individuals, it would be in order, I think, to amend the bill now before us. It should be remembered that family allowances are not a salary but a right.
In times past, when production was insufficient because of famine, adverse conditions or floods and hurricanes, people necessarily had to resign themselves to the inevitable. They had to share among themselves since production was insufficient.
Since no one knows at the moment in Canada what to do with production, I am wondering why we are instituting a selective system for compulsory sharing. Production being sufficient, we are at liberty, as members of this House, to ask that our universal family allowance scheme be maintained.
In short, the universal scheme is maintained in respect of pensions paid to senior citizens of 65 and over. Consequently, in order to grant the same advantages to our younger people, it will be necessary that our economic life pattern undergo a transformation such that it will really be tantamount to a social organization. And I think that in order to reach this goal, many prejudices will have to be fought together with a host of selfish attitudes.
To change from the universal regime as we know it, to a selective plan will, I think, require the mobilization of thousands of people and I am convinced that the salaries paid to this new team of investigators will far exceed the total cost of a universal system.
The suggestion that a number of families can manage without family allowances is only valid, as we know, in respect of a minority of them in this country. We are also aware that the government is in a very good position, through its tax system, to fall back on those workers who receive too much. We know that very well.
Considering that we have already proposed in this House, the implementation of a guaranteed income scheme, which is inevitable in the long run, I think we should take the opportunity to implement part of this project. Whatever the salaries earned by parents, the government should normally co-operate with them through universal aid measures that will guarantee the well being of dependent children. I believe that these allowances should be scaled in such a way as to represent a substantial contribution toward the child's care and should also take into account the expenses incurred for older children. It is only necessary that we establish for our younger people a system covering the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter. This minimum is absolutely attainable given the present economic conditions of our country.
Mr. Speaker, if the young of today are tomorrow's generation, they are as much the heirs of those which have preceeded them.
And the answer in respect of the family allowances scheme comes quite simply from the fact that any person is entitled to something, by the mere fact of being born. Since family allowances are not considered as a supplement to the salary or income of the family head, the funds used to pay them should not be levied through a tax on the income of working people.
Family Income Security Plan
Family allowances are not earned income but a social measure designed to provide an equitable income for the families of workers and to remedy inequities in the present economic system. Those measures which guarantee social security are born of the commendable desire to relieve economic distress and to acknowledge the right of the children of this country to have their basic needs met.
The newborn child or the child who is growing up do not take part in the production of goods which are given to them freely. However, we acknowledge their right to a share of the riches produced. From the mere fact of being born, they are entitled to satisfaction of their basic needs. And those allowances should come not from the result of the labour of those who work in order to make a living, but only from the social fund built through the social factors of production, through the work of machines, in whose inheritance we all share.
There is more to it than that, Mr. Speaker. Since those social revenues are the result of education, of the centuries old work of machines, and of the development of techniques, there should be no discrimination in the distribution of social production. The right to social products should not be limited to only a few children in the country, because no matter what family they live in they are entitled to the things they need in order to sustain and develop their lives.
In order for the new measure to benefit the whole population, its implementation should be related to the establishment of new credits. We find that the gap between total purchasing power of Canadians and national output is growing wider from day to day.
In 1961, for example, the gross national product was $39 billion while national income stood at $29 billion. In 1971, the GNP was $95 billion while national income barely reached $70 billion. I think this difference of $25 billion is enough for us to suggest the creation of money which could be paid out to all family heads of this country. I think that before telling us it is impossible we could try it for a year. The government is making all kinds of experiments. Recently a hovercraft that will probably never hover was built. Planes that will probably never fly were built and discarded.
So, I think it is within that frame of mind that we should be proceding with this experiment of using new credit. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if tne government can afford to spend on experiments with doubtful results, surely it could afford to make an experiment which we are convinced will end up benefiting all Canadian families.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I never thought that I would be standing in my place in defence of something Mackenzie King did, but for once I am going publicly to support a measure brought in by that meandering person whom we had for so many years as prime minister of this country. When he brought into being the family allowance scheme in 1944, he acknowledged the need in our social security system for special recognition that married couples with children face circumstances and requirements which warrant income provision during the time their children are living at home. He was socially sound in his judgment that such

March 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
schemes should be brought in on a universal basis. I cannot emphasize too much the significant social relevance of having such schemes on a universal basis.
What is fundamentally involved here apart from the dollar value of the current legislation-I shall come to that in a few moments-is the principle involved in having a piece of government legislation which is doing a complete about-face in terms of its commitment of 1944 on the question of universality in social legislation: its consequences for the future well-being in particular of the category of poor family about which the government proclaims it is most concerned cannot be over-emphasized.
I wish to make three points about this legislation which bear in one way or another directly on this issue. It seems to me that by introducing the discriminatory income position basis of the family into the eligibility criteria for family allowances we are making a great mistake, a decisive about-turn in the history of social legislation in Canada. The first point, which I believe is very important, to be made on this question is that it is a socially divisive act. There can be no doubt that in the future families-I do not say this applies to all families, but to many families in most communities-will regard each other in terms of whether or not they are eligible for family allowance, exactly analogous to the way in which families now regard one another in terms of their eligibility for welfare assistance. That is exactly what the government is doing. It is proposing a measure in terms of social consequences or assistance to the family which puts family allowances on a welfare assistance basis. Some government members may deny this. I see some shaking their heads. That is precisely the consequence of the legislation. The legislation is saying to the people of Canada that if their income position is such and such vis-a-vis the number of children they have, then they may receive the family allowance. It is saying that if they do not meet the criteria, they will not receive it.
Therefore, this legislation is saying that we recognize in the form of our social insurance provisions those who have and those who have not. We are stratifying the population of Canada in terms of this age-old distinction. We are doing it in a way which was not the case under the original family allowance legislation. One of its most significant social graces was the fact that it did not discriminate among Canadians.
Apart from the negative effect this kind of division will have on adults in terms of their perception of themselves and the self-perception of their children, it will involve an act of discrimination on the basis of income between those who will receive it and those who will not. It is this, I predict, which will serve to undermine the future actions of this or any other government in attempts to provide improved benefits which are necessary for the poor in our society.
I want to state as precisely as I can my reason for believing this. I repeat that I regard this question as being of profound importance. If my judgment is right it will have a profound consequence, and if I am wrong it will not. It is a matter of judgment. What we are doing in Canada now is this: we are saying to the working people 
they are to be divided into categories. I am thinking now on the one hand of reasonably well-off workers, in which category I would place most workers who are organized in the trade union movement as well as a number of others, and on the other the working poor.
In effect, we are saying to those at the upper income level of working people that at some point they will not receive family allowance benefits. We are saying to the organized lumber workers, the packinghouse workers, the steelworkers, the auto workers and reasonably well paid people in offices, as well as elementary and high school teachers in Canada, that they are not to receive family allowances any longer. They will not receive the benefits but will have to pay for those who will. This is the social point.
It seems to me that for the first time in the history of this country, in terms of social legislation, we are about to take a decisive backward step in which people are to be asked to pay increased amounts for benefits for which they will be ineligible although they are benefits which should accrue, and have accrued previously, to all. In future years this will undermine the willingness of this category of worker to continue to pay for benefits which other people will need and will receive. I think that is the important issue here.
Up to the present we have had the support of teachers, fishermen and other organized workers in respect of extensions and improvements in the social insurance system, whether on the basis of old age security or family allowance. We had their support because they would receive benefit. As members of the community, they were being asked to pay for the well being of others and for something from which they also would enjoy some benefit. In the present legislation, by restricting the number of recipient families, however, we have taken a step which will undermine the willingness of a substantial portion of our population to continue to contribute to badly needed improvements in social services for the community.
So the government-I will come to the dollars and cents implications in a minute-in their argument that they are really providing substantial benefits for those with the lowest incomes, those who need it most in terms of the long run, and by long run I mean beginning a year or two from now, are really undermining their own position because they are working against the kind of political support that is needed in any kind of community to sustain social welfare.
Whether it is in a democracy in Canada, the United States or Scandinavia, for the vast majority of the community to support social insurance schemes they themselves must see a direct benefit to themselves. There is nothing selfish in that; it is very much a part of human psychology. You cannot expect a total giving to someone else when you get nothing in return. I think that principle of universal community benefit is in jeopardy here. We are therefore building up a potential political opposition in Canada to continuing improvements in our social insurance schemes.
The second point I should like to make is that in terms of implementing this scheme every family in Canada will
March 27, 1972

need its own little computer. Every politician in this House of Commons, or the ones who remain after the forthcoming general election, will I predict be confronted by irate citizens who think they are either entitled to receive the family allowance in principle or that they should receive it at a certain higher level. The politicians will be inundated with demands for changes, with demands to remove bureaucratic delays.
I predict that the bureaucratic foul-up that we have seen with the unemployment insurance regulations will seem like a tea party in comparison with what we will see when the family allowance legislation takes effect next fall. To repeat the point, any average citizen who spends most of his time working will need some kind of computer to make sense of the scheme with any degree of rapidity. One of the virtues of good legislation is that it can be readily understood by a non-expert. This is precisely what this legislation fails to achieve.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Wait until we see the regulations.


John Edward Broadbent: I am sure the hon. member is absolutely correct. Both he and I were on the committee that dealt with unemployment insurance and we saw the morass that came from that legislation in terms of its detailed regulations. This government prides itself so often on its business efficiency. The cost argument alone in implementing this piece of legislation should have perhaps been sufficient for not supporting it. It will be a complicated bureaucratic mess.
The third point that I should like to make bears directly on the dollars and cents issue. It is that the legislation introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) when considered, as it should be, as part of a total package of the financial measures introduced by this government with the tax bill that we discussed in the House last week, is seen not to benefit the poor in its cumulative effect nearly as much as it benefits the rich. It will be recalled that the minister and other supporters of the family allowance legislation have suggested that they are taking the money back from the rich who really do not need it. They ask us what we who are talking about the need for genuine social improvement are really complaining about. May I remind the House that if we consider the tax legislation that was introduced last week, it is the rich in Canada who are really going to benefit from the acts of this government.
I need not remind hon. members that it is quite plausible for us to expect an election this year. In 1972, what the government is taking away from the rich in the family allowance scheme, it is more than giving back with concessions in income tax. If we add the two together, the tax benefit plus the family allowance benefit, and consider who benefits most from the actions of this government in the past ten days, it will be clearly seen that richer Canadians come out on top.
I have before me a table which compares these benefits for a family with two children. Assuming that the family allowance legislation is passed-as it will be, with a government majority-and comes into effect next September 1, we discover that for 1972 a family with two children whose total income is $3,000 will have a total benefit of $216. We find that a family earning $4,000 will have a
Family Income Security Plan
benefit of	$218.19;	a	family	earning	$5,000	will	have	abenefit of	$225.06;	a	family	earning	$6,000	will	have	abenefit of	$206.19;	a	family	earning	$7,000	will	have	abenefit of	$187.68;	a	family	earning	$8,000	will	have	a
benefit of $169.47.
When we go up to a family whose income is $11,000, we begin to see an interesting development, namely, a substantial improvement in the net benefit coming from the government from these two pieces of legislation. We find that a family earning $11,000 will have a net benefit of $155.28; a family earning $12,000 will have a net benefit of $165.03, a family earning $13,000 will have a benefit of $175.02.
Let us consider a family earning $20,000. We find that under the proposed scheme, in family allowance plus tax benefits in terms of the tax reduction that was given by this government in the legislation that we debated last week, the family earning $20,000 will save $260.58; a man earning $25,000 will save $328.83; a man earning $30,000 will save $400,68; a man earning $50,000 will save $716.25; and a man earning $75,000 will save $1,153.14. A man who is eking out an existence and is able to afford only two or three trips round the world, who makes $100,000 a year, due to the generosity of this government which is so overwhelmingly concerned with the problems of the poor will save $1,611.39!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The rich get rich and the poor get children.


John Edward Broadbent: The conclusion seems rather obvious. The rich, if we define them for our purposes here as those who are earning $15,000 and more, will get more in net benefits from these two pieces of legislation in 1972 than will the poor-if we define the poor for purposes of our discussion as those earning from $3,000 up to and including $8,000. The other point to be made is that those in the middle-income range, those earning between $10,000 and $15,000, will be gaining less than the poor, which is understandable, and will also be gaining less than the rich, if we define the rich as those earning more than $15,000 a year.
To go back to the point I made very early in my remarks, it is that middle-income category of people who are very important in terms of maintaining their support for significant improvement in social insurance legislation, whether in respect of family allowances or anything else. It is this category of men and women who in the main are working very hard. These are the people earning between $10,000 and $15,000 who will feel the negative effects of this family allowance legislation and who will not benefit to any great degree from tax reductions. Consequently, these people will be increasingly reluctant to support significant improvements in social services proposed by this government by a provincial government or by government at any level.
The government expects to count on this category of income earners for support in the coming election. To be frank, Mr. Speaker, they are the kind of people who tended to support the government in the past. But their support is being whittled away precisely because the gov-

March 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
ernment is beginning to exclude them from the benefits that accrue from good social insurance legislation.
I would like to conclude by saying that in spite of the benefits that this legislation will provide for the poor, it completely undermines the universality aspect of social insurance legislation in Canada. It is a retrograde step, the first of its kind in Canadian history in this area, and therefore does not warrant support. Its benefits could be much more effectively provided by significant reform in taxation. I will not take the time of the House to go into this matter; I have spoken on it in the past as have other hon. members of my party. We believe the needs of the poor should be looked after by significant tax reform.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a few suggestions with respect to Bill C-170. Like the hon. member who preceded me, I believe that the government, in not opting to have the family allowance included in an individual's income, has made the administration of the plan much more difficult without really achieving what it set out to do, to provide something of greater value to the low-income family. It has been said many times by many people that the dollar value of a family's income is a poor measurement of how the family is able to live in our society. Nevertheless, I have to accept that the use of the income tax method is the only way in which measurement can be made of a family's income but it is only a rough method of assessing the social standard of living of any family.
For instance, in Manitoba we have always been told by the people who live in the north of the province that they should have an increased income tax exemption because of the increased cost of living in that area. It has often been said that north of 53 degrees in Manitoba each family should have an additional $1,000 a year exemption. When one has personal experience of the area, one must agree that there is much to be said for that point of view.
In a program such as this, Mr. Speaker, where a specific dollar value can be paid to every child or youth through guardians or parents it seems most likely that universality should be inherent in the plan. In order to preserve the idea that low-income families should benefit the most, it seems to me that by adding the family allowance to income and taking the normal percentage of income tax that can be deducted all Canadian citizens should have a better and fairer return with respect to their income. If we decide that further relief should be given to our lower income groups, we could do this by means of a tax cut or by a change in the income tax rate benefiting those at the lower income level who need it most. It seems to me that the method proposed by this bill whereby applications for benefit will have to be filed along with an estimate of family income is an unnecessarily cumbersome method of arriving at the figure that the benefit should be in each case.
The bill provides that families are allowed to file a revised estimate of income at intervals of four months should their financial status change, and benefits would then be adjusted. Initially, families will be allowed to file estimates of income based on last year's earnings or on earnings projected for next year, whichever is most favourable to them. I cannot imagine a more complicated system. In most cases the responsibility will fall, as usual,

on the woman of the household to make the application even though she may not always know whether her husband has had an increase or decrease in income.
Then there are families, and here I speak of farmers, whose income is averaged over a five-year period. There are self-employed people whose income may vary from nothing in one year to many thousands of dollars in another. All this will create a great administrative problem and I am afraid will mean considerable variance in the benfits, particularly those paid to people whose incomes fluctuate each year. There is no doubt that widespread administrative inequities will occur under this complicated system. It seems logical that had the universality of the program been continued, with the benefit added to family income, the money could have been just as effectively used to aid low-income groups and could have been just as effectively distributed to those who need it most.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if we give the basic old age pension to every citizen who reaches a certain age, we should also give a basic income to all our new citizens who have not yet entered the economy. I believe this bill is unnecessarily complicated and will require frequent amendment. It leaves itself open to administrative problems and considerable inequities in the calculation of payment of benefits. As has been outlined by other hon. members, when the regulations are introduced they will further increase the problems of members of parliament trying to resolve the difficulties connected with this program.
I would like to speak for a moment on the value of programs such as this in respect of the alleviation of poverty. It seems to me that when a program such as this is introduced there is an immediate benefit in redistributing income but as time passes this benefit decreases. It seems to be decreased because segments of society, high wage earners and entrepreneurs, those who are the bellwethers of society, are in a position to demand and receive higher incomes so that their take-home pay remains at a level comparable to what it was before the advent of the program. In other words, our economic system and tax structure seem to adjust themselves so that the members of our society who lose money in taxation to provide these benefits are able to recoup their losses by means of wage settlements and imposing higher prices for goods. Perhaps this is part of the general inflationary trend.
Perhaps for these reason it is generally considered that family allowance plans have had no great value in fighting poverty. Often these plans have to be analysed to see how they fit in with the original program. The data as to the effect of family allowances on combating poverty seems to be equivocal and can be construed in many different ways. While the poor pay relatively little in direct income tax to our treasury, in the form of indirect taxes a major burden is imposed on the poor.
The Croll report, the report of the Senate Committee on Poverty, cited figures from 1961 to show that 56.5 per cent of the income of those earning less than $2,000, before transfer payments, goes in taxes and of this 56.5 per cent
March 27, 1972

only slightly more than 1 per cent is taken directly in individual income tax. The dilemma of increasing income tax is that eventually, unless some money is left to the individual taxpayer, he presumably will not be a member of the labour force or productive in any manner other than through dollar value. Fighting poverty with the family allowance probably is not as rewarding as people would wish.
Mr. Speaker, I should not end these comments without a few words on what is being discussed the world over, and that is the mood that is prevalent, namely, that if man is to stay on this planet we may have to approach a zero population growth. The comment of the President of the United States last week regarding population growth has given events a new turn. The comment urged the United States to welcome a plan for stabilized population. On March 13, 1972, an article in the Globe and Mail commented:
A government-appointed panel Saturday proposed that the United States try to halt the rise in population and "enable individuals to avoid unwanted childbearing".
"We have looked for, an have not found any convincing economic argument for continued national population growth," John D. Rockefeller, chairman of the commission on population growth and the American future, said.
Mr. Rockefeller told a press conference he believed the United States would be the first country to adopt a population policy aimed at ending growth, if it accepted the panel's proposals.
The panel said that even if the birthrate maintained its downward trend to the point where married couples had an average of only two children, the U.S. population would continue to grow for nearly 70 years. This is because so many now are of child-producing age.
There has been considerable discussion as to whether the family allowance program increases the tendency to larger populations. It has been considered, and studies have shown conclusively, that family allowances are not an incentive to an increasing birthrate. But at an international conference on children's allowances in 1968 the participants gave evidence that there is no direct relation between the existence or characteristics of a children's allowance system and the birthrate. This is perhaps, in the over-all view, quite right, but in the lower income segments of some groups there has been in the past a tendency to increase the family income by prolific birthrate. However, once these groups attain their material desires there seems to be a tendency for a fall-off in the birthrate.
There are those who advocate reduced payments to larger families as a disincentive to a high birthrate. This is not generally accepted yet, but I think that at some time in the future, and not too far away, more thought will be given to it. In any case, the role of the family allowance as a stimulus to the birthrate does not seem to be very strong.
In this legislation the government has departed from universality. It has increased the problems of administration and cost and will create many social inequities that could have been avoided merely by adding the income from family supplement to family income and taxing it at the usual rate.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. For a moment I thought I was not to have the opportunity of participating in the
Family Income Security Plan
discussion on this significant piece of legislation. I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is in his place on the other side of the chamber. I did not hear what he said, but I am sure it was worth while. He can be a nice fellow at times, but I wonder what he thinks of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder what happened to the participatory democracy that this government was supposed to bring forth and which would give Canadians an opportunity to put before this House of Commons their ideas on where our country should go in terms of social welfare policy? I am very disturbed to find that there is a trend-


An hon. Member:: A pernicious trend.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -a pernicious trend that seems to be projected by this government. We had a white paper on the tax bill. Thank goodness that was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so that we had an opportunity of ascertaining the direction we should take with respect to tax reform. Many worth-while suggestions came from that committee and as a result we have a better-although imperfect, if you will, Mr. Speaker-bill. We on this side of the House would never say it is perfect, but many of the inequities that were pointed out by members of the opposition made it possible for the bill to become more acceptable.
On November 30, 1970, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) issued his white paper on income security for Canadians. I was under the impression, as were many hon. members, that this document would be placed before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs following the pattern that had been decided upon by this government, thereby giving the many Canadians involved an opportunity for their voices to be heard. But this did not happen, Mr. Speaker.
In answer to a question which I posed this afternoon, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the great exponent of the just society and participatory democracy, indicated that with respect to the proposed airport in the township of Pickering he, in a unilateral way and under the British North America Act, had come upon a solution. As far as he was concerned, if 51 per cent of the people affected-I do not know how he could ever determine that-did not want the airport, there would not be one. I am not questioning whether there is going to be an airport. I am trying to point out that there is a fraudulent aspect to this government's conception of participatory democracy.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not at all.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) can say all he wants. I know that the statement was made without any agreement, consultation or negotiation with the province of Ontario.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not right; we have been discussing it with the province of Ontario for months.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Minister of Agriculture was here this afternoon.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, I was.

March 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Then he should know that the Prime Minister indicated to me in no uncertain terms that there was no discussion with the province of Ontario or members of that government from the time the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) made the statement in the House until he made the statement about 51 per cent. The Prime Minister did it on his own, unilaterally. That is wrong. That is not participatory democracy. And that is what is being done with this income security bill. I say it is discouraging, because we were promised the just society.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And you have it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Minister of Agriculture says we have it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have heard that the Minister of Agriculture will have a tough time getting elected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And I say that with great respect.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I always did find it hard getting elected.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, it will be even tougher this time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Five out of six elections; that is the record.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The government claims this is a significant piece of legislation. If it does not give people the opportunity to bring forward ideas, suggestions and reasonable amendments which will make the bill more satisfactory, I say the whole thing is a fraud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it is a fraud and we on this side will tell that to the Canadian people.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member is still wrong.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Speaking of universality, I can recall-


An hon. Member:: This is the second lousy speech I have heard tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I heard the hon. member for Sarnia say that this is the second lousy speech he has heard this evening. I can say one thing: at least I can raise my voice and tell the House how fraudulent is this bill, unlike the hon. member who behind the curtains makes irresponsible remarks about a responsible speech being made by an hon. member.


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: Now he is making faces.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Before the hon. member for Sarnia, that some time parliamentary secretary, interjected I was

about to talk of the principle of universality. The former minister of labour told me that with the new Unemployment Insurance Act which came into effect on June 30 we were to move into the area of universality. That is the principle we were adopting. I ask, why could we not include the self-employed man and the franchisee? In that way we could cover 95 per cent of our people and establish the principle of universality in this area.
What has the minister piloting this bill through the House done? He says that there is not to be universality with regard to this program. Frankly, I do not know whether one minister talks to another or whether they all go to the same cabinet meetings. Here we have a retrograde step, a step that moves back from the position originally adopted. Here we have legislation that is to be based on income and the number of children in a family.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You are pretty mixed up, Line.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No. This legislation will remove over 1.5 million families from the family allowance rolls.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I know that for more than a million families there will be significant changes in benefits.


Mr. Breau:: You are the party of the rich.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The party of the rich!


Charles Humbert Thomas: That is what he said.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member is trying to read my speech. I want to tell him something about the middle-income man-, the man who has been paying the shot. That is the point I am coming to.


An hon. Member:: Make a speech that makes sense.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am about to get to the point. What disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, is that at the bottom end of the scale about a million families will be affected, perhaps significantly, by this bill; yet all the indicators show that this legislation will not relieve the poverty of our brothers and sisters in this country. That is the most significant thing about it. I believe this government is trying to do its best.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Its best, however, is not good enough. The real challenge is providing greater opportunities for more Canadians so that with their skills, knowledge and willingness to work they can take advantage of policies that will bring about greater economic growth.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I notice that the Minister of Agriculture agrees with me. Those policies in turn should lead to full employment. The Economic Council of Canada suggests that an unemployment rate of 3.8 per cent constitutes full employment. Certainly an unemployment rate of 7.7 per cent does not. If we are to bring about significant changes that will benefit all Canadians, we shall need to evolve an industrial strategy, an industrial policy.
March 27, 1972


Herb Breau: Ha!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not know the hon. member over in the wilderness. He does not speak in the House; he does not ask questions.


Mr. Benjamin:: Who is he?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I don't know. He is an non-entity.


Charles Humbert Thomas: A nobody.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He just sits there and makes comments. I notice the Minister of Justice laughing. The government brings in all sorts of ad hoc programs. It is departing from the principle of providing justice for all Canadian families. We are no longer in the same ball game because the government is removing one and a half million Canadians from the rolls. We need to establish an industrial strategy built up through negotiation and consultation with the provinces and with management and labour. In that way we may devise a policy which would bring Canada and Canadians to the horizon, if you will, of full economic growth, or greater economic growth, which would lead to greater productivity and more employment and programs such as the one we are considering will be at a minimum-


Herb Breau: Ha! Your party is for the rich.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My friend in the corner, over in the wilderness, suggests I am speaking on behalf of the rich. No, I am not speaking on behalf of the rich; I do not care about the rich. They can look after themselves. I care about the poor. I come from a poor family. I know what poverty is all about. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about a man who has not been referred to so far in this House, or if he has been referred to the reference has been made-


Charles Humbert Thomas: With a sneer?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No, not with a sneer. The reference has been made in an entirely acceptable way. I am talking about the middle-income man, the man making $10,000, $12,000 or $14,000 a year. Who speaks for him?


Herb Breau: The Liberal party.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Liberal party?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Liberal party: did you hear that? After supporting the white paper on tax reform and the bill which followed the white paper, the hon. member supports the bill now before us and says that he speaks for the man in the middle, the middle-income man. I say you are wrong, Sir.


Herb Breau: No, right.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member is wrong. You do not have any compassion for what that man has gone through and is continuing to go through under this government.


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


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not have time for questions now. You can ask them when I have finished.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should address the Chair.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that someone has to speak for the middle-income man who, it seems to me, is being ignored. He is the only one who sees himself. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) dwelt on this question. It is time we started to give the man in this group some incentives, not disincentives. It seems that every piece of legislation is directed toward him adversely. I wonder how many lumps he can stand. Hon. members know what the Prime Minister said with regard to lumps: he said if they don't like it, they can lump it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: When did he say that?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear the Minister of Agriculture. The Prime Minister said it and he meant it. Hopefully, a lot of people will take him at his word and let him know how many lumps they can stand. All I ask is how many lumps the middle man can stand. His land taxes are going up; he is paying a greater chunk as a result of the white paper on tax reform; he is being emasculated in terms of whatever contribution he receives from this government.
As far as I am concerned, one and a half million people will not be covered by this plan. If this is the type of just society we have to live in, it is not fair. A man is prepared to stand up and be his brother's keeper, but there always comes a time when he has to think about himself and his family. He will find that the government does not have a heart, compassion or the understanding that he who pays the shot must be recognized at some time. If the government does not get that message I have no hesitation or reservation in stating that the polls will let them know how many lumps these people can take.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Another thing that bothers me about this act is its complexity. I would not even attempt to explain to anyone in this House how an individual will get his money or how much he will get. If you think the Unemployment Insurance Act was beyond immediate comprehension, wait until you get into this act! What concerns me about this bill, and I say this with a great deal of respect, is that it is being directed toward people who perhaps are not adequately prepared to complete the forms that are necessary for this measure to come to fruition.
Are we building up a bureaucratic society second to none? It is amazing. Do you know how much we now spend? We spend $16 billion a year. Without having looked into this too deeply, I say that a lot of it goes into unnecessary bureaucratic administration. This comes through acts which are imperfect and complicated such as the Unemployment Insurance Act and this one.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You sound like an old Tory.

March 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Whose voice was that? Was it the member for Windsor. There is one thing about him, his voice is loud; it carries.
I get back to my point. There is something about this bill which disturbs me. We who are involved with the standing committee will have to look into this matter very profoundly, because mistakes have been made in the Opportunities for Youth program and LIP. I am not going to talk about the merits of those programs; that can be done at another time. I am talking about the forms that will have to be completed in order to be able to take advantage of this program. My experience leads me to believe that they will follow the same pattern as forms for the Opportunities for Youth and LIP. There will be a lot of frustrated people whom we should be helping. I do not know where the forms will come from; perhaps the regulations. In order for people to be in a position to take advantage of this scheme we must ensure that the forms are as simple as possible. The type of person who will be taking advantage of this program does not have the capacity to complete complicated forms.
I have looked at some of the forms required under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I do not claim to be very clever, but with my training I should have a sufficient awareness of how to fill out forms. With all respect, I find them highly complex. As a matter of fact, they are so complex it will lead people to frustration and lateness in filing. They are embarrassed because they do not know how to complete the forms. If they do complete them, they are wrong. Even though the government has an idea, I hope the forms they bring out will be understandable, concise and relatively easy to complete. In this way we will be helping people, not throwing forms at them which they cannot understand.
I want to move into other areas. I read an editorial in the September 20, 1971, edition of the Financial Times with regard to the proposed new legislation. I quote:
The new legislation on family allowances which Mr. John Munro presented to Parliament last week is a dreadful example of the incoherent muddling which is emerging as the hallmark of the Trudeau government.
Those are not my words. I am not trying to be nasty; I am just trying to agree. I am reading into the record-


Mr. Nowlan:: Isn't that the Prime Minister's authority?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Perhaps you are right. I quote further:
There is little evidence there that Mr. Munro discusses anything with Mr. Mackasey or that either of them speaks to Mr. Benson. If any ministers are in communication with God, that remains a private matter: obviously they do not get the same answers.
I notice that the hon. member for Windsor laughs. This is true: the truth of this criticism can be proven in several ways. I will go through them; I will touch upon them in a significant way. I want to be concrete and concise. The principles of FISP are at odds with other social security schemes. The government has opted for universality in medicare and unemployment insurance, but selectivity in FISP. Also, the "reformed" Income Tax Act has established uniform treatment for social benefits except for FISP, which gives tax-free income.
I will touch on administration. The administration of FISP is quite unrelated to the administration of other
(Mr. Olson.]
schemes such as unemployment insurance and income tax. FISP requires a brand new set of forms to be submitted to a separate branch of bureaucracy. Recent legislative changes have therefore increased but have not been consolidated, as I pointed out earlier. I refer to the red tape and bureaucracy of income tax, unemployment insurance and now FISP programs.
Let me touch on another group which I believe is of some significance, namely, working wives. The new tax reform legislation includes deductions and measures, however imperfect, to compensate working wives for daycare costs for their children. The new Unemployment Insurance Act provides maternity benefits to be paid to pregnant women while they are away from work to have children. In contrast to these positive steps to recognize the costs of having children and to provide an incentive for remaining at a job, FISP takes a negative step: FISP penalizes working wives through its cut-off levels being based on gross family income.
Let me give an illustration. If a wife goes to work to supplement her husband's meagre salary, it is quite likely that her added income will push total family income above the cut-off level and she will therefore forfeit part or all of her family allowance cheques. For a middle-class wife this effect may not be too important, but for a family struggling to get out of poverty the loss of even a baby bonus cheque hurts. Consequently, FISP has a built-in disincentive.
This is what we on this side of the House are always talking about. It does not seem to reach the other side. We always talk about incentives. This government continually implements disincentives. I repeat, consequently FISP has a built-in disincentive for working mothers who know that they will probably lose part or all their family allowance cheque as a result.
Cut-off levels should be based on net income after deductions, rather than on gross income. This would be more meaningful. In this way personal income tax exemptions and child-care deductions will have their full power for working wives. Benefit cut-off levels could then be scaled to ensure that poverty-stricken families benefit most from family allowances. When I start to think about the cut-off levels I wonder why $4,500 was picked as the minimum and $9,100 as the maximum, the least deserving of any level.
There is an inconsistency among government departments in their assessment of when families need government support. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) takes into account the fact that it costs more to raise a child once he reached the age of 12 years, whereas the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his new Income Tax Act did not recognize that children cost more to raise until they reach the age of 16. This is why I wonder what is going on here. Do we ever discuss where, why and how we are going?
It seems that one minister contradicts another. As I said, the Minister of National Health and Welfare believes that a family with one child and a gross income of $4,500 or less should get maximum assistance from his department. The unfortunate thing about the white paper and the new tax bill is that through the Department of Finance a substantial tax continues to be imposed on the
March 27, 1972

same person. How can we rationalize that when on one hand the Minister of National Health and Welfare says that if you earn $4,500 and have one child, you are entitled to full benefits, and on the other hand the Minister of Finance says that he will not go along with that and will tax and take all he can get? I think I have placed some points before the House for serious consideration.
We have to reward initiative. I repeat that those who have been paying the shot for so long should be rewarded now and again. As it is, it seems the only time they will ever get anything is when they reach the age of 65. When they are 65 they will get old age security benefits and, maybe, benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. Otherwise there do not seem to be any programs of which they can take advantage so that they may project themselves into the good life and feel happy about it.
This is why I say: Be careful: Do not go too far, continually taking from so many people while at the same time leaving initiative without reward. Such a policy is bound to backfire. As I walk around my riding and talk to the people with whom I am concerned and who are concerned with me, I find there is a feeling permeating society and reflected in my riding, that we had better start rewarding initiative. Otherwise, why should a person continue to break his back? Can members opposite give me one good reason why anyone should continue to break his back to pay taxes when he finds that at times his money is spent in a haphazard, irresponsible way or even squandered?
At the same time, the people I am talking about can never seem to get a loan or a subsidy. All they seem to get are tax bills. Come April 30 they will start getting demands saying: You owe us so much. At least if you do not pay you are not sent to jail. I know this because I have been delinquent: I still am, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker. But there are no concessions except that the authorities will take it easy and charge interest at 5 per cent.
I notice that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in the chamber, a friend of mine from Hamilton, so I will repeat a few of the remarks I have made. I hope, in any case, he will read my speech in Hansard tomorrow. It was not a very significant speech but it was one given in all sincerity. I have tried to outline a few areas of concern. I know the minister of health understands what I am talking about when I say we ought to reward initiative. I am repeating myself, but the minister was not here and I want to bring this to his attention. We cannot go on creating disincentives which affect the man who is paying the shot. We have to show some interest in him.
I have another point with respect to the regulations. I find that the regulations which people are asked to follow up by way of forms are too complex to be understood by those we are trying to reach. I hope that the minister in his charity-he is a charitable fellow-will do something to see that these forms are made easier to fill out by those we are trying to reach.
Let me close by saying once again that if ever this country is to move toward an economy in which everyone can enjoy equal opportunity, including opportunities for employment-and I believe we all want to work; I do not accept that there is a right not to work; I do not think we
Family Income Security Plan
are yet ready for that-it is necessary to create a climate in which the economy can develop and move into an era of profound economic growth leading to greater productivity and, hence, to full employment. Then there will be no need of provisions such as we are considering at the moment.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, it is about four years since I heard the maiden speech of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I shall never forget that speech because in it he set forth his philosophy of life. In essence, he said:
Judge not a man by the colour of his skin,	.
Or the way he looks or fights or sins,
Or the gods he serves or the wine he drinks,
But judge a man by the way he thinks.
Tonight we heard that philosophy reiterated by the hon. member. He spoke with clarity and conciseness and he certainly convinced many of us on this side with regard to the points he put forward. I could add an addendum to that by saying that if an NDP member is not elected during the next election in Hamilton West, then I hope the present member is re-elected.
On November 30, 1970, the government tabled its white paper on income security for Canadians. The purport of that report covered two main subjects. One concerned the treatment of pensions for senior citizens and the second covered family allowances. Many of us were prepared to forgive the minister at that time for not sending the white paper to the committee for study in depth, because in the month of December, 1970, the government introduced its old age security legislation. Well do we remember the matters contained in that legislation in 1970, and more especially the 42 cents increase given our pensioners, right at Christmas time. Not only did the government make a generous increase of 42 cents, but it froze the cost of living clause at 2 per cent for those who were going to receive the $80.
That was the first benefit received by our senior citizens from the white paper on income security for Canadians. Many of us were very unhappy about this because at that time the minister was introducing a principle to which many of us are strongly opposed, namely, the principle of selectivity as opposed to that of universality. I am sure that if Mackenzie King were here tonight-and he may be in spirit-he would recall the legislation for which he was responsible in 1944 which introduced for the first time in the history of Canadian social welfare the principle of universality. He or his spirit would shed buckets of tears at what the government he once led has now done to the principle of universality.
Not only has the minister dropped this principle from the old age security legislation but he is now attempting through Bill C-170 once more to drop the principle of universality in favour of selectivity in the field of family allowances. I am rather amazed that the minister would introduce such a principle. He comes from the city of Hamilton, a city composed of working people with a wide scale of income. The minister is now adopting the principle that payment of family allowance shall be determined

March 27, 1972
Family Income Security Plan
by family income. It is, in effect, a polarization of income which determines whether or not a person is entitled to family allowance.
Although we have polarization taking place in other parts of the world, now is not the time to introduce this principle in Canada. In fact, the government has been strongly opposed to polarization in many fields, such as the different nationalities within our country, the cultural rights of the people and also linguistic rights. Many of us on this side have not been very proud of the government in this respect. We do not think that polarization of nationalities, culture and language should be allowed to take place. Yet while the government adopts this principle of polarization it rejects the principle of universality in the payment of family allowances, and I suggest that such rejection is not worthy of support.
Some of our speakers have indicated the results that will flow from this type of legislation. When the legislation giving the 42 cents increase to our pensioners was passed in December, 1970, as well as the legislation that gave certain old age pensioners the guaranteed income supplement, certain consequences flowed and from that time on all hon. members have felt these consequences. First of all, there was a feeling of ill will on the part of those now being paid the $80 because the 2 per cent cost of living increase was not provided at that time. There has been a feeling of ill will on the part of those in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement because some people, by not declaring income, may be able to obtain more than their rightful share of the supplement. As a result, we do not have the type of atmosphere we want to create for our old age pensioners. Instead, we have had divisiveness, ill feeling among the different classes of old age pensioners and resentment, on the part of many who do not receive it, of those who do.
I suggest the same consequences will flow from the family allowance legislation now before the House. We will have a division of our working people. There will be a polarization in that some people will get none of the benefits of family allowances yet will pay a large proportion of the cost. If there is one thing we do not need, Mr. Speaker, it is division among the working people who are dependent on their income. I am rather surprised that the minister would seek to introduce this legislation at this time. I shall continue in depth tomorrow afternoon, if I may call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) seeks the floor on a point of order.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, if I could have consent of the House to revert to motions I should like to make reference to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, both of which matters have already been cleared through private discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister shall have leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson):
That the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to prepare a draft bill concerning the office, functions and powers of the Auditor General.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson):
That the question of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees, including the legal, procedural and technical aspects thereof, and the evidence collected by the committee during the past session in relation to these matters, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the government House leader would confirm that we will be continuing tomorrow the debate on Bill C-170.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this will be the first order of business, to be followed by second reading of the bill to amend the Canada Labour Code.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I asked a question in the House of the acting minister of manpower and immigration regarding consideration being given to extending the Local Initiatives Program. I asked the question in sincerity because in my opinion this is the first time citizens of Canada in remote and isolated communities have been able to use their initiative on behalf of their communities to create employment opportunities for those in need.
However, through lack of communication in the past many people in remote areas were unable to involve themselves in the programs of the government. This is the reason I should like to have this program extended. Unfortunately, the minister merely replied that the province of Newfoundland received its fair share. I am not satisfied with this answer because regardless of the fair share of anyone in Canada, there are unemployed people in remote and isolated communities of Newfoundland who have never had the opportunity to participate in government programs because of lack of communication. The people in the isolated communities of my province do not receive the message of government programs. I feel communication is vital in this regard in spite of the weaknesses in some of the programs.
In spite of the fact that the Local Initiatives Program has done some good, I believe the government has failed to help those who are unemployed and are in greatest need. There has seemed to be lack of control by the government over the program in respect of going to the Manpower centres and finding out who indeed is in need of a job. I give the government credit for introducing the program, but if the government is prepared to provide such a program I feel it should follow through to ensure that it benefits those who are in greatest need.
I spoke to the parliamentary secretary and it was indicated to me that some of these programs may be ongoing. I believe the program is good and I feel there is no reason it should not be continued so that people whose programs have been disapproved could have the opportunity to receive the benefit of an ongoing program which would create employment opportunities for those who are vitally in need in my province. I can only say I hope consideration will be given to some other type of program such as the Local Initiatives Program.
People in one community ask me why a project has been approved in another community as being a good one while in their community a similar project has been disapproved. I can only say to them that this is because many programs were submitted and there was lack of control. I believe the parliamentary secretary or the minister would wish to clarify this situation so that I may give proper answers to these people. I say, again, this is a good program but for some reason people across Canada wonder why they cannot participate while others have an opportunity to participate in a similar program. I ask the parliamentary secretary to clarify this matter and give me an indication of what the future holds for these Canadians.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the spokesman for the Progressive Conservative party for the strong support he has given to the Local Initiatives Program. This program is just that; it is a program based on local initiatives. Despite reports to the contrary, the Salvation Army was given a grant in Burlington, Ontario, for a very worth-while social development program.
It is a fact that for every project in a metropolitan centre there are many other projects designed to provide employment and improve facilities in literally hundreds of small towns, villages and rural crossroad communities all across the country. We have projects such as the building of a community centre at 100 Mile House in the B.C. interior, land clearing and repairs to housing at Watson Lake in the Yukon, construction of a terminal building at Haven Settlement in the Northwest Territories, establishment of a fishing co-op at Savage Island in northern Manitoba, construction of a community wharf at White Bay, Newfoundland, community rink improvements at Forchu, Nova Scotia.
The list goes on and on. Indeed, while I have many more examples such as those I have given, I cannot give the whole list of perhaps not very glamorous but nevertheless very important contributions to community betterment and alleviation of unemployment represented by the hundreds of projects put forward by community groups in isolated settlements which have been accepted under this program. I cannot give the list simply because what may be regarded as an isolated community by people in one place may be seen as the very heart of civilization to those living somewhere else. But one thing I can tell the House is that LIP has been very successful in directing aid to pockets of unemployment wherever they exist in the country.
It is common knowledge, of course, that in absolute numbers most of our unemployed live in cities of 50,000, 100,000 or more population. But while the numbers are not so great, it is unfortunately often true that some of the more remote rural areas suffer proportionately much higher rates of unemployment in winter than do the cities. LIP has been very conscious of this problem in its allocations and, since it is a program primarily concerned with providing useful work for the unemployed, it has concentrated a good deal of effort in stimulating proposals for worth-while projects in smaller centres where unemployment is high.
In terms of the population in those geographic areas served by the various Canada Manpower centres, the centres having the highest rates of unemployment, which had an estimated 30 per cent of the country's total unemployed, received nearly 40 per cent of project approvals and funds. Those with the lowest unemployment rates, which generally tended to be the more populous places, the Canada Manpower centre areas having the lowest rates of unemployment in the country, accounted for 25 per cent of total unemployment and received 15 per cent of project approvals and funds. Of course, in all areas some rationing of funds was necessary and not every project could be approved. But given the emphasis I have described, an emphasis which was maintained for reasons

March 27, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
which I hope I have made clear, applications from rural areas were given consideration commensurate with local unemployment conditions.
New employment creating programs are under consideration and the experience gained in the Local Initiatives Program, both as to the source of the applications received and the type of projects put forward, will be taken into account in this consideration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight).



TRADE-DISPLAY OF CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL PROJECTS AT PEKING FAIR

William George Knight: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that you shall not hear such rapid-fire speaking as that to which you have just listened. I suppose it works on the old theory that if you talk fast enough somebody will believe you.
I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) last fall a question pertaining to the China Solo Fair and at that time I did not receive the answer that I was seeking. The minister announced in a news release that Canada was going to have an important China Solo Fair which would be the first fair at which Canadian goods would be the only goods on display.
I then asked the minister if there would be any attempt to show Canadian agricultural products at this fair. At that time there was no answer. Therefore, in the new session I once again asked the question and the minister suggested that there were 250 companies or groups desirous of participating in the China Solo Fair. He did not outline what those companies were and whether any of them were connected with the agricultural industry. The information I am seeking through my questions is simple: Who has applied? Will there be a display of our agricultural products?
In his answer the other day the minister suggested that the Canadian Wheat Board has a direct line of communication with a purchasing agency in China. I think a number of points should be made about that type of answer. For example, one large sale of wheat should not ignore the possibility of further development of sales on a long-term basis. This is particularly true now that the Americans are developing friendship with the Chinese and say that they will trade in non-strategic goods and products. That, to me, means agricultural products, making the Chinese Solo Fair that much more important in terms of displaying our agricultural products.
I am concerned that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce assumes that there is only one farm product to be sold to the Chinese. I point out to him that there are a variety of products such as beef, rapeseed oil, mutton, dairy products, sunflower seed oil, other grains, etc., that we should display and which would be of interest to the Chinese buying companies.
In terms of the answers I have received, I wonder whether the government has ever considered the difficulty involved in having one minister in charge of the Wheat

Board and another in charge of trade and commerce, when at times those two gentlemen have jurisdiction in the same area of trade affecting the sale of Canadian agricultural products. I ask the government that the Canadian people be informed of who has applied and who will be going to the Chinese Solo Fair. I hope the agricultural sector will not be ignored because of the minister's preoccupation with the industrial sector.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) that Canada will be represented in all important aspects of its commercial and agricultural sectors at the Solo Canadian Trade Fair in Peking.


William George Knight: What about agricultural products?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I included agricultural products. Canada is in the position of going to China as a guest of the Chinese government, and all exhibits at the fair will be entered in consultation with the Chinese government. Exhibits will include grains, oils seeds, forage seeds, tobacco, livestock and semen, and poultry breeding stock. We will have a very large exhibit in this area that will be backed up by technical experts with films and teams of experts who will be available to talk to the Chinese specialists in these fields.
We expect that our specialists will also be touring areas of China which are involved in agricultural production and areas that are of special interest to Canadian producers. We hope that as a result of this presentation we will be able to enlarge our sphere of influence in the agricultural field in China. But I emphasize that these arrangements with the Chinese government must be carried out in consultation with the Chinese with respect to the selection of products that will be shown.
I repeat that we will be represented in the agricultural field. The displays will be made by representatives of national producer and trade associations and marketing boards, and not by private companies as in the case of manufactured products. In this way we feel we will have the most effective representatives there, that we will be able to obtain immediate business in this area and will be able to open up areas of trade that will be of long-term significance for Canada and Canada's farmers.



YOUTH-OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH-REQUEST FOR OTHER PROGRAMS TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it is typical of our situation that in again raising the question of employment for youth this summer the minister has not thought it important to be here to deal with the questions that I have been putting to him week after week. It is typical, in view of his non-answer to my question this afternoon and to questions over the last weeks and months that have attempted to find out what the government's answer is to the growing problem and national crisis of summer employment for the nation's youth.
On March 9, commenting on the Cohen report which followed last summer's Opportunities for Youth and other
March 27, 1972

programs and which pointed out a major failure to solve student unemployment programs, I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) if he was now exploring with the provinces or with business and other authorities further measures that might be taken to alleviate the very serious student unemployment that will occur this coming summer. The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, we are exploring all possible means to reduce unemployment.
I would not even dignify that response by calling it an intelligent or concerned answer. On March 22, again inquiring what would happen to the many project submissions that could not be accepted by Opportunities for Youth-some 16,000-I asked:
In view of the fact the minister indicated earlier that some 20,000 opportunities for youth projects have now been submitted and only a fraction of these will be accepted, is there any specific program underway to consult with other agencies that might well implement some of these very worthwhile projects?
The minister replied: "Yes, Mr. Speaker". Again today, in a series of specific questions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) I asked a question about this coming summer and expected massive youth unemployment but did not receive an answer.
The government, and particularly the Secretary of State, seem to be content to play parliamentary games at a time when more and more young people are seeking employment on a labour market that has neither the depth nor the scope to accommodate a substantial portion of them. It now appears clear that there may be over a quarter of a million young people with no chance of employment. The reticence and lack of concern by the ministry and this government is shocking. This is difficult to understand because as far back as last fall, one series of unemployment figures which was published showed a higher proportion of unemployed young people between the ages of 14 and 24. The Prime Minister seemed surprised and disturbed by this.
The Prime Minister obviously had not been reading Economic Council of Canada reports over the years which have been consistently warning the government to expect this influx of young people into the labour force as the baby boom of the 1940s reached the working age level. In September, 1969, the Economic Council of Canada reported:
There is a need to develop much more effective measures to bridge the present disturbing gap between school enrolment and productive employment, especially with very large numbers of young people emerging from the educational system.
That can be said both of those coming permanently on the labour market and those who are seeking seasonal employment in order to further their education. The government is still not aware of the figures relating to lack of employment. There will be over 1,300,000 young people available this summer, an increase of 100,000 over last year. How well did the government do last year? According to this evaluation report tabled last Friday, about 75 per cent of the young people seeking work last summer found it in the private sector. Of the remaining 25 per cent, about 5 per cent found employment through federal government expenditure, which leaves about 20 per cent who found no employment. That is about 217,000 young people unemployed last summer. If we add the projected
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
increase of 100,000, it is not difficult to assume that there will be over a quarter of a million young people unemployed this summer.
In trying to brush this off last November 11 the Prime Minister suggested that many young people would just as soon bum around. I have news for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State: those who hitch-hiked around then or now are not counted as seeking work or as statistics for unemployment. Who knows how many simply turned to bumming around because there was no promise of employment? The Prime Minister's ability to slough off serious issues of work opportunity constitutes, in the vernacular, a bum steer, a steer from which our young people deserve escape.


Mr. Bell:: Shame!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The minister seemed reluctant to be quite so eulogistic about opportunities for this year, and rightly so. He must now realize that Opportunities for Youth is no solution to the problem of growing youth unemployment in this country. Close to 200,000 young people will willingly spend time and energy in thinking out proposals. They will submit them in the expectation of seeing those projects accepted. How many of those young people, and there are almost 200,000 of them, will be fortunate? How many projects will receive favourable consideration within a few weeks? I suggest that less than 30,000 will be in that position. Therefore, over 160,000 young people at that late date will be forced to find other means of employment.
That is a cruel if not a close to dishonest way, of dealing with young people who are anxious to further their own position and prepare themselves for the service of this country in a social and economic way. This entails a waste of youthful talent and a serious waste of youthful expectations and is bound to create growing frustration and cynicism.
We face a major dilemma in this country, one which this government has not yet recognized. We need an over-all strategy for coping with the situation. Hopefully, through that strategy some leadership can be shown by this government. Today there is no evidence of such leadership, which is necessary for co-ordinating the activities of various levels of government and of various bodies, public and private. Only with such bodies acting together can we put together an over-all plan. Only that way, if we act on a long-term basis, can we help our young people to work constructively for this country and at the same time for their own advancement, and help them avoid that despair which the leadership of the government and of the minister has not alleviated.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the minister was in the House today but he has to be absent tonight and tomorrow on important government business in Calgary, the announcement of which I am sure everyone will be interested in tomorrow. If my colleague wishes, as a courtesy gesture I will give my answer in English instead of in French as I usually do.
1200

March 27, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In response to the question of initiatives being taken by the government to tackle the problem of student unemployment, the hon. member previously had an extensive exchange with the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) on this question in the miscellaneous estimates committee on March 17. I do not see the need to comment further on steps we have taken to secure the co-operation of the provinces in an all-government effort to deal with student summer unemployment.
With regard to the private sector, it has become apparent that individual companies and agencies are interested in funding projects which, although extremely worth while, are not eligible for funding by Opportunities for Youth. Thus, a special committee is working this year to follow up these initial contacts made with the private sector and also to seek out and encourage other companies or agencies who might be interested in such a venture. Where possible, projects are referred to these sponsors.
However, the summer programs which cure funded by the Department of the Secretary of State should not in any way be misconstrued as representing total government action towards alleviating student summer unemployment. Appreciating that the traditional source of student employment lies with the private sector, the
Department of Manpower will continue to work with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in its Operation Placement program. The department's role will be to encourage co-operation among all the Chamber's 125,000 members across the country to develop local campaigns and promote community involvement in providing summer employment.
In addition, $1,773,000 has been allocated to fund 132 special Canada Manpower centres for students. These centres will be staffed by 500 students and will be able to assist both students seeking employment in industry, and industry seeking students to fill job openings. I might also point to a new program this summer in the Department of Manpower-the inter-regional student summer employment program. Through this program students seeking employment in other provinces will be assisted by government.
The government is aware that this program will not by itself solve the problem of student unemployment. However, both in the example it sets and by the model it portrays it represents a major effort by the government to involve the provinces, the private sector and other authorities in a co-ordinated and comprehensive response to student unemployment problems.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Tuesday, March 28, 1972