1973-09-12

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PREMIER OF BELIZE

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members might allow the Chair to bring to the attention of the House the presence in the Speaker's gallery of Premier George Price, the premier of Belize. I am sure hon. members will want me on their behalf to extend a very cordial welcome to our distinguished visitor who is in Ottawa for consultations and discussions with the government of Canada. On behalf of each and every member I welcome the Honourable Premier of Belize and express the hope that his stay in our capital and our country will be fruitful, interesting and pleasant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Jerome.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first time I have done this. I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the increasing disregard by the U.S.S.R. of the basic principles of the United Nations charter by its callous and relentless persecution of hundreds of writers, intellectuals and freedom-loving persons, which is reminiscent of the Stalinist reign of terror. If granted unanimity, I will move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this House requests the Prime Minister, on behalf of the people of Canada, to make a personal protest to the U.S.S.R.,
deploring the inhumanity and injustice being perpetrated in the U.S.S.R., the Baltic States and the Ukraine, against hundreds of persons who have done no more than to express their belief in freedom of speech, and in particular against the tyranny being practised against the great scientist, Dr. Andrei Sakharov, and the Nobel Prize-winner for literature, Alexander I. Solzhanitsyn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. This motion, proposed for consideration of the House under the terms of Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the manner in which motions under Standing Order 43 are being denied acceptance by reason of the negative votes of Liberal members, making this particular portion of the rules an entire farce. I want to make it perfectly clear that the negative votes regarding this matter came from the Liberal side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Trudeau:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out on behalf of the government that this rule is often being misused in the House, as you yourself have noted. Very often members of the opposition seek to move motions with which, had there been consultation, or had they been put forward in another way, the government would have been in agreement. But when they are brought forward in this way it is obvious from our experience in recent times that it is generally for political purposes and not in order to obtain the co-operation of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let me complete my point. This type of motion, by its very nature, would interrupt very often an equally important debate with which the government is anxious to proceed. This is a method that the opposition is using in order to usurp the order of business of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

September 12, 1973
External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege. As to any suggestion that there is a political connotation in connection with this motion, all I have to say is that the Prime Minister is trying to raise an alibi because he is treating Canadians from the Ukraine and the Baltic nations with entire disrespect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the same type of question of privilege I would say to the right hon. member that this government, through its communications with the Soviet government, has done more for the unification of families and for justice to the people of the Soviet Union than his government did with this type of bland statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This debate may be very interesting but I am afraid it will solve nothing. The Chair has had an opportunity in the past to express its views regarding Standing Order 43, and these views have not changed.


DEATH OF PRESIDENT OF CHILE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, despite the exchange that has taken place I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: This will go!


David Lewis: It arises out of the tragic events which occurred yesterday in Santiago, Chile.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Has there been consultation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order. The hon. member is presenting what appears to the Chair to be a serious motion. Perhaps hon. members would like to treat it that way.


David Lewis: If I could obtain unanimous consent for this motion I am sure it could be put without debate. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House extend its sympathy to the people of Chile in the tragic death of their President and express the hope that democratic institutions will be restored without delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings seems to question the decision of the Chair. I will inquire again. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: No.


An hon. Member:: Who said no that time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I did.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in light of the very serious developments involving the death of the President of Chile, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is prepared on motions, as I think would be appropriate, to indicate the situation with respect to the relationship between our two countries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. I suggest to hon. members that if on motions we get into the practice of asking questions that should be asked during the question period we will be out of order. I appreciate the procedural difficulty hon. members have during the question period in asking whether a minister wishes to return to motions for the purpose of making a statement. Perhaps the minister could reply briefly, but I hope we will not set a precedent in the procedure now being followed by the hon. member for Egmont. Is the hon. member for Rocky Mountain rising on a point of order?


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In his statement the Prime Minister gave a clear indication that the negative voices which have from time to time come from the Liberal benches were in fact an expression of the opinion of the government, and I am not sure whether that was the right hon. gentleman's intention. I simply rise on a point of order to allow him, through whatever procedure is correct, to withdraw that statement if in fact he wants to withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be useful for the House to avoid the situation that we get into during the question period and have the Secretary of State for External Affairs make a brief statement in order to clarify this very difficult and tragic situation.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is up to the minister to decide whether he wishes to make a statement on motions.


WILDLIFE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with what I feel is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, especially in view of the fact that the season for trapping wild animals is again commencing, and in par-
September 12, 1973

ticular to bring the attention of the House and the committees of the House to the inhumane use of certain trapping devices, particularly the leg hold trap. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie):
That this House refer the question of kinds and classes of traps used by the fur trapping industry to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for investigation and report.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Peel South requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of sad but pressing importance. In view of the tragic death of President Allende of Chile I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House convey its condolences to the Allende family.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure in what respect the motion proposed by the hon. member is different from that moved by the hon. member for York South. I have indicated previously that when a judgment of the House has already been rendered on a motion under Standing Order 43, the matter should not be put a second time. There may be a distinction between these two motions. I believe the first motion was directed to the people of that country rather than to the members of the family of the late president. I will simply ask whether there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Nielsen:: The government again.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask unanimous consent to introduce a motion concerning a very urgent matter, namely the lack of jobs and the high cost of living which affect particularly those from 60 to 65. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
Labour Relations
That a special committee of the House be appointed forthwith to consider the great difficulties which beset those from 60 to 65 in getting in the labour market, and also the inadequacy of income to face the constant increase in the cost of living, and to consider the possibility of lowering from 65 to 60 the age of eligibility for old age security pensions in order to rectify the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The House heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, that motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members who are opposed to a motion proposed under Standing Order 43 and will not give unanimous consent would make it clear, it would be helpful to the Chair. It is somewhat embarrassing for the Chair to have to guess whether there are yeas or nays. In this instance I gather that some hon. members on the third call indicated there was opposition, and if there is I will not put the motion.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Canadian public is unrepresented at the bargaining table when the employers and employees who operate our essential services negotiate a new contract in good or bad faith, as the case may be, and in view of the fact it is the Canadian public that suffers the inconvenience and hardship when a strike or lockout results and ultimately must pay the cost of a settlement, I ask leave of the House to move, under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden):
That this House is of the opinion that the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation that would impose financial damages in equal measure upon corporations and trade unions operating essential industries under federal jurisdiction for every day that such corporations and trade unions fail to negotiate a new contract after the expiration of the previously existing contract.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

September 12, 1973
Family Allowances Act


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. [Translation]


Mr. Andre Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the motion of the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert). You expressed the wish that those who refuse their consent do so clearly to facilitate your task: you are often caught between two fires when time comes to apply Standing Order 43. Mr. Speaker, we Credit-ists are still unsure about the fate of the motion of the hon. member of Bellechasse, since even you had doubts that there were nays. Exactly what is the situation; can the motion be put or not?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is the only one to be confused; as far as I am concerned, there was a no and the motion cannot be put.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
July 19, 1973-Mr. Stackhouse-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Family Allowances Act".
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, the bill I have presented, purporting as it does to authorize payment of family allowances to Canadian parents residing outside Canada but working for Canadian governments or Canadian companies, may not be in order, as you have suggested, in so far as its financial implications touch on the prerogatives of the Crown. Beauchesne says a private member's bill touching on these prerogatives requires the consent or recommendation of the Crown. To that end I have discussed the bill with the appropriate minister who thinks the purpose of the bill is included in the amendments proposed in his own family allowances bill. As a result, I have sent him a copy of my bill for study. If its objective is achieved by the government's bill proposing amendments to the Family Allowances Act, I readily agree that my bill should be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member puts the Chair in a difficult position. He cannot withdraw a bill conditionally. I suggest this is a point of order. The hon. member has the procedural right to propose a bill, but he cannot say he will withdraw it if the minister agrees to certain conditions. I am not pressing the hon. member, but if this is the argument he proposes in support of the procedural acceptability of his bill I will study the matter more closely and make a ruling. The hon. member's approach is apparently that if certain conditions are met he will withdraw his bill. I suggest to him that this is not proper procedure. I will study the matter more closely and make a ruling tomorrow on the hon. member's bill.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has Mr. L. Stewart Willoughby of Kingston, Ontario received a judicial appointment from the government and, if so, what is the nature of this appointment and what considerations led to such an appointment?
2.	If he has not received any appointment, is he about to receive it or is he being considered for it and, if so, what is the nature of it?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. No.
2. Governments in the past have not commented on matters relating to specific judicial appointments except in respect to policy and procedure.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many multiculturalism grant applications (a) were received (b) were approved throughout Canada as of May 31, 1973?
2.	By province, as of May 31, 1973 (a) what was the number of projects (i) received (ii) approved (b) what was the amount of funds granted?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: 1. Between the announcement of the grants program in October 1971 and May 31, 1973, 857 grants applications were received, of which 401 were approved.
2. By province (not including grants for multicultural centres, ethnic histories, etc.)
	Received Approved		Amount
British Columbia	75	42	$110,235.00Alberta	136	58	143,733.50Saskatchewan	36	19	32,800.00Manitoba	43	17	70,615.00Ontario	376	169	759,944.00Quebec	163	80	346,065.00Nova Scotia	23	13	31,735.00New Brunswick	4	3	7,400.00Prince Edward Island	-	-	-Newfoundland	-	-	-


Mr. Rowland: 1.	Of the Canadian horses shipped abroad during the past five years, what percentage was shipped for breeding purposes?
2.	In respect of horses shipped for breeding purposes during the past five years, for each year (a) what breeds were involved (b) what were the numbers of each breed shipped (c) in the case of each breed, how many were (i) stallions (ii) mares (d) for each breed, what was the age range of the horses shipped?
September 12, 1973


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The
Department does not require the exporter to indicate the purpose of export. However, all horses being shipped must be examined by veterinary officers, found to be healthy, fit for travel and in a condition for work or breeding.
2. Answered by No. 1.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	In the past five years, how many geldings have been shipped abroad?
2.	What percentage of total shipment of horses do the geldings represent?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Specific information on the breed or sex of horses exported is not required for health inspection and is not recorded.
2. As per answer No. 1.
ELECTION EXPENSES Question No. 2,661


Mr. Olaussen:: 1.	Which successful candidates in the 1972 general election had (a) the highest campaign' expenses (b) the lowest campaign expenses?
2.	What was the amount in each case?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows: 1. (a) Jim Gillies; (b) Gilles Caouette.
2. (a) $64,278.85; (b) $1,103.90.
Note: The answer to this question is based on the election expenses information contained in Sessional Paper No. 291-3/1 referred to in Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons No. 49 of March 13, 1973.
*



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fortin: 1.	What are the names of the lawyers and legal firms of the Province of Quebec who worked for the Department of Justice between January 1, 1969 and January 1, 1973?
2.	What tasks were performed by each one?
3.	What amount was paid to each (a) in fees (b) in travel expenses?
Return tabled.



QUEBEC LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

Mr. Fortin: 1. What are the names of the lawyers and legal firms of the Province of Quebec who worked for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs between January 1, 1969 and January 1, 1973?
Motions for Papers
2.	What tasks were performed by each one?
3.	What amount was paid to each (a) in fees (b) in travel
expenses?
Return tabled.



'REHABILITATION OF HARD DRUG ADDICTS

Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What amounts of money were spent in each province by the government in each of the past five years to rehabilitate hard drug addicts?
2.	What are the Department of National Health and Welfare estimates or statistics of the number of hard drug addicts in each province for each of the past five years?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and again draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to questions on the order paper Nos. 2271 to 2280 inclusive requesting a list of lawyers used by the government for legal business. I have been seeking this information for about five months. I believe this is the fifth time I have risen on a point of order asking when the information will be forthcoming. On Monday last the parliamentary secretary made no response to my inquiry in this regard and I now wonder, in view of the fact that further days have passed, whether it is not too much to expect him now to advise the House when this information long ago requested will be given.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the officials of the Department of Justice. I have not yet been able to get a firm date when the material will be available.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 237 is acceptable to the government.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Does it please the House that notice of motion No. 237 be deemed to be agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Do the other notices of motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COPY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO CIVIL AVIATION DISCUSSIONS OF PICKERING AND MIRABEL AIRPORT PROJECTS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 237-Mr. Ellis:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of documents used June 16 and June 21 in the discussion of the Civil Aviation
[Stage Direction]
September 12, 1973
Oral Questions
Section, Canadian Soviet Transportation Working Group, at the Pickering Airport Project and at the Mirabel Airport Project.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of the growing complaints of small businessmen about the cost of credit to them these days. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the two-tier system for small business loans is still in effect, as I assume it is, and, if so, whether the minister can tell the House what is the rate of interest charged on loans? I believe the figure of $200,000 is the dividing line between the lower tier and the upper tier. Can the minister tell us what the interest is in the lower tier?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the two-tier system is in effect. The rate of interest charged varies from bank to bank. I can give him the complete information tomorrow or send it to him personally.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Some time ago the minister indicated that a monitoring system was being established to enable the minister to assure himself from time to time that this policy was being followed in a satisfactory way. I should like to ask the minister whether in fact such a monitoring system has been established and whether in fact the minister knows, or has means available to him of knowing on a regular basis, the volume of loans made by banks in amounts under $200,000 and the rates of interest charged?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I put that problem to the Governor of the Bank of Canada and suggested to him that we ought to have those figures prior to the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. As the hon. gentleman knows, the Canadian Banking Association has published figures of a breadth and depth not hitherto published. It is my understanding and expectation that we will have henceforth a far wider range of figures. As for the specific request concerning the breakdown of loans below $200,000 and above that figure, I will check again to see what we can produce.
* (1430)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it fair for me to assume, as I do from the minister's answer, that the minister has not in fact established through his own office the monitoring system he indicated he would establish to follow the extent to which this policy was being carried out?


John Napier Turner: I do not think that is quite a fair assumption. The publication of figures by the
[Mr. Ellis.J
banking system is becoming far wider than it was. I expect that full publication to continue. As to the monitoring system, I asked the Governor of the Bank of Canada to conduct it rather than the Department of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition will be recognized on a supplementary question, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. We will return, if necessary, to this question on which many supplementaries are sought.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated he will provide certain information for me tomorrow. Will he provide the volume of loans by the banking system in the recent period of time in amounts under $200,000 and the rates of interest charged?


John Napier Turner: I will give the hon. gentleman all the figures that I have.


OIL-RESPONSE OF COMPANIES TO GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST FOR PRICE FREEZE-PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN EXPORT QUOTA HEARINGS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister tell the House whether he has now received word from all of the major oil companies indicating their willingness to comply with the government's request for a freeze on Canadian crude oil until January 30? Have all the companies now agreed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I am correct in saying that certainly all the major ones have, subject, of course, to the qualification that they were not in a position to exercise control over non-owned distributors and subject to certain clarification as to the application of the request which we hope to cover by means of guidelines. But in general terms the answer is yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister at what price per barrel at the wellhead is the freeze taking place and when he intends to introduce legislation to carry out the commitment he made last week to divorce the price of crude oil in Canada from the world price?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The price would be as of the
date of the announcement which, as I recall, was September 4, 1973, and my hope would be to introduce legislation within the month of October because of the importance of early action.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a final supplementary regarding the minister's announcement some time ago that the National Energy Board would hold hearings concerning quotas for export control of oil. Will they be public hearings so that consumers and other interested persons may have some input into these discussions before the quotas are set?
September 12, 1973


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir, they will be public hearings. I should indicate that it will still be entirely relevant to determine the appropriate level of reserves and therefore the surplus available for export notwithstanding the decision with regard to a multi-price system. There may be a request from some of the parties involved for perhaps a month's delay to prepare for hearings, but they will be public.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister and before doing so, I am raising a question of privilege.
Yesterday and the day before I was invited by the CBC interviewers to go to room 130S. On the English network, I was questioned about the famous motion introduced by the Progressive Conservative party Monday last. On the French network last night, I was questioned about the present unemployment rate in Canada. Those two issues were truly national. Now neither of those interviews were broadcast by the CBC, while last evening, Rene Levesque, who has nothing to do at the national level, was shown in colour stating his family allowance scheme for Quebec if one day he became the government leader.
Now, I will put my question to the Prime Minister. When he told me a couple of years ago that he would eventually put the key on the joint, the CBC, is he now prepared to finally do so on this separatist, socialist joint, the CBC?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is no doubt aware of the fact that I share the use of this key with all parliamentarians. He knows also that a committee of this House has had the opportunity of reviewing this matter. I was not myself present at these committee meetings, but I thought I had detected the impression, at least among many members, that if all was not perfect on the French side, things were going a lot better than during the bad years of 1968 and 1969 and that it was rather on the English network that the New Left was heard all too often on the air.
I ask the hon. member: Was it on the English or the French network that they did not refer to his statements?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might perhaps put a supplementary question if he wishes.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr, Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Temiscamingue. The hon. member for Ottawa West on a point of order.
[ English]


Mr. Reilly:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussion of this kind with respect to an independent Crown corporation such as the CBC is most inappropriate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Peter Reilly: -coming from that government or any other government. Talking about locking doors, as a former employee of the CBC I can tell you it will not work even if they had the guts to try it, which they do not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We do not appear to be making very much progress.
[ Transla tion]
The hon. member might ask his supplementary question, after which we will try to come back to the first subject matter and to the supplementaries that hon. members wish to ask.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member for Ottawa West says that it is a Crown corporation, it is nevertheless subjected to the laws of parliament.
I would ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that my statement made a moment ago prompted applause from every corner of the House, does he think he has actually the right key to put on the door of this separatist and socialistic joint, the CBC?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Leader of the Opposition rising on a supplementary question?
[ Translation]


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that perhaps the answer he gave last night was not comprehensive enough.

[ English]


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementay question to the question of the Leader of the Opposition to the Minister of Finance. When the minister is getting information for the Leader of the Opposition on small business loans, would he also investigate the reasons why the banks, which made loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act between 1971 and 1973 at an interest rate as low as 6!4 per cent, are now charging fishermen as much as 8 per cent?


John Napier Turner: Without accepting those allegations, may I say that the hon. gentleman is certainly entitled to some clarification.


INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION RESPECTING SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Can he indicate to the House when we can expect the legislation to deal with small business announced and promised last July, I believe, by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?

September 12, 1973
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: As soon as he gets back from Tokyo he will be tackling this particular measure.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East for one last supplementary on this series of questions, and then the hon. member for Calgary North who has a supplementary on a previous subject.


TIGHT MONEY POLICY-PRIOR CONSULTATION ON EFFECT ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION PROGRAMS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that high interest rates and the tight money policy now being pursued by the government are counterproductive to the government's DREE policy, may I ask the minister if there was any consultation between himself, the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada before the latter embarked on this tight money policy?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, there are constant consultations between myself and the Minister of Finance with regard to various measures to assist the areas of slow growth in this country.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of continuing frustrations with regional development, best exemplified by the resignation of Mr. Fiske, Minister of Development for the province of Nova Scotia, who gave as one of the reasons for his resignation the performance of DREE, has the minister any new initiatives to announce such as calling on the Atlantic Development Council to deal with these continuing problems?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I, of course, cannot accept the premise of the question. The reasons why provincial ministers resign are completely outside my purview. But on the latter part of the question may I say this is certainly a possibility. As I believe the hon. member knows, I have made an appointment with the new chairman of the Atlantic Development Council and have asked him what he considers to be the best forum or best area for discussion. I should add that within the next few weeks, some time during this month, I will be meeting with the Council of Maritime Premiers on the same subject.


OPERATING POSITION OF METROPOLITAN AREA GROWTH INVESTMENT LIMITED
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether Metropolitan Area Growth Investment Limited, the joint federal-provincial Crown corporation formed some months ago, is now fully operative with all executive officers in place and with ongoing functions? If so, when can we expect a progress report?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there is an interim board of directors at the moment. We have made a recommendation to the government of Nova Scotia with regard to a chief executive officer. It is now a matter for the government of Nova Scotia to indicate whether it is prepared to accept our nominee, because it must be done on the basis of federal-provincial agreement.


POSSIBLE VETO BY QUEBEC OF PROPOSED EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-EFFECT ON CEILING ON CRUDE PETROLEUM PRICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with respect to the policy enunciated by the minister for the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan and the Islands. If the pipeline to be built to Montreal is not going to be built because of a veto by one province, will the policy as to the ceiling on the price of crude petroleum remain the same irrespective of whether that project goes ahead?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is not correct in his assumption. We indicated we would be having discussions with the provinces, and in the next several days I will be having discussions with the two provinces in question. The decision does remain in principle in favour of a Montreal connection. Therefore the second part of the question does not follow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister make this very clear when he meets with the provincial ministers of Alberta and indeed of Quebec, neither of which provinces he consulted prior to the statement made on Tuesday of last week; because according to the national media Quebec did veto the project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the hon. member. Make what clear?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.
September 12, 1973


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in light of his statement issued to the press yesterday concerning the agreement between Canada and the United States on new air routes. Can he advise the House what is the rationale or reason for the ratio of two routes for Canada for every three routes for the United States?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can make this kind of assessment because we have to take into account the length of the routes and the important centres of population, and just to take the number of routes would give an entirely false impression.


DIVISION OF NEW ROUTES TO UNITED STATES BETWEEN AIR CANADA AND PRIVATE AIRLINES
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the fact Air Canada is a publicly owned carrier, can the Minister of Transport assure the House that the major share of these new routes will be granted to Air Canada rather than to Canadian Pacific Airlines and other privately owned carriers?


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


DOMESTIC AND GLOBAL POLICIES
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the impact the announcement the minister made regarding new United States-Canada air routes will have, hopefully, on the airline industry in Canada, can he advise the House whether the government will be announcing a new domestic air policy for Canada? Also, can he advise the House when we may expect the long-awaited announcement on the global air policy which he has referred to in the House on many occasions?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious to make this announcement and I hope to do so before too long.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Inside the House?


Jean Marchand: Yes, I can do it in the House if the House is ready to accept it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a point of order. I appeal to hon. members for co-operation with the Chair in order to permit as many questioners as possible by raising as few points of order and questions of privilege as possible.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: My point of order is for the purpose of. clarification. I wonder whether the minister can advise the House whether the government is considering formulation of a new domestic air policy to cover the allocation
Oral Questions
of air routes for Canadian Pacific Airlines and Air Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will appreciate that is hardly a point of order. He has asked a supplementary question. Perhaps it would be simpler if the Chair allowed the minister to reply, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Crowfoot. Again I suggest to hon. members that it is not in order to ask questions under the guise of points of order. However, the question having been asked, the minister might be given an opportunity to reply.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is an existing policy concerning domestic civil aviation in Canada. It is known. I do not think it is our intention to change it. So far as the allocation of routes to the airlines is concerned, this will be known as soon as the agreement is ratified by both governments.


PROPOSED INCREASE IN LANDING FEES FOR SMALL AIRCRAFT-REVIEW OF DECISION
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with landing fees and landing rights within Canada for small aircraft. I understand the department is going to increase landing fees for small airplanes within Canada on October 1. Has the department reviewed that decision and is it now going to change it and lower landing fees for small aircraft?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered this question in the House, and my reply now will be about the same. We have received many representations on these fees. We are reviewing the whole matter now, and before October 1 we will establish a policy.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Considering that thousands of citizens between the age of 60 and 65 have great difficulty in finding employment, does the minister intend to submit a special bill to help these people?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this subject is examined in the working paper which was tabled in the House on April 18 of this year. It is now being discussed with the provinces.
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre who has a supplementary to his previous question, after which I will recognize the hon. member for York-Sunbury.

September 12, 1973
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


REASON FOR NO ROUTE FOR CANADIAN CARRIER BETWEEN OTTAWA AND WASHINGTON IN AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a further supplementary to the Minister of Transport, and at the same time may I ask him to take the opportunity to reply to my second question. In view of the fact that the United States has a route from its national capital, Washington, to Montreal and Ottawa, would he advise why no route was obtained for Canada from Ottawa to Washington? Why has this not happened? Did Canada ask for such a route?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is a route now to Washington with a stopover in Syracuse, but I think the point is very well taken. The proposed agreement will have to be ratified by both governments, and this is surely something we can look into. We have a commitment from the United States government that before the end of the year it will be ready to consider points that will be submitted to it in the spirit of the hon. member's suggestion.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the strong support recently expressed by the Governor of the State of Maine for a direct corridor road from Maine through New Brunswick to Quebec, will the Prime Minister investigate the feasibility of such a project for the economic betterment of eastern Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, naturally I want to be helpful to the Governor of Maine and to the hon. member if he is making a policy proposal. My understanding is that the people of the Mari-times are quite divided on this subject and that, depending on where you live in the Maritimes, you are either for or against that corridor road. However, I am certainly open to further persuasion, and if there is a unanimous resolution of the Conservative party, for instance, supporting this corridor road it would naturally influence me to try to do something pleasing to them.
[ Translation]



PROPOSED ROAD FROM MAINE THROUGH NEW


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, about this same question, considering that there still are hundreds of miles of incomplete highway in each of the Maritime provinces, can the Prime Minister give us the assurance that he v/ill first deal with this problem

before investing with the State of Maine in the construction of a so-called corridor highway?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, while I wish to please the Progressive Conservative party, I want even more to please the Liberals. I therefore strongly retain the idea of the hon. member.
*	4=	*



AIR CANADA


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister yet undertaken a review of the use by Air Canada of JP4 gasoline which is less safe than the fuel used by most commercial airlines and by Department of Transport aircraft that transport federal cabinet ministers? If so, what is the position of the government at this time?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I flew on a DOT Jetstar and it used JP4.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Since, after the explosion of an Air Canada DC8 on June 21, some 3,150 gallons of kerosene were still safe in the tanks, is the government going to consider ordering Air Canada to use kerosene which, while more expensive, is far less dangerous than JP4?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I regret that all the technical advice I have is to the effect that your statement is not right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the minister was not addressing the Chair at that moment.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In view of the recommendation of the Senate special committee on science policy that the science ministry be responsible for the over $1 billion spent each year by government departments on research and development, will the minister be recommending to cabinet that her department be made an operational ministry and fulfil this and other responsibilities?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, if I can rely on the quick glance cast at this report, I do not think that Senator Lamontagne recommended that the Ministry of State for
September 12, 1973

Science and Technology be made directly responsible for the whole billion dollar budget reserved for scientific research activities.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In view of the conclusion of this report that "after years of analysis the time has now come for decision and action," when will the minister be reporting to the House about changes she will make in the operation and organization of her department to conform with some of these recommendations?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, some of Senator Lamontagne's recommendations already appear in the projects of the ministry. I shall eventually announce some measures concerning the ministry, and I look over each and every recommendation in the Lamontagne report, to my greatest englightenment and that of my officials.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister of which I gave him notice so that we might have a considered reply. How will the government respond to the telegram from the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women asking for government intervention to prevent or stay evictions of non-status women from the reserves, which came about as a result of the recent and, I may say, lamented Supreme Court decision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member would only want me to paraphrase my answer, as it would certainly be a matter of courtesy to answer them before giving an answer to the hon. gentleman. As I understand it, part of their concern deals with the abolition of the Indian Act or certain parts of the Indian Act. I point out to the House of Commons that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development more than four years ago indicated to the House that we were prepared to do away with the act in its entirety but that we would not want to do it without a great deal of consultation from the native people themselves, because there was obviously a lack of unanimity among them as to the content and timing of such changes. I think the hon. member knows that the Indian people were not 100 per cent in support of the cause that he seems to be promoting.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I would have done better without notice, with great respect. I was asking about a stay of the eviction of people. As the right hon. gentleman may remember from when he taught law, the eviction process is to get people out of places where they are not supposed to be. That is really what I want to know. Will there be a stay of eviction proceedings? Will
Oral Questions
the government intervene? The Indian Act can be dealt with in the next few years.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is filling in for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It arises out of the commitment he made to the House yesterday to look into the takeover bid for Acklands Limited. In view of the concern expressed by the government of Manitoba, is the minister in a position now to answer that question?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the legal representatives of Genuine Parts Company of Atlanta have been in touch with us and have written today to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce outlining the details of the proposed acquisition bid. They have advised us that in the event the acquisition is consummated, Genuine Parts Company has no plan to phase out Acklands' operations or to alter Acklands method of operation. Nor will the company increase Acklands' purchases from United States suppliers. Although Bill C-132 is not yet law, I am informed that the executives of that company are prepared to and have offered to meet the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and that meeting is now being arranged.



GOVERNMENT INTENTION RESPECTING PROCEEDING WITH FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW BILL

Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be allowed to answer a related question asked by the hon. member for Peace River about Bill C-132. I am informed that the bill continues to have very high priority and will be brought forward shortly.



PROPOSED TAKEOVER OF ACKLANDS LIMITED BY UNITED


Robert Knight Andras: Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I deal with another question having to do with the proposed acquisition of Acklands. We have not had, according to my information, representations from the government of Manitoba on this issue.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As it is my understanding that the Minister of Industry in Manitoba has sent a telegram to the minister concerning this subject in which he expressed concern about the possibility of joint federal-provincial action to prevent this takeover, in the event this is confirmed, as it will be, I am sure, by the minister

September 12, 1973
Oral Questions
later this day, will the minister assure the House that the federal government will respond to this provincial initiative and take action that will put off completion of the takeover bid until consultation has taken place between the federal government and the government of Manitoba?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question asked by the hon. member is at least partly hypothetical and can be considered as a representation. Perhaps we might be allowed to go to the next question.


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as this takeover bid affects in a serious way a couple of thousand employees and as another government in Canada, the government of Manitoba, is concerned about the takeover, I wonder, notwithstanding the improper phrasing of the question, if the minister, who got the sense of the question, could be permitted to answer?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, again I confirm that a few minutes before the question period my information was that we had not received such representations from the government of Manitoba, but I most certainly will recheck that and in the event that is the case we will certainly respond. I could not make an unequivocal commitment to stop this acquisition because Bill C-132 is not yet law. I am encouraged however, as I think the hon. member might be, to note that the principals are voluntarily submitting their detailed proposals to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and are prepared to consult and, I hope, to be influenced by the response.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Could he advise the House of the steps he will take concerning the serious problems which the Mohawk Indians and the white people are facing in Caughnawaga?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, I met Chief Kirby of the Caughnawaga Reserve. Under the Indian Act, the Indian people on this reserve, like those on any other reserve for that matter, have the right to pass bylaws concerning non-Indians living on the reserve. This is exactly what the council intends to do. They intend to pass this bylaw which will become effective within 40 days. If people believe it is not fair they could appeal to courts. It is impossible for me under the circumstances to act like a judge in this matter.


René Matte: Has the minister received complaints from young Indians who, with the support of older ones, would disapprove entirely of the band council which they would consider a creature of the federal government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is the elected council of Caughnawaga which is recognized by the federal government under the Indian Act. The hereditary chiefs do not enjoy such status under the law. Some provisions of the act would enable them to exercise efficient control were they in majority within the Caughnawaga band, but apparently this is not so at the present time.



WHEAT-DELIVERIES NOT YET MADE UNDER CONTRACTS WITH U.S.S.R. AND CHINA

Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Have all deliveries been made under the long-term, low-price wheat contracts with the U.S.S.R. and China and, if not, how much grain remains to be delivered?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, all the grain has long ago been delivered on the contracts which were entered into during the low-price periods, but there are still some deliveries being made on the contracts entered into after prices rose to a significant degree.



FISHERIES


Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. It relates to the production of fishmeal. In view of the fact that during the past couple of years Canada has produced several times the amount of fishmeal consumed domestically, will the minister advise as to the motivation of the government in placing a virtual embargo on exports of that product?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister may reply briefly to the question and he will be given the floor for that purpose, but normally that kind of information is given to the House by way of a statement on motions.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, it was to ensure that Canadian resources are used to produce jobs in Canada rather than in other countries.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It relates to the announcement last month by the Minister of the Environment with regard to the cancellation of the shipbuilding subsidy on ships of up to 75 feet in length. The minister stated this would not have
September 12, 1973

any serious effect on regional development. Has any word been received from the premiers of the Atlantic provinces as to the impact of this program and loss of employment this fall? In particular, has the minister any plans to announce with regard to the very serious unemployment problem which is, presumably, resulting in the Atlantic and the Pacific regions?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. This is a rather complex question. I have not heard from the premiers concerned but I have heard from a number of ministers in the provinces. I will have to check the record to see just which ones they were. At present my department is consulting with the Department of the Environment. Early assessment indicates we can provide some additional funds during the 90-day study period so that orders in the shipyards will not go down during that time. I know we are quite well advanced in negotiations with Newfoundland; I will have to check to see where they stand with regard to the other Atlantic provinces. I believe suitable arrangements can be worked out jointly between DREE and the Department of the Environment.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the fact that all members of the House are interested in encouraging farmers to stay in production and as a particular means of encouragement to young farmers, can the minister assure the House that the 7 per cent interest rate on farm credit loans will be maintained as at least one way for farmers to hold down the cost of production?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the whole subject of interest on farm credit loans. We have maintained a 7 per cent interest rate on farm credit loans while other interest rates have increased. This shows our concern for farmers, particularly young farmers. Our concern will continue to be in that form.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In answer to the hon. member for Temiscamingue the Prime Minister referred to changes that had occurred in the French language network of the CBC. Will the Prime Minister table in the House a list of the changes the government has ordered or otherwise caused to be taken within the CBC French language network in the period referred to in the previous exchange?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there may have been a misunderstanding, perhaps because of the translation. I did not indicate that the government had suggested or demanded any changes. I indicated that my impression from various people who talked about the kind of complaint the hon. member for Temiscamingue raised was that although the CBC, French side, is by no means perfect it is no longer as strong a vehicle of separatism as it was four or five years ago.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Prime Minister ascertain whether in fact any changes were brought about by the activity, indirectly or otherwise, of the government and, if so, will he table a report in the House specifying those changes?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs convey the regret felt by the overwhelming majority of members of the House because of the tragic death of the democratically elected President of Chile, and its fervent hope for the early return of democratic government in Chile?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in expressing those words I am sure the hon. member has expressed the view of members of this House. As Secretary of State for External Affairs I will be extending sympathy to the people of Chile on the death of their president and, of course, my condolences to the family. All of us, I am sure, express the hope that democratic institutions will be restored to Chile without delay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Treasury Board has now made available a two-volume manual, four inches thick, entitled "The Manual of the Official Languages Administrative System", which is available to all departments in the public service. This manual sets out how the federal government's bilingual resolution is to be implemented. Will Treasury Board kindly make available to members of the House copies of this manual so that members can see how Treasury Board is interpreting this resolution?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: will be glad to, Mr. Speaker.

September 12, 1973
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION



SUCCESS OF PROGRAM FOR REGISTRATION OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with regard to the "last chance" policy of the government. Is the minister satisfied with the rate of registration by illegal immigrants?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the response so far has been positive. There were 700 persons who registered yesterday. This brings the total to 27,756 persons who are taking advantage of the act. I might say that 6,549 of these registrants have already had an assessment interview, of which 6,490, or 99.1 per cent, have conformed with the regulations and can be landed. The remaining 0.9 per cent are subject to further review. I would, as the hon. member would, encourage all those who have not yet come forward to take advantage of this program. However, I think the pace is quickening and I hope that all those entitled will come forward to be registered and landed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is the minister aware of the fact it is reported immigration officials have indicated that many illegal immigrants, because of fear and distrust are not coming forward as rapidly as all of us would like to see? If the minister is aware of this, has he taken any steps to alleviate this situation and reduce the fear which I believe does exist?


Robert Knight Andras: I join the hon. member in recognizing that we have felt this possibility of fear and mistrust existing from the beginning. To overcome this, however, we have carried on a very active information and publicity campaign, and special attention has been paid to many of the pockets where more precise indications of concern have been expressed. As a result, we have seen an increase in trust, an increase in the numbers coming forward. I hope the hon. member and all other hon. members will join me in underlining the sincerity and integrity of this program and in seeking to remove distrust wherever it exists in order that the program will meet with success in the final analysis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Is the Minister of Justice rising on a point of order?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There have been the usual discussions and I believe there is general agreement to call the report stage and third reading of Bill C-220 which was reported out of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs yesterday without amendment. There is an understanding that it will be dealt with fairly quickly in the House at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Mr. Bell:: We agree.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-220, to amend the statute law providing for the payment of supplementary retirement benefits to certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the consolidated revenue fund, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak briefly on third reading of this bill I wish to say at the outset to the acting government House leader that it is my intention to be the only spokesman for my party at this final stage, and to expedite the passage of the measure.
The bill is a very important one for the public servants of Canada who sometimes, unfortunately, are maligned, criticized and ridiculed in a way they ought not to be. I think we ought to remember, especially in the national capital, that if there is a proliferation of public servants in terms of numbers it is because the country is prepared, at this point at least, to accept a proliferation of government programs.
In the speech which I made on second reading I expressed regret-and this regret still stands-that the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point at which it would at least acknowledge the pleas which have been made for many years by public servants, their staff associations, their families and others, that the concept of linking pensions with the cost of living index be recognized. It has now been so recognized and I think this is an important landmark for public servants and those who have served their country in other capacities in the public realm.
We do not want to say, however, that we have come to the end of the road with respect to public service matters and matters dealing with the armed forces generally. We still have ahead of us the whole concept of collective bargaining in the public service and the position of those members of the armed forces who decide to serve their country in the public service after their term of duty in the armed forces is completed. We still have before us the whole question of the age at which public servants ought to retire-whether that age ought not to be lowered. It still remains for us to consider the position of widows in the context of public servants' pensions and superannuation plans.
September 12, 1973

Then there is the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the important question of which index is to apply. We must consider whether it is simply to be the cost of living index or whether we should move on to other indices or aspects of the cost of living index which would bring greater justice to public servants. We have to consider afresh the whole subject of working conditions. We must consider, as we go ahead, the wisdom or otherwise of the manner in which the superannuation account is administered, as acknowledged by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) yesterday. I believe there is a certain amount of discontent, a feeling that there is great room for improvement in the administration of this account. This will be the challenge before parliament in the years to come.
The government has met in part, the challenge which faces it now, but I suggest it did so with some reluctance and only after a tremendous amount of urging by those of us who have been interested in public service matters over the years. The Liberal member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) stated in the course of his remarks that we would all support this overdue increase. There is no question that it is overdue. There is no question that every member of the House wholeheartedly supports this bill on third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was being considered in committee yesterday afternoon I suggested that any further debate would really be a case of wrapping it in fancy paper and tying it with a bow ribbon. The fact of the matter is that it is a good piece of legislation. We welcome it, and are glad it is being passed by this parliament.
Some of us have been concerned about this matter for many years, in fact, for decades. I well recall the historic step which was taken at the end of 1969 and early in 1970 when provision was first made for the pensions of retired public servants and other government employees to be escalated after retirement. That was, as I say, a historic step, but there were two or three major deficiencies in the bill which was passed in 1970. What we are doing now is to correct those deficiencies.
The corrections are mainly two. We are providing that the pensions of retired public servants and the other related groups shall be escalated each year, not just by 2 per cent but by the total percentage increase in the cost of living. This is good. This is welcome news to the nearly 100,000 people who are affected by this legislation. The other change is to lower slightly and under certain conditions the age at which escalation can begin in the case of retired RCMP and retired armed forces personnel. This change does not go far enough, but as far as it goes it is most welcome.
As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has said, this is not the end of the road as far as public service matters generally are concerned. I underline the various points he has made touching other subjects which ought to be dealt with. But I also emphasize, even as one who has supported this legislation and who supports it today, that this bill is not even the end of the road as far as public service pensions are concerned.
Family Allowances
Within a few weeks, or within a few months at most, when we have passed proposed amendments to the Canada Pension Plan, we will just about have done the job of providing for all pensions that come under federal auspices to be escalated at least annually by the full extent of the cost of living increase. But we must move on from that. Merely to get one's pension escalated in step with the cost of living increase is simply a case of being permitted to continue to enjoy only that total amount of goods and services that one enjoyed at retirement. But society moves on. Wage levels move up and the standard of living goes up. Some of us feel that we must now start to think of escalating pensions in accordance with the rise in wage and salary levels and in accordance with the rise in the gross national product.
One of the good things about coming to the end of a crusade is that it gives one a chance to begin a new one. We welcome this bill. We welcome what it means not only to the nearly 100,000 persons it affects, but in principle to all Canadians. But now is the time to look forward to the escalation of pensions on still a better index so that our retired people, public servants and all our citizens, will have the right to enjoy not only enough to keep alive, not only enough to keep up with the cost of living, but the opportunity to share in the increases in the standard of living which society is able to achieve, which to a large extent has been made possible by our older people. With pleasure, we support this bill.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, if I have not joined in this discussion it is simply because I support this bill without reservation and because, as an Ottawa resident, I am most pleased to see this government legislation about to be passed.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT AND YOUTH ALLOWANCES ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, September 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-223, to amend the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking on Bill C-223 last evening I was unfortunately interrupted by an intentional interjection by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), who to me was attempting to cut off my complete freedom to speak on this bill as I saw fit. It is interesting to note that when the bill was introduced by the minister to whom I have referred, he was not interrupted once. Yet in his presentation he referred to inflation, the cost of living, and made other references in

September 12, 1973
Family Allowances
defence of the government's hopeless handling of inflation in this country, 21 times. He made those references in the context of saying that the bill before the House today, Bill C-223, was one of the government's ways of combating inflation in this country. We are surely entitled, on this side of the House, to call that type of representation what it is-misrepresentation.
In this context I think the House should be reminded of the minister's words in his maiden speech in the House on January 11. After pointing out that he felt it was almost sacred in the House that those in government follow the advice of the 264 delegates of the Canadian people who were sharing the government's task, the minister went on to say, as reported at page 197 of Hansard:
I believe the highest honour that can be conferred on one of its members is that of being recognized by his colleagues as a true House of Commons man. As I begin my parliamentary career, I can only express the hope that one day my colleagues will be kind enough to give me such an honour.
Whoever is chalking up the tally in anticipation of the conferral of such honour, I hope they chalk up against the minister what he did in the dying hours of the debate last evening.
It is strange what nine months can do to a minister. Nine months to the day of his saying those words he has become an arrogant, Trudeau cabinet minister. Perhaps the thing I take greatest exception to is not whether the minister misused the rules of the House in making his interjection but that the minister made new misrepresentations. I refer to a statement of his to the effect that the official opposition has been well known over the years for its opposition to any move to increase family allowances. How could the minister make that statement on the same day that my colleague, speaking as the main critic for our party, said in the debate he was concerned that the minister may not be able to bring in the bill contemplated earlier-that is, the $20 average family allowance bill-in time for January, 1974? My colleague concluded by saying, as reported at page 6424 of Hansard:
For our part we shall support this measure. Faint as it is, it does help, and we wish to help these people as much as possible.
In spite of that statement by my colleague, we have the minister misrepresenting to the House, according to his language, that this party has always stood in the way of family allowance advances. Having said that, I believe it is interesting to go a little further and to say, if the minister is sincere in what he says, that I wish he had introduced in the bill now before the House a provision that would at least have restored to the families of Canada the buying power that their family allowances had when the Conservative government was in power in this country. The minister has put a deflator on the $12 proposed in this bill. If the figure were deflated to the 1960 period, it would be found to be actually 50 cents short of regaining to those who received family allowance the buying power it had in the years of Conservative government in this country.
Think of it. Here we have a minister who comes into this House and, without admitting that it is his government's mishandling of the economy that has caused inflation, expects us to accept as a kind of magnanimous gesture an increase which does not even restore the buying power of

family allowances to what it was in the years of the previous Tory government in this country. To put it another way, this gesture represents an increase of, not $12-let us not forget this-but $4.80, which is 15 cents per day, per child. That is what the minister expects us to jump up and down about and exclaim, "aren't they tremendous in their anxiety to help families in this country?"
I raise these points because, while we are not opposed to an increase in family allowances, we think family allowances should be put on a basis as contemplated in the bill which, hopefully, will be introduced shortly, that is, to take into account deflation or inflation as the case may be. It is totally wrong for the minister in introducing the bill in this House to pretend that somehow this is a measure designed to fight inflation, and to suggest that this is something the government is doing in the best interests of Canada, without admitting that it is his government's mishandling of the economy which has resulted in those who receive family allowances requiring such an increase.
Having said that-I know this will embarrass the government and the minister-in June of this year the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which represents 24 countries including the United States, Japan, France, West Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Britain, stated in a report that the consumer price index for food had risen more sharply in Canada than in seven other industrialized countries in the 12-month period ending in June. Those are the facts, and surely we in the opposition have the right to point them out and to insist that the minister discontinue his tendency of misrepresenting those facts to the House.
I would add that the same report also stated that the performance of the United States was the best in respect of all goods and services, yet we constantly find that, rather than introducing measures in this House that would contain inflation, this government only offers measures to relieve its effects, and some measures that indeed contribute to inflation. On that point, I would remind hon. members that on the twenty-first occasion on which the minister referred to inflation in his introductory remarks, he stated:
The government continues working to provide the best form of income security possible, and that is a reduction of the rate of inflation itself.
I should like to see concrete evidence of the steps the government is taking to reduce inflation. It is not enough for the government to give us another twist to that old slogan "The land is strong" by simply saying "Lalonde is strong". This country deserves better government than it has received in the past ten years. The evidence of mishandling is there and it is important that we should not be confused. The bill before us is a measure which simply relieves. I might add that it does not entirely restore the loss in buying power of those who receive family allowances. I say that because the increase is 50 cents short of returning that buying power to its level during the previous Conservative government's days.
It is also interesting to note that if the buying power of family allowance recipients was to be restored to the level of 1946 when family allowances were first introduced, we would be considering an average allowance of $19.35 as opposed to $12. That is why my colleague, the hon. member
September 12, 1973

for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), indicated in his remarks; he felt it would be more fitting to provide something closer to the average in order to compensate for what has been lost in buying power as a result of inflation in this country.
In short, we are supporting this bill in order to help those who have been hurt by inflation which is at least in part due to this government's mishandling of our economy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: From you, gladly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are very kind. In view of the hon. member's statement, and he said it last night as well, that his party is supporting this bill mainly because inflation has made it necessary for these payments to be increased, may I ask if that means they do not support in principle the idea of family allowances as a means of redistributing income?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister is not in attendance to hear my answer to that question. I personally support the bill in principle, and to prove my point I should like the hon. member to read my column sent out on August 15.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not see the House leader or the acting House leader, but I believe there was agreement among the four parties that this bill would be referred to the committee of the whole House rather than to the standing committee.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there has indeed been consultation through the usual channels and I understand there was agreement to consider this bill in the committee of the whole House. If the appropriate amendment could be made to the motion, I would appreciate it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House give unanimous consent to modification of the motion in order that the bill may be referred to the committee of the whole House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On clause 1-Monthly allowance.
Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the minister was not present in the House as the hon. member for York-Simcoe finished his address. One wants to have as
Family Allowances
broad a degree of good will and unanimity as one can on these matters, and I think a courtesy would have been extended had the minister been here. I hope he was not behind the curtain smoking, which would be a most terrible thing for a Minister of National Health and Welfare to do.
Also, I deplore the sour note that was added to the discussion of this measure when the minister, last night sought, on a point of order, to take the floor from the hon. member for York-Simcoe. I know the minister has not been in this House very long and may not be familiar with the ways here, but this is not good form by any means and does not add to the good will which can permeate this chamber if the House decides on the passage of legislation. There are some in the press gallery, if they are ever here, who regard this chamber as something between a large courtroom and a small circus, but when parliament is performing well it is in fact neither. So I deplore what I would have to describe as the ill-mannered performance of last night. I want to say that in the interest of a supportive House in respect of this measure-and I pledged that on behalf of my party long ago-members of my party made interesting and valuable speeches, as did members of all parties.
In my opinion there has been a good discussion of this important matter. I listened to every speech made by the minister and members from every portion of the House. I think this is the way we should conduct ourselves, having due and proper regard for the rights and indeed the views of others, and not imputing motives. I even heard the minister say that the member had a right to speak. Of course he had. That is what this place is all about.
So far as I am concerned, we on this side of the House have conducted a careful examination of the measure and if it is the disposition of other parties to field one speaker on the matter I am prepared to pledge my party to do the same so that we can put this measure forward. We have given it our blessing and our criticism. I suppose the minister will pay as much attention to one as to the other. But at this particular stage we are prepared to play our part to advance this legislation. Faint though it be, we will not blot out such light as it may bring to bear.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I respect, as usual, the remarks and the call for unity of the hon. member for Hillsborough. I find that somewhat unique in light of the remarks of the hon. member for York-Simcoe last evening. The members of the Conservative party must have had a long conversation in caucus to make sure they knew how the hon. member would vote when the vote finally came around.


An hon. Member:: Did you hear the part about manners?


William George Knight: Some Conservatives made disparaging speeches but they sent their noble statesman from Prince Edward Island to clear the air. So we accept his statement. However, I wish to make a few remarks related to the principle of the bill and to clause 1 and what it is all about.
I am one who was brought up in the environment of a working-class home where the mother always looked with
6476

September 12, 1973
Family Allowances
anticipation to a family allowance cheque as her source of income to spend on the needs of the children. People in such circumstances can respond in the affirmative to an increase in family allowances and to the principle of universality which is maintained in this interim change in the family allowance and in the bill as it will be presented to take effect in January, 1974.
There are not just the financial implications-and I think in the debate we missed this point-of increasing the family allowance but in this country thousands of women have decided not to go into the work force but to stay at home and raise a family. Psychologically-I believe this is important-they look upon the family allowance as a source of income to them within the family structure for assistance in the upbringing of children. So at a time when we have seen a rise in the cost of living, not only do the mothers in urban areas of my constituency but the mothers on the family farm see an increase in the family allowance as a fundamental increase in the purchasing power of their families and an increase, in fact, of their responsibility in handling that extra money.
I fully support this increase. Other members have mentioned that they wish to see the complete increase to $20 which is to be presented in the new legislation; but I think that is something which, if it comes in January, will be better late than never. In our society approximately 3.5 million Canadian families will be affected by this increase to $12 a month in October, 1973. That, along with the tax concessions in terms of exemptions and so on of February-which I support-is a 12 per cent increase in purchasing power. That is not to be overlooked in terms of the importance of this bill.
I also want to point out that often, and justifiably so, we speak of the individuals in a family living below the poverty line. One in four Canadians is living below the poverty line, which has been described as $4,500 annually. There are 1,700,000 children involved in families living below the poverty line. However, let us speak in terms of the other families involved. Let us speak of the man, for example, who works for the highways department, is raising two or three young children and is earning $6,000 or $7,000 a year. We might also speak of the man who is running a grader for the municipality, is raising a family of two or three children and is earning $6,000 or $7,000 a year, or of a man who may be in organized labour but is working in a co-op store or in a Safeway's store and earning around $7,000 a year. This increase to $12 in non-taxable family allowance is of extreme benefit to these people in terms of the purchasing power of the family. It is related not merely to food but to clothing and other items. So it is fundamentally important that we support this legislation.
I want to state again that had not the Liberals and Conservatives supported the corporation tax cuts for corporations which are making profits the like of which we have never seen before, there could have been an additional $500 million to go to such items as family allowance. That would average in the neighbourhood of $140 a family. It would be a step along the road of a meaningful redistribution of income.
There is another factor I think ought to be considered in respect of redistribution of income. The hon. member for

Edmonton-Strathcona, for whom I have considerable respect-I have had an opportunity to converse with him in terms of ideas and ideology concerning airplanes- when speaking last night said he feared we are moving along the road to a guaranteed annual income for Canadians. He said he feared it. I want to say that I welcome it, that I believe it is a fundamental move in the direction of a guaranteed annual income for Canadians which will bring about a basic redistribution of wealth.
While increasing the family allowance at this time and making the increase non-taxable, the minister should give some thought to the increase to $20 maximum which will become effective on January 1, which will be taxable. My point is this: many people have said-in some ways I agree with them-that by making family allowances taxable, greater equity will be achieved because families that do not need this money will pay it back in income tax. There is some justification for saying that. But I point out that if you have read any of the studies on taxation and on the manner in which it is applied in this country, you will find that equity will in fact not be achieved; that our tax structure, in terms of how it affects families, working people, farmers and small businessmen, has certain inequities built into it.
Therefore, certain people in the high-income brackets, given the proper exemptions and proper kind of tax breaks which they get in terms of corporation dividend tax credits, etc., can in fact collect the family allowance of $20 maximum and not pay it back in income tax, while wage earners at a certain level can collect the $20 and will have to pay back a certain amount in tax. If you follow that argument, then you come to the logical conclusion that if you make the family allowance taxable, you have to take into consideration the necessity for a vast revision of the Income Tax Act to make sure that it fits into an equitable and progressive tax system, which is not the case today. I plead with the minister to use his good offices in the cabinet not only to change family allowances in terms of increasing the benefit but also to change the tax system so that it becomes a more progressive system for people in the middle and lower income brackets. In that way it would meet their needs much more adequately.
Several weeks ago the party to which I belong met in caucus. We considered a number of programs that we felt were necessary to bring about in order to meet; in the best possible way, the rise in the cost of living. One of them was immediate implementation of the new family allowances bill. We now have before us an interim measure. I believe we should in the coming months bring forth legislation related to the new change in order to ensure that by January 1 Canadian families receive an increased family allowance in accordance with the criticisms of the NDP in the previous session of parliament, before the general election, when we called for a universal scheme.
In my area many people said they were pleased that we stuck to our guns and would vote against a plan that was selective. We feel that a selective plan would pitch one neighbour against another and would cause the kind of agony that takes place in a small community when one family asks why another is getting so much in family allowance when they are only getting this much, even
September 12, 1973

though they do not know each other's circumstances. This causes bickering and bitterness, as has happened with the old age supplement. We accepted the principle of universality. It may be a fact that once this minority parliament is long gone and we go through another general election, the most fundamental piece of legislation in its significance to Canadians, in the realm of redistribution of income, will be the family allowance legislation, if we make sure that it is on the books in the new form which maintains the principle of universality. Furthermore, it may mean that minority governments will find it preferable in the future to do away with the stupid and erratic use of supplements to old age pensions and will apply them across the board similar to the principle we have established in the family allowances program.
Canadian families in the lower income brackets, if their income is $4,000 and there are four children in the family spend up to 32 per cent of their income on food. Families with incomes of $12,000 spend about 15 per cent of their disposable income on food. So this increase at this time can be of great benefit. As to other measures introduced by the government, although I would like to expand on them I believe they could justifiably be dealt with at another time.
I happened to agree last night with the remarks the minister made to the hon. member for York-Simcoe. The minister was frustrated by the fact that the subject of wheat was brought up in the debate as well as interest rates and other questions related to the cost of living. But I plead with him, in all sincerity, to approach the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture and to ask them to make a statement on motions in the House on exactly what kind of program they are putting into effect, where the benefit is to the consumer and where the benefit is to the producer. That matter should be clarified.
I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will ask his colleague, who I hope is listening to this debate, to rise in the House and explain those policies so that hon. members do not attempt, as did the hon. member for York-Simcoe and others, to drag into the debate other issues related to the cost of living. If ha were to do that, his legislation would go through the House with far greater speed.
In summary, I should like to say that I support this interim measure and look forward to the long-term legislation, which I will also support, to help Canadian families in general and families in the Assiniboia constituency in particular.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Roberval. Is the hon. member for Hamilton West rising on a point of order?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I do not wish to enter the debate and make a speech. The hon. member for Hillsborough presented the case of the opposition admirably and without equivocation, hesitation or reservation. All I want to do is ask the minister a question. Could he give me some assurance that the moneys that will be due-
Family Allowances


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I thought the hon. member wished to ask a question of the hon. member for Assiniboia. If not, let me point out to him that I had recognized the hon. member for Roberval. I will come back to the hon. member for Hamilton West later.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Chairman, without trying to delay the passage of this bill, I would like to make a few comments before we proceed to the consideration of every clause of the bill.
First, we are satisfied in part with this bill and I say right away that I support its passage. However, I regret that the minister did not introduce the measure he referred to in this House, namely that family allowances would be $20. However, we will be assured that our children, all children of Canada, until the age of sixteen, will finally have $12, considering the fact that we have been asking for years that allowances be geared to the cost of living. It is far from being so, but this is still better than nothing.
I congratulate the minister for having maintained the principle of universality as regards the new allowances that will be paid, as stated in the recommendation, after September 30, 1973, in the amount of $12 for every child of Canada, whatever his parents' means or wealth may be.
Mr. Chairman, we have always spoken in favour of universal laws. We are governed by a national government and we must always try to pass universal and not selective legislation. Selective legislation is always somewhat discriminatory for a given group of people.
We are considering here the child as a member of society and not of a group of people, for instance, who are poorer than others. It always bothers me when I hear about poverty. We must give more to Paul than to Harry because he is poorer; Harry is richer, Paul is less poor. Well, I suggest that this is not how we should distribute our country's income. When a child is entitled to family allowances, he is not entitled to it because he is poorer or richer than someone else but because he is a human being with a national right to a redistribution of national wealth.
It is from that point of view, Mr. Chairman, that I wish to support the minister, because he has upheld the universality concept which our party has always advocated. We are often asked: "What do you do about rich children in comparison with poor children?" Now, such is not the allowance issue nor the bill under consideration.
Indeed, we know perfectly well that the richer parents will compensate for the allowances paid to the poor. However, we consider that the allowances will be paid directly to the children, whatever the parents' means. And it will rest with the parents to do their duty by the state, but we do not have to bother about that, the state will see to it.
When we file income tax returns, the state does not forget it. If it must necessarily forget about the poor, it surely does not forget the more affluent and at this point, the head of the family should consider family allowances as a child's right. We are not necessarily giving charity to a child. When I hear about selectivity, it sounds like they were giving allowances because a child belongs to a very
26454-45)

September 12, 1973
Family Allowances
poor family. This is not a question of charity, but entitlement.
That is why allowances must remain universal. Thus, a lot is being saved at the administrative level because the allowances require only a distribution office and the production of a child's birth certificate.
On the other hand, if we had a selective allowances program, this would require an army of more than 4,000 inspectors to check on families in order to establish the age of the child and his parents resources, which would eat up perhaps one third of the money.
We are fed up with red tape. And at the present rate, particularly these past four or five years, there will soon be a whole army of bureaucrats. Why? Because certain selective laws require investigations and more investigations. as is the case for the Old Age Security Act and the former legislation on family allowances. And Quebec will soon propose $12 or $20 monthly allowances related to the degree of poverty or affluence of the parents. That is a game to which I object, and to which I will continue to object.
The minister has been firm today: he has introduced this bill containing only five clauses, but which has its merits. Allowances will at least have been increased to $12. The minister has decided to increase them later on to $20. Let him do it, but on the condition that they become universal. And when the matter of selectivity will be raised, let him object, for I repeat that the payment of family allowances is a right of the child and not an act of charity to the parents.
Once again I give the minister the assurance of our support every time that he will introduce legislation along those lines. And I wish with all my heart that in January the minister will submit another bill increasing allowances to $20 a month for all children. The minister has implied that this allowance will be subject to income tax. That is another matter, but all that we ask at first is that, whether it be of $20 or $25, as he determines, it retain its universal aspect, and I can assure the minister that on this point, he will get the support of 90 per cent of the population.
Once again, I congratulate the minister and assure him that we shall gladly support this bill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My only fear about this bill concerns the type of machinery which the minister and his department have in position. I ask the minister to assure hon. members and the people of Canada that the cheques containing the increase will go out on October 1. Can we have that assurance? Perhaps the minister has covered this matter already. However, I would point out, with respect to the income tax legislation, that I still receive letters from people asking why it is taking so long to process their returns. I hope the minister can be definite in his answer in order to give some hope to those who have been suffering as a result of the high cost of living.


Marc Lalonde: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the hon. member for Hamilton West that I am quite happy that there seems to have been a change of heart in

the official opposition between last night and this afternoon, and if the opposition-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I resent the minister returning to partisan tactics once again. The hon. member for Hillsborough put our position admirably. I asked the minister a simple question and he, after consulting his officials, surely can answer it. We do not need all this nonsense about changing position and that sort of thing. Just let him answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, anyone bothering to read the record will soon see who has indulged in partisanship in the last three days in this House. I can only answer the question in a hypothetical way because, as was shown clearly yesterday, I am in the hands of the official opposition with regard to the adoption of this bill. Yesterday they wanted to talk about it for a long time and today they are willing to proceed quickly with it. I am very pleased about that.
If the bill is passed in the next few days, I have no hesitation in saying that cheques will be issued in October and will include the amount that is proposed in the bill. Every month family allowance cheques are sent out so that they are received by families on or about the twentieth of the month. So on or about October 20, if parliament approves this bill, every family in Canada will receive for each child a cheque for $12.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and I hope the minister can give us an opinion on what I asked yesterday. I urged the minister to give particular attention to the possibility of granting family allowances up to age 21. Since the minister was then in the House, I should not have to repeat the arguments I presented yesterday, concerning all the changes which have taken place in our education system and which, not only, make it possible for children to go to school much longer than 20 or 25 years ago, but also makes it necessary. On the other hand, education costs are much higher than they were and the obligation for children to stay in school all day and have their meal there constitutes, of course, an additional charge for the parents. I wonder, in the context of present day life, if it would not be wise for the government to consider very soon, the possibility of granting family allowances up to the age of 21. The minister could at least give some hope to the population by telling us that he will think about consulting the population about this measure, which I consider to be very reasonable. I would like also to suggest to the minister, unlike my colleague on the right, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), who speaks of the universality of family allowances, that a national average be set up. I am very happy to see that the provinces will be able, to the extent where they shall have the right to do so, to give more to those who are in greater need.
I think this bill provides for a just distribution, and I hope that the minister can give some hope to the population concerning the establishment of a program of family allowances up to the age of 21.
September 12, 1973


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I am of course going to consider the view expressed by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) as I give serious consideration to every point he raises concerning the activities of my department and this subject will probably be brought up again for consideration during the study of the whole social policy we are presently conducting with the provinces.
As far as the mechanism that could be used to help students between 18 and 21 years of age is concerned, I am far from sure that the family allowance system is really the most appropriate one. As the hon. member knows, a good member of those students are able to work, for instance during the summer, and have sometimes quite a substantial income. Furthermore, at the academic level, there are a very large number of scholarships that of course vary according to the provinces and I think that eventually, a good number of provinces might extend their scholarship or loan system or even take steps toward free education even at the university level.
Then it seems to me that the principle of extending family allowances up to 21 years of age for a particular group should be considered in the light of all present social and educational assistance programs. I think that, in terms of priorities, the hon. member will admit that the first step was surely the one we submitted in the bill tabled in July. There are presently, as the hon. member also knows, many demands on public funds in the whole field of welfare which is really inadequate in many parts of the country.
Then, this shall be considered in terms of general priorities and demands made on available funds in the social security sector, not only at the federal but also at the provincial level.
That is, therefore, a question which I really cannot answer now but it will surely be studied in the course of my discussions with my provincial colleagues.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? I have not participated in this debate and do not intend to participate now to any great length. I certainly do not intend to be seduced by any provocative remarks in a political vein made by the minister. I listened to the hon. member for Assiniboia trying to bring in by the back door what he accuses the opposition of bringing in by the front door. However, I will rot allude to those items in this debate.
For the purposes of the record, in case there is any suggestion of filibuster, I hope it will be noted that this debate began on Friday and continued yesterday, that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition put up six speakers, and the NDP, in what might be described as an attempt almost to filibuster the principle of this bill, the principle of their pet proposal, put up four speakers.


Thomas Miller Bell: And the minister talked it out last night.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The minister, in a most unusual display of anxiety, practically exposed himself to the attentions of a medical doctor, to judge from the line he was developing last night. However, being objective, I wish to ask the minister a question. He or his officials may not be able to
Family Allowances
furnish the answer today. Perhaps the answer could be delivered by letter or given when we discuss another bill, because the present bill is an interim measure so to speak.
When we discussed the FISP legislation I asked a question which is related to the comments of the hon. member for Assiniboia when he spoke about redistribution of income. I want to know how income will be redistributed in this country by the granting of the $20 later, and the $12 at present, in family allowances. What will be the impact of any redistribution on the various regions and provinces?
In this country we have espoused regional economic policies, other economic policies and policies under which the central authority pumps money into many areas of Canada. For several reasons I want to know what will be the dollar impact of family allowances and youth allowances on the various regions and provinces. I do not think that information is in the orange book. If the minister can tell me now, I will be grateful; if not, perhaps he can tell me later.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for the very generous and non-partisan remarks which he made at the beginning of his comments. I refer him to the very useful document that was tabled in the House on April 18, entitled "Working Paper on Social Security in Canada". I refer him to table 10, page 55, which sets out for every province the amounts being paid by way of family and youth allowances, and OAS and GIS.
Since the $12 now proposed involves a simple addition to the existing legislation, if we assume that the average family allowance in Canada is worth about $7.21, it will be very easy for the hon. member to add the percentages that appear on page 55 of the working document to this figure and arrive at the approximate figure that is to be distributed in the various regions as a result of the increase.
With regard to the second aspect of the problem raised by the hon. member, I beg him to wait until we consider the bill providing for an increase to $20. In that particular case we will obviously have to take into account the average income tax rate being paid in each province and region. This will obviously vary with the level of income in regions and provinces, so that there will in effect be a greater regional redistributive effect under the taxable proposals than there would be under this particular scheme. Indeed, the lower being the average income, the higher would be the net amount left for the family.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the minister. I appreciate that the FISP proposal certainly had much more latitude as to how that proposal would apply in dollars and cents. I will not go any further today but will wait with interest for the main bill. Either in committee of the whole, or in the standing committee if the bill is referred to the health and welfare committee, it would be very interesting if the minister would develop that aspect of the matter.


Marc Lalonde: I will do that with great pleasure. The argument about redistribution that was made in the House by several speakers during second reading deserves further discussion and clarification. In terms of redistribu-

September 12, 1973
Family Allowances
tion of income in Canada, this particular increase will have no great impact. It will obviously give more to the people who need it. It will probably be more helpful to families with low incomes than families with high incomes. In terms of redistribution it is pretty neutral. The new proposal of $20 a month will obviously be more redistributed than under the present system, but it will not be as redistributive as the FISP proposal.
I would not like to be the one to deprecate the bill I have brought before this House. I know there are very good administrative reasons, and some political reasons, why we should proceed in the way outlined in the bill introduced last July. At the same time, we cannot have our cake and eat it too, claiming that because it is universal and taxable it is the greatest redistributive move that can be made. FISP was even more redistributive, but it had other drawbacks. The whole question of universality and selectivity deserves further consideration at a later stage.
I will be pleased to discuss this with hon. members.
[ Translation]


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister.
Like all hon. members, the minister knows that, unfortunately, every time the federal government increases some allowance or other, the provincial governments-at least some of them-hurry to reduce immediately by as much the social allowances paid to certain families.
For instance, the unemployed or the sick receive social assistance in the province of Quebec. Can the minister tell us whether or not he has the assurance from all his provincial counterparts that the increase we intend to grant Canadian families will not be denied them elsewhere?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, obviously I can give no assurance of this for the time being. However, I intend writing to all my colleagues, emphasizing the decision of parliament if this bill is passed and asking them to see that these amounts are effectively handed out to the Canadian population, and in particular to those who receive social welfare payments. Then, with the support of all hon. members, I think that I will insist that the provinces do not take this increase as an excuse for reducing certain allowances made to social welfare recipients.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I wish to direct one or two questions to the minister. When I asked the minister yesterday when the government intended to introduce some substantive legislation into the House, he replied that I should go to hell. Was he speaking personally, or on behalf of the government?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I resent very much that type of statement by the hon. member.


Albert Béchard: That is typical of him.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member knows very well that the exchange that took place behind the curtains was done in a joking way. When the exchange was made there was no animosity between him and myself. Every once in a while this type of exchange happens with my friends on this side

of the House when we talk together. There was certainly no intention on my part to in any way offend the hon. member. The attempt of the hon. member to put this on the record speaks for his ethics.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Can the minister indicate how the government arrived at the $12 figure? What was the rationale behind that?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. member's competent analysis yesterday. I can only say that it compares with his ability as a banker of previous days. Therefore, I do not think he will have any difficulty determining how we arrived at the $12 figure.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I will restate my question. I indicated that I cannot find the rationale, using deflators and that type of thing, to determine how they arrived at the $12 figure. I ask the minister to give us the benefit of his reasoning as to why they thought $12 was a suitable figure.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I refer the hon. member to the bill tabled in this House in July. It provides for a national minimum of $12, below which no province will be allowed to go in the establishment of provincial variations. It is in reference to this national minimum that this amount was determined.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I have another point. What assurance can the minister give us that in fact increased cheques will be going out for October, November and December?


Marc Lalonde: If the hon. member had been in the chamber when I replied to the question asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West, he would have heard the answer to this question.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased with this opportunity to speak on Bill C-223.
Of course, we of the Social Credit are aware that giving $4 or $12 at the beginning of October is a step in the right direction, but we contend that it is not enough, that much more could be done.
It is strange that whenever it comes to alleviating the misfortune of the haves-not and of the heads of large families, the government seems to have much trouble finding the necessary money so those people will be reasonably well off.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I could perhaps tell the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) where he could find the necessary dollars to provide for more substantial allowances.
For instance, in 1944, when the gross national product was $12 billion, we were paying $20 a month to older people and $6 a month per child; and in 1973, the gross national product being $114 billion, we are willing to pay older people $179.65 a month, of which I am delighted, although I would have liked that amount to reach $200, while monthly family allowances are still at $6.
September 12, 1973

I said a while ago that the gross national product was $12 billion in 1944 and $114 billion in 1973, which represents an increase of 950 per cent. In the meantime, consumption which amounted to $10.8 billion in 1944 increased to $66 billion in 1973, which means an increase of 612 per cent. Capitalization, which stood at $1.2 billion in 1944, went up to $48 billion in 1973, an increase of 4,000 per cent.
As one can see, Mr. Chairman, within 30 years, we produce much more but we consume less and less in order to capitalize much more, mainly for the benefit of private, public, national, international or multinational corporations.
Now, if less is consumed, we must see who suffers from this lower consumption and remedy the situation by taking money from such areas as are over-capitalized without however keeping investments from contributing to the progress of the nation.
To think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare claims that he knows no magic wand nor philosopher's stone! He is smarter with words than with figures, statistics, ratios, percentages, which allows him to say he does not know where to get the money, that is, in the hidden hoards of companies.
During 30 years, Mr. Chairman, family allowances were administered with 1944 money, the so-called constant dollar. Now this means that today a mother who wishes to buy a quart of milk at 35 cents must pay with 1944 money.
During that time, old age pensions were administered with current dollars, that is the dollar adjusted to the cost of living, increasing them to $20 a month in 1944, $40 in 1960, $75, $90 $100, $170 later on and to $179 in 1973.
It is presumed that the same thing could have been done for family allowances, but it has been deemed necessary to do otherwise for unexplainable reasons.
Today, with 30 years of delay and on the basis of our experience, let us merely correct the situation, paying with 1973 dollars the family allowances which have remained at the level of 1944 constant dollars.
To be logical, consistent and realistic, I presume that we should pay at least between $25 and $30 per child and, as my hon. colleague from Joliette (Mr. La Salle) suggested a moment ago, at least $90 a month in salary to every student and this, until the end of his education.
This is where the hon. minister could obtain the resources he claims he is lacking. Therefore, if we want to be consistent, we must not spend so much time in discussions. The magic wand and the philosopher's stone are readily available to ensure a fair and honest maintenance to the many large families which are truly living in distress and fear of the next day.
[ English]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when we were in committee of the whole on Bill C-219 dealing with amendments to the Old Age Security Act, I spoke critically about the complicated drafting in that bill. I should like a moment or two in which to do the opposite today and to say how pleasant it is to find before us a bill which is very simple. In fact, it is so simple that anyone in the House can understand it. It is only one and a half
Family Allowances
pages long, it contains only five clauses and it amends two separate acts of parliament.
I cannot suggest that it was my criticism of the other bill which brought about this change because, after all, this bill was already before us. But it does give me an opportunity to say it is not new for a piece of social legislation to be drafted in simple terms. This was particularly true of the original Family Allowances Act. I remember it well. Nevertheless, I went into the library to get a copy, and here it is, only five pages, as we passed it in 1944, and under it millions of Canadian children have enjoyed the benefit of family allowances during the past three decades.
I found myself in a nostalgic mood when my hon. friend from Assiniboia was speaking and referring to his childhood memories. He recalled the family allowance cheque which came in month by month, which enabled his mother to keep things going for him and for the other children in the family. I realized as he spoke that I was here voting for the Family Allowances Act before he was born. As a matter of fact, I would be interested in knowing how many of those who are in this chamber today-any member under 30 and a good many of those between 30 and 40-are healthy, strong, Canadians because we passed the Family Allowances Act in that parliament back in 1944. Not only was it a simple piece of drafting, it was also a very effective piece of legislation, as so many members can testify.
Another interesting fact is that when the original bill was passed in 1944, the top amount payable as a family allowance was $8. That top level has remained unchanged ever since the bill was passed in 1944. So really we are raising the amount for the first time since the act was put on the statute books. It is to be $12 commencing in October, and in a few months we shall be raising it to $20 a month.
I do not wish to spin out the debate because I think it would be a good idea to get the bill through the final stages this afternoon so that it can be put into operation this coming month. It is precisely because of its simplicity that the hon. member for Hamilton West was able to get such a specific answer from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When complicated calculations have to be made, there can be delays. But when all you do is change a figure in the printing machine which produces the cheques from 8 to 12, things can be done very quickly. So the minister was able to give a positive assurance that if this bill is finally passed by parliament within the next few days, there is no question the October cheques will be based on the higher amount.
I am not saying these things lightly, but because they underline the value of the principle of universality. I listened to what the minister had to say a few moments ago about universality versus selectivity, and also about the distributive effect of these payments. We can go into that on a later occasion. I still want to underline my belief that the best social policies are those which treat people as people, which do not go into the area of charity or selectivity, but which are based on the principle of universality. It was a good bill we passed in 1944 and this is a good amendment which the minister is making today, though it is only good, of course, in the sense that it is an interim

September 12, 1973
Family Allowances
measure pending the introduction of the new $20 level which is to be effective in January.
I come now to the main reason for my rising, which is to remind the minister that a friend of his, and of mine, I am happy to say, a former top civil servant, has written to him, as he has written to me, suggesting certain things which might be considered. I rise to ask the minister to give thought to them. I know that the ideas that were put in the letter to which I referred cannot be put in the bill today, and I also know that Bill C-211 has already been drafted. But this former top civil servant, who has some expertise in this area, suggests that what we have here is a Family Allowances Act. It is not a children's allowances act, though sometimes popular terms that come close to that are used.
The expert about whom I am talking suggests that if the purpose of this legislation is to protect the integrity of the family and to make the family a viable economic unit, and so on, in addition to whatever is provided for the children there should be an allowance for the mother. It is also suggested that if we are concerned about the integrity and security of the family, the same kind of legislation should include a housing allowance. I support both of these ideas.
I am in the mood today of enjoying the progress we have made, but I am looking forward to the future. I underline these ideas which, as I say, have already been placed before the minister by an expert in this field, in the hope that he will consider them. We got over that monstrosity of FISP. The minister has introduced some new ideas into the concepts of social security that we are hearing from that side of the House. Maybe those ideas come out in this kind of parliament much better than they do when one party has a majority, but at any rate the minister has come out with some new ideas.
I should like him to go back and read the submission sent to him to which I have already referred, and ask the officials of his department and his colleagues in the cabinet to consider whether a way to redistribute income and establish the security and integrity of the family would not be to have family allowances include not only an amount for each child but an allowance for the mother and for housing as well. To me, these ideas make sense.
I conclude by saying what I have often said, that this is a good piece of legislation. Although we support it, it is not the last word and we hope the minister will give serious attention to ways of improving this good piece of legislation.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, may I thank the hon. member for his kind remarks in regard to the drafting of this particular piece of legislation. I am sure the person who drafted it will be very pleased to hear what has been said, all the more so since the same person drafted the previous bill. This may indicate that the problem that the previous bill had to deal with was more complex than met the eye at that particular time.
As to the other point raised by the hon. member, we are indeed examining the points that he has raised and which have been raised by correspondence. I should only like to

refer the hon. member to proposition six of the working document, where we state the following:
The incomes of those who are working but whose incomes are inadequate by reason of family size (even after the increase in the family allowances proposed above) or by reason of the nature of their employment should be supplemented under a single general income supplementation plan with built-in work incentives.
So exactly how the problem that the hon. member has raised is going to be met is the subject of study and consideration at the present time. Although I do not think we will be in a position to bring forward an answer to this problem in time for consideration with the other family allowance bill, it is the type of problem on which I hope to have some proposals during the course of the next year.
[ Transla tion]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment very briefly on this important bill before us. Incidentally, I would like to point out that it is not always the most ponderous bills which are the most important and which bring the greatest quality and satisfaction to the population.
I also congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) for having found a way to introduce so comprehensive a bill while using so little paper.
That being said, I would also like to add that society has evolved extraordinarily in the last forty-odd years. I recall that, when I was young, people were hoping for legislation which would authorize the payment of family allowances in Canada. I remember also having become a proponent of this. I was not in politics, but I was certainly concerned with social and family matters. And then, some very narrow-minded people accused us of simply propagating marxist ideas because, as they said, to give money for nothing, that was communism. So, they could not realize that we live in society precisely in order to give ourselves more economic advantages, to better succeed in life and that Canada was a country which could give itself such a law.
Today, you do not hear about these charges any more and all seem convinced of the fact that we must absolutely pass ever more measures designed to safeguard the rights of families and individuals.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, in his speech on second reading last Friday, said that the principle underlying an immediate increase in family allowances was a stronger purchasing power for needy families, families with low and middle income, but I say that if this measure is good-the benefits being $12 a month-to fight inflation and increase the income of low and middle income families, we would all the more obtain better results if it were raised to $20.
Perhaps I will be told that this would be more costly and that taxes would have to be raised. In my opinion, my colleague from Rimouski (Mr. Allard) stated in his remarks rather valid ideas in this connection and about the means which might be used to finance higher family allowances within the framework of the current system. Anyway, I ask the minister-to whom I have already
September 12, 1973

spoken-to introduce an amendment to this effect since a member cannot do so.
As for me, I would have appreciated it if the increase had been retroactive to September 1, 1973 because it was school opening day and because it is the time when expenses are highest to prepare children for school. I calculated that this would cost approximately $4 million. Maybe retroactivity in this field will surprise many people. But if you think it over, the future of the young is being mortgaged for various other reasons and for years to come. If, from time to time, we should adopt a retroactive measure for families I think no one would complain.
I would like to deal with another point. More and more mothers have to work to increase the family income and meet the family necessities. The principle of a direct income to the mother is slowly progressing. Earlier I heard a member mentionning it; the principle is making its way. The family mother is also entitled to security and to income. For example, in Germany, a law has been adopted which guarantees to the mothers, to the housewives a monthly income of $300 to $400. People give statistics saying that the housewife works considerably, that is the same number of hours as plant employees, but I for one would be very hard put to say the exact number of hours that housewives and mothers work each week.
I was brought up in quite a large family and I never counted the time that my mother dedicated to the family. Everyone knows that mothers are very generous with their time to keep house and take care of the children.
If we passed a legislation providing some income for mothers, they could stay at home, take care of-the children, have some security, all this while contributing to the family income. This would also give a chance to young people to go to work.
Young girls often ask me to help them find a job as a secretary, etc., in any field where they are ready to work, and they often make the following reflection; Why is it that we, young people, who have followed courses, hoping to get a job, are put aside so that mothers can have these jobs.
I believe that we should make up our mind one day to give some security to mothers, thus allowing young people to find jobs and thus reducing unemployment considerably without having to ask mothers to make sacrifices or ask parents to spend money. I think we should consider this very seriously. I am sure that the minister is already convinced. We will have to find a formula, with the officials of his department so that we can table appropriate legislation during the present session. This will be innovation in Quebec, but it will in any case be innovation and evolution in the right direction.
I want to say in all honesty that during this session I have been, until now, satisfied with the social security legislation which has been passed, especially as concerns income security.
We are therefore on the right track and I hope that this may continue. We must not stop, because if we do, we shall lose time. We must then continue while there is still time.
I would not want to take advantage of the indulgence of the House, but I have here a lot of documentation which
Family Allowances
shows that many families still do not have the minimum vital income. Here are the figures for the city of Toronto:
A family earns $50 less than the vital minimum.
On the other hand, the Economic Council of Canada published the following in its report:
Four million Canadians live in poverty.
And then an article in the La Presse newspaper states that:
One third of the population of Montreal lives in poverty.
Now, those are figures and quotations that should stir in us a deeper interest in the problem.
We should think of our own underdeveloped. We often hear of those overseas, in Africa, Asia, but we often forget that we can find some, every day, on our own Canadian soil.
Indeed, I agree that we should help underdeveloped countries. I also agree that we should help our own poor even more, to give our country greater social stability, to avoid being faced with deplorable dissention which inevitably harm the national balance and often the harmony and prosperity in our country.
So, while it is still time, we should of one accord endeavour to achieve that objective. That is why I suggest, once again, that the minister consider seriously, while we are at work, the possibility of moving an amendment to make the increase retroactive to the 1st of September and, secondly, of increasing the rate immediately to $20. That would make four months' more allowances to be paid, I know, but if we really want to fight poverty and inflation, if we sincerely want to increase substantially the purchasing power of families, to meet their needs, to my mind we can no longer put it off.
In any event, I shall vote sincerely for Bill C-223; however, if it is amended in the way I have just suggested, if the law allowed me, I would vote three times to approve it. [ English)
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Marc Lalonde: the third reading of the bill.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) put us into such a nostalgic mood that I, too, should like to personalize for a moment. He is the father of family allowances and the whip of his party is the recipient of them, at least that is how they put it. I want to recall that when we were dealing with the orange paper and we had visions of $20 a month, I told the minister at the time I was going to give urgent family consideration as to whether I should amend my own personal family planning and endeavour to overtake the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in relation to this $20. Upon careful consideration, and this was purely an intellectual decision as there
6484

September 12, 1973
Family Allowances
were no inhibitions otherwise, I decided not to pursue that course. I might have known that was the right decision, because we do not have the $20 as yet and I would have been misled by the lure, shall we say.
Let me say, as well, that we are happy to have reached this stage. As the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) has said, the size of the bill is not what counts. Neither does the length of speeches count. Because we have not spoken very much this afternoon or at any great length is not an indication that we are not interested in this bill as much as anyone else. We generally feel, in our party, that once we have spoken on a matter, that is it and we do not have to continue repeating.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to be helpful to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight), the whip of the NDP, in respect of his reference to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). I do not know what his party caucus is like, as I have never attended, but in our caucus we have no gags or guillotines. I might also suggest to him that he might be very well advised to listen to the hon. member for York-Simcoe who has much understanding of the great economic problems facing this country, problems which have not been dealt with adequately by certain parties here.
I am glad that we are passing this bill without amendment because I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that it is a well drafted bill. One of my professors used to say there is a great difference between good English and legal English, and there is an even greater difference between good English and bureaucratic English. I am glad that from a bureau sometimes a bill in good English can emerge. We are not pursuing the debate on third reading. However, I wish to say with candour and without rancour-I have not brought rancour into my discussions in this House in these many years-that if this bill achieves speedy passage, it is not because of the pilotage of the minister but despite it. He opened discussion on this bill with an extremely partisan prelude. It was unwelcome, it was unprovoked, it was unnecessary, it was unhelpful, it was unworthy, and it was also undocumented. I heard it. That is even worse. I was here.
I want the minister to know that when we give a commitment to support a measure, we do so, and that when we want to oppose it, we will jolly well oppose it. I do not take kindly to a suggestion, when we make a commitment on the part of our party, as the minister implied in his smart aleck manner to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), that we then change our mind. We indicated our intention. We said we were supporting the bill. If the government ever again is able to produce something with some grain of good in it, we will take the same attitude. It is my hope-I do not wish him personal ill-that he will not be around all that long and that in the days to come we will have better bills and better ministers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I simply say that we welcome the opportunity to give this bill third reading. We look forward to the

House being given the opportunity to proceed with Bill C-211 in plenty of time so that its provision for a family allowance of $20 a month can be in effect in January.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are very pleased to see that we are now at the final stage of the legislation.
I would like merely to comment on some observations that we heard and I think that if there is unanimity among federal members, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will be in a better position to influence his provincial counterparts so that the welfare rates now in force in the provinces-and, as far as I am concerned, in the province of Quebec-will not be reduced to destroy the efforts made at the national level to enable families, particularly those with low or middle incomes, to earn more. I hope that the media will play their part before the consultations between the minister and his provincial counterparts; they should know in advance the position adopted in this House and that should make it easier for the minister.
In fact, as pointed out by the hon. member for Bonaven-ture-Iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) a moment ago, that happened in the past and resulted in frictions, jealousy and disagreement which were detrimental to our families.
Because it is an important matter and in view of the goodwill of all parties, I hope the families will indeed get the entire allowance and that there will not be any fishing excursions in the meantime so that they could say: Well we will give the increase within a month, after having reduced it. This should not happen, in view of the emergency of the situation, and I do hope that, as soon as the bill will come into force, we will not read in the press that the allowances have decreased in this or that province.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall not embark at this stage on an argument or a sermon.


An hon. Member:: Just apologize.


Marc Lalonde: Any citizens who bother to read Hansard, are capable of making up their own minds. I wish to thank all members for their support of and contribution to this bill. I am sure Canadian citizens will be grateful to parliament for having given them this measure and for whatever help it will bring to so many Canadian families in the difficult times they are going through. Thank you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should draw to the attention of the House that there are other speakers who would be entitled to take part in the third reading debate if they felt they should. I gather there are none.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
September 12, 1973


CHOP INSURANCE ACT
Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-129, to amend the Crop Insurance Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Eugene Whelan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words with respect to Bill C-129, to amend the Crop Insurance Act. On March 29 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) moved that the bill be read a second time. There was a short debate which did not resume until April 18 when the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The bill was considered in committee on Tuesday, June 5, and Thursday, June 7, and on the later date the bill was reported without amendment.
The bill was, and is, of considerable importance to all the provinces of Canada in that it provides for the payment of 50 per cent of the premiums paid on behalf of insured persons if no contribution is required from the federal government toward the administration expenses of the provincial plan.
The provinces were very anxious that the bill be passed in order that they be in a position to advertise the plan and to encourage farmers to participate in the program. Despite the fact that the opposition parties indicated that they would not delay third reading, this government did not consider that this bill should have top priority and parliament recessed toward the end of July without the bill having been placed on the order paper for third reading.
As a result, the governments of the three prairie provinces at least underwrote the premiums for the farmers on the assumption that this bill would be passed. I think they deserve credit for their action because the record of the present government is such that to underwrite such a program on the anticipation that the bill would be submitted for third reading and passed is like playing a long-shot at the horse races. The provinces at present are anxiously awaiting the passage of the bill as they are unable to prepare their program for 1974 until they know that the bill has been passed.
On several occasions subsequent to June 8 and prior to the summer recess, questions were put to the Minister of Agriculture to determine when the bill would be submitted to the House for third reading. Despite promises of the minister to bring the bill before the House for third reading, the House recessed without the bill having been considered. I had the privilege of attending in Calgary, as an observer, the western federal-provincial conference. The Minister of Agriculture was also in attendance. I could hardly believe my ears when the minister stated that the bill was delayed and not given third reading because of
Crop Insurance Act
the obstruction of the House leader of the official opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: Did you say that, Gene?


Eugene Whelan: I certainly did, and the record shows the facts.


Douglas Charles Neil: The record is fairly clear on what transpired and I think it shows that this party and other opposition parties were prepared at all times.


Eugene Whelan: To give unanimous consent? That is not so, and you know it. You had many opportunities to do it.


An hon. Member:: You wanted it passed without debate.


Eugene Whelan: I don't give a damn if you don't pass it. The farmers of Canada want it.


An hon. Member:: All of a sudden he is the farmers' friend.


Douglas Charles Neil: I think the minister has sufficient experience in the House to know that it is the government and not the opposition parties that decide what business comes before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: Furthermore, the opposition has no say in determining the order of business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: I think the record shows that this party at all times was prepared to give quick passage to the legislation on third reading, and that the delay in passing this bill rests squarely on the shoulders of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: I think it is important that we understand that the Crop Insurance Act is an act designed to offer the farmer protection against crop loss caused by natural hazards. It is a form of income stability in that it attempts to guarantee to the farmer a portion at least of the cost of production. It is a program that gives some protection to the grain producers on the Prairies. But I would like to point out that it is not a program that gives any protection or guarantee to the producer of livestock, and in this regard I would like to recommend to the minister that consideration be given to widening the program to assist those who are attempting to earn their livelihood from livestock production.
I think it is also important to understand that crop insurance legislation is simply legislation to protect the farmer in the event of an emergency situation. It is legislation which allows the provinces to develop their own plan of insurance with respect to hazards that are covered, the extent of the coverage and the determination of the premiums.
I can only speak for the province of Saskatchewan when I say that a reasonably good plan has been developed
6486

September 12, 1973
Crop Insurance Act
under the umbrella of the legislation which has resulted in a 100 per cent increase in the contracts issued between 1972 and 1973 and an increase in coverage from $29 million in 1972 to $139.8 million in 1973. However, while we welcome this legislation, I repeat what I said previously, namely, that it is legislation only to cover an emergency and unfortunately it is not indicative of an over-all policy on the part of the present government to develop an agricultural program.
A farmer taking out crop insurance can be compared to a merchant taking out fire insurance on his stock-in-trade. It keeps him from going into bankruptcy in the event of a catastrophe. The taking out of fire insurance does not ensure that his business will prosper. In order for his business to prosper he must have a policy that ensures that he will be able to sell his goods at reasonable prices and derive sufficient profit to make a living.
The case of the farmer is similar. The farmer can take out crop incurance to protect himself in the event of an emergency, but he must be in a position to sell the grain and livestock that he produces in order to realize a reasonable profit. The marketing of grain over the past number of years has been in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board, and therefore the farmer is dependent upon the government to develop a policy of marketing. It is important that the policy take into consideration, not only the short-term but the long-term variables in the market.
Unfortunately, the present government does not seem to have any agricultural policy which would create stability so far as agriculture is concerned. In fact, I question whether it has a policy at all. First of all, we have a situation where the authority with respect to agriculture is divided between the Minister of Agriculture, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang), and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson). I suggest that until such time as agriculture is dealt with by one minister, we cannot have a co-ordinated policy. What we have at present reminds me of a three-horse team with each horse pulling in a different direction.
First of all, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board forced the farmer to embark on what was called the Lift program. He not only encouraged but forced farmers to reduce their wheat production in spite of the fact that indicators in the world situation pointed to the fact that there would be a shortage of food in the immediate future. Having cut back on production through fire sales of wheat, the government completely reversed its policy. As a result, the government and the Canadian Wheat Board asked farmers to produce the maximum amount of grain in 1973. In the meantime, due to fire sales of wheat and long-term contracts, farmers have found themselves in the position of having the grain that they have produced being delivered at a very low price at a time when export prices are very high, and they will not receive the benefit of the high world prices, at least not in the 1972-73 crop year, and it is unlikely that they will do so in the 1973-74 crop year.
The same minister who involved the farmers in LIFT earlier in the spring promised a feed grains policy which would be equitable to all grain producers and livestock

producers in Canada. But the policy was not announced until August and has led to considerable confusion in the minds of many of the western farmers and of the livestock producers throughout Canada, primarily because the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture have not seen fit to explain the policy fully.
Last week the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced a domestic wheat policy. But what has happened to it? Was it really a policy? In three days the minister in charge of the Wheat Board increased the subsidy from $1.25 to $1.75. It appears to me that the agricultural policy of the government is a panic policy. It is time the government, in consultation with provincial ministers of agriculture, farm organizations and farmers developed a comprehensive, long-term policy for agriculture, a policy that will give stability to our agricultural economy.
While we welcome this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and intend to give it speedy passage, it should be made clear that we consider it as legislation for emergency situations only. We do not consider it legislation which is part of an agricultural policy, simply because for this government no agricultural policy exists.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I had thought that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who is in his seat in the House, would have had something to say about agriculture on this occasion. We have been trying, without too much success, to get the Minister of Agriculture or the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) to make some clearcut statements on their policy. We have been trying to do that ever since the House reconvened to deal with the railway strike. Indeed, we asked them to do so before the House recessed for the summer. But again today the Minister of Agriculture has not seen fit to do so.
Recently, the Minister of Agriculture went to Toronto and talked to the mushroom growers. He tore strips off both parties on this side of the House. He could go to Toronto and recite the failings which he chose to attribute to us, but he cannot come into this House and say what the government is going to do. He could not rise from his seat this afternoon and tell us in detail his policies for agriculture.
This afternoon we are talking about a crop insurance bill. My party is wholeheartedly in support of the changes it proposes. So far as I know, the party to my right is also in favour of the bill, even though the minister says it is not. Crop insurance and improvements to the crop insurance program are all excellent. But what about income? I received a letter from the minister the other day. I had written to him asking him to foretell the future of 4he sheep industry in Canada, particularly in western Canada. There are people in my constituency who put money into the sheep industry. He said in reply that the support price program the government had for wool has failed. If I remember his words correctly, he said it did not serve its purpose. It is no wonder the program did not serve its purpose; the government did away with it. People who put money into raising sheep in my constituency are so disgusted that they are getting ready to quit. That is the situation in Saskatchewan. I do not know what it is in the rest of the country. The wool growers talked to my party, and we know they are a very discouraged group of people.
September 12, 1973

The minister's reply also pointed out that prices on the open market, so to speak, had gone up in 1973. That is the excuse he and his colleague in charge of the Wheat Board are relying on for not coming forward with positive agricultural policies. They are maintaining an agricultural support price policy of 80 per cent of the average of prices over the previous ten years. Mr. Speaker, that is not a support price policy; it is a disaster. It is useless.


Eugene Whelan: I never said anything about it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I know the minister did not say anything about it. If I were sitting over there with a support price policy like that, I would not say anything about it either. In his speech in Toronto he said that the opposition had prevented the government from passing its grain stabilization bill. You bet we did, Mr. Speaker. That was a companion piece to the agricultural prices support policy. It would have left the farmers locked into disaster prices. If the minister does not believe that those were disaster prices, let him take the time to read statements made by Gordon MacEachen, president of the Agricultural Economics Research Council.


Eugene Whelan: He is just reading my old speeches.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Then maybe the minister should read some of his own old speeches.


Eugene Whelan: When I want to feel good, I do.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The wheat producer will still be subsidizing the domestic market. If the minister in charge of the Wheat Board could have got away with it, the producer would be subsidizing the domestic market by 75 cents a bushel more than is stated in the minister's latest announcement. I emphasize the minister's "latest announcement" because he has yet to come into this House with legislation or an order in council. This is no way to deal with an industry as important as agriculture which in my province accounts for 75 per cent of its real earning power. I do not think it is good enough for the Minister of Agriculture to make such statements in Toronto as, "The opposition for years has fought every move we tried to make in parliament to establish Canadian agriculture on a sound and solid footing."
The only thing that pulled agriculture out of the doldrums was a world shortage of food. There was a world food shortage, but neither the minister nor his colleagues brought legislation before the House that the opposition could support. It is time we had something better than this type of statement by the Minister of Agriculture.
The statement goes on to say that the opposition parties in the House are playing games, they are playing politics with farmers and with the agricultural industry. If the Minister of Agriculture thought that, why did he not say so in the House? In any event, why did he not come in with an appropriate piece of legislation and put his case before the House? If he thought that the opposition, and my party in particular, had nothing to contribute to the welfare of agriculture, why did he not say that in the House? He has not done that.
Crop Insurance Act
At present, the feed grains program is such that prices are satisfying neither the western grower nor the eastern consumer. That policy still hangs in the air, so to speak. There was to be a statement by August 1, then there was to be a statement by September 1, and after that there was to be one by the middle of September. We did have a reasonable feed grains pricing policy at one time, although I do not know what in the world will be left of it by the time the two ministers responsible are through with it.
If the minister thought that the present policy was such a good idea, why did he not try it on soybeans which have increased in price a good deal more than barley and wheat? Dairy farmers and hog producers in my constituency buy soybean meal, even at present prices, to be used as protein. In Saskatchewan, nobody pays the freight bill from Toronto or Altona in order to make meal available to farmers in Saskatchewan. You just pay that kind of freight, and the government is not saying that it will do something about the price of soybeans and subsidize the guy who is feeding livestock in western Canada. Instead of indulging in rhetoric-


An hon. Member:: Mushroom rhetoric.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: -yes, mushroom rhetoric, the Minister of Agriculture should get down to cases and bring out a program for Canadian agriculture that will put it on a good footing so that farmers may farm with confidence. If the government does that, there will be adequate food supplies for Canadians who, instead of being forced to pay feast or famine prices in the chain stores will, as a result of sound pricing policy, be able to buy food on the shelves at reasonable prices. I suggest in all seriousness that the government bend its efforts along those lines and look at the complete agricultural picture and not just at the little corners where it thinks something must be done.
As far as the crop insurance bill is concerned, I think the minister said that we support it. One can look at the record and see that when the crop insurance changes came before this House, they received the support of my party.


Eugene Whelan: And I said this last night, too.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Yes. Then what in the world is the purpose of making statements like the one to which I have referred?


Eugene Whelan: On the front of the release does it not say "Notes for an address"?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I don't care if these are notes for a speech. It is the whole damn approach I object to.


Eugene Whelan: I could send the hon. member the tapes, if he wants them, and he could listen to them.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I have quoted extracts from these notes which, according to the front of the release, come "from the office of the Hon. Eugene F. Whelan," and so on. As far as I am concerned, the Minister of Agriculture bears some responsibility. If he wants to get up in this House or anywhere else and say that such and such a thing is the case, that is his right. But I suggest that it is not his right to go around-


Eugene Whelan: Well, I suggest that it is.

September 12, 1973
Crop Insurance Act


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Yes, perhaps that is his right.


Mr. Paproski:: Why don't you two go behind the curtains and argue this out?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: But this is irresponsible.


Eugene Whelan: It is not.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I suggest it is irresponsible-


Eugene Whelan: Why does the hon. member not talk about crop insurance? We are here to debate crop insurance.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If you can quit quibbling, we will get on with it.


Eugene Whelan: You people had a good chance to do that. It could have been passed by unanimous consent on two or three occasions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We said we would get on with it.


Eugene Whelan: I don't care what was said.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Well, we do. What does the record show?


Eugene Whelan: I don't care what the hon. member is saying, as the record shows that they did not take the chance to pass the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know if the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) are coming through. There seem to be quite a few interventions. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has been recognized by Mr. Speaker and he has the floor.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, in case there is any question about our position on this crop insurance legislation, let me say that we favour it. It will be a worth-while measure. It will assist to stabilize the income and production of farmers. That is the purpose of the bill. I welcome the opportunity afforded by this afternoon's debate to correct some of the erroneous impressions that have been left in the countryside, and to set the record straight.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to participate briefly in the third reading debate on Bill C-129, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act. I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and to some of the very misleading interjections of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). When the minister speaks I hope his remarks will conform with the record, let alone with the rules of this House.
I was interested in the remarks of the speaker who led off this portion of the debate. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), outlining in a general way the purposes of Bill C-129, the crop insurance bill, said that it was to protect farmers against certain natural disasters or natural hazards. As I said, I listened to him with interest. I had read the bill previously but I read it again. The one thing I could not find in the bill was any provision which would protect farmers against one of the worst natural disasters from which they could suffer, namely, the Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If the minister would amend the bill and incorporate a provision relating to that natural disaster, I know that we on this side of the House would pass it without further delay because we would be doing the farmers a service.


Eugene Whelan: The record will show what is what.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar quoted from the minister's notes for an address to the annual meeting of the Canadian Mushroom Growers Association at Toronto. I think the minister has been speaking too long and too often to the mushrooms and toadstools of the land. He thought he could fool the farmers of the land with the type of remarks he made last night, in just the same way as he tried to fool them with the type of remarks he made in Alberta several months ago when he accused the House leader of my party of holding up this minor piece of legislation, as he calls it. Not only has the minister done a disservice to society; he has insulted the intelligence of farmers of this land because he thinks they cannot see through that type of loose rhetoric.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the record shows that the House was asked for unanimous consent on two occasions to pass this bill and that on at least two occasions that party refused such consent at the instigation of their House leader.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Someone from the rump or the prices committee, which is almost the rump, said "Right on". Let's leave the prices committee and Beryl Plumptre for those plums on the opposite side who speak about right on.
I want to get to the record before me and to the two committee reports. We had a total of three hours and ten minutes during two days' debate in this House. That involved a total of 13 speakers of which the Conservative Party produced only four. If that is a filibuster, blackmail or non-co-operation, this minister had better get back to the mushroom patches of this land so the farmers can get on with serious business.
I am glad the minister raised his point of order. It was my next point in the natural, orderly, logical sequence of these few remarks.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Keep it non-partisan.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I always do. I always try to keep it objective and conforming to the record, something which members opposite find hard to follow. Bill C-129 was given first reading on January 22, 1973. As the hon. member for Moose Jaw said, it was given second reading on March 29. The debate on that Thursday started at eight o'clock in the evening. There was a total of eight speakers, ten pages in Hansard. We know how much Hansard is full of loose pages. On that occasion there were three speakers from the Conservative Party, two from the New Democratic Party, one Social Crediter, the minister and one other
September 12, 1973

Liberal. It is rather remarkable that there were eight speakers between eight and ten o'clock that evening.
The next great hold-up, the next great insult to the farmers, was on a Wednesday. When participating in the debate on April 18, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) said he was disappointed the minister was using this bill as a filler. On April 18, the second and last day this bill appeared in the House of Commons, there was a grand total of five speakers. Those speakers did not begin until after the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) presented his orange paper to deal with the blues of Canadians because they did not have an adequate social program. Members commented on the orange paper. Two committee reports were presented. This was followed by a debate on the Judges Act, debate on the Aeronautics Act, and routine proceedings. There were five speakers, 16'/2 pages of Hansard, on that occasion. This minister who knows mushrooms, and certainly knows tomatoes-


Eugene Whelan: And I know politics and I know what you are doing right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: As the hon. member for Moose Jaw said, in terms of the order of government business, if this Minister of Agriculture had influence in the cabinet he would get the government business affecting farmers on to the floor of the House of Commons in direct relation to the volume of voice he has used to try to bamboozle the farmers across this land. The House of Commons has been meeting since January 4 of this year and we have had a total of 13 speakers on this bill, four of whom were from the Conservative opposition.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You were not there. You do not know. You are a nice man, and I would not want to involve you in crop insurance or any other type of insurance because you would be a poor risk. Your insurable interest in terms of the life of this parliament may not be that much.
Where did the great hold-up come? Where was the nonco-operation and filibuster? The bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which met twice. On Tuesday, June 5, the committee met for an hour and 18 minutes. It met at 9.44 and at 11.02 it adjourned to eight o'clock the following Thursday, June 7, when the committee considered the bill for an hour and 50 minutes. There have been 13 speakers in the House, and a total of three hours consideration in two committee meetings. Yet the minister is trying to say that the opposition, Conservative, NDP and one independent, has held up this bill. The only thing that has held up this bill in the House of Commons is that in his present capacity the Minister of Agriculture is a voice in the wilderness.


Eugene Whelan: Tell us how fast you passed the veterans affairs bill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Although the minister has made some good speeches, telling audiences what they wanted to hear, he does not have the guts to be frank with them about the crop insurance bill. He picked a poor bill about which to say there has been a filibuster.
Crop Insurance Act


Eugene Whelan: I did not say there was a filibuster.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) knows what happened in that committee. I am glad to see the chairman of that committee here. He knows full well what happened in committee. The debate on the merits of this bill in committee was not that long because no one protested them. As the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar said, it does not pronounce any new policy. In committee, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) introduced an amendment. The chairman ruled it out of order for procedural reasons. It was a money bill and an amendment to an amendment. Then what happened in the great onslaught against the farmers of this land? The committee unanimously passed a resolution put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer. I will not read the entire resolution. It appears in Votes and Proceedings for Friday, June 8, and reads in part:
Your committee recommends that the government consider the advisability of amending the Crop Insurance Act to include provisions for total insurance on a spot-loss basis against actual loss arising from destruction of or damage to a crop or crops, otherwise insured under this act, from one specific hazard in any area or areas in a province.
If I have misconstrued, misinterpreted or been selective in my summary of a very short record on a very small bit that does very little for the farmers of this land, I want the Minister of Agriculture to stand in his place and correct me. It was the effect of that resolution which was unanimously passed in committee that caused most of the debate in committee.
The minister knows full well that whenever the bill was brought forward it was another filler, just as it is today. It was slipped in today because we passed the family allowances bill and a few others previously. The minister is a great fellow, but because of the party to which he belongs we obviously have differences from time to time. However, as a minister of the Crown it was unbecoming of him to maliciously malign the House leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and say that we held up the insurance bill when he knows full well that whenever the government House leader was asked what we intended to do in this debate he said we wanted to do what I am about to do. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar got close to doing it. We always wanted to have some debate to find out what the minister did with the unanimous resolution of the committee, a resolution that would do something for crop insurance. It would extend the terms of this bill so that the farmers of this land would have a lot more protection from natural disasters, rather than this man-made one. That, Mr. Speaker, is the reason our House leader was not prepared to say, whenever the question came up and the government House leader was looking for a filler; Oh, yes; we will let third reading go without putting up a speaker."
I, like other members who have an interest in agriculture, was amazed, even though one of the ministers of agriculture who is absent doesn't know what the agricultural areas of Canada are, that the minister did not speak first. Perhaps I would not have spoken had he told the House what he was prepared to do about the resolution extending the terms of the Crop Insurance Act so that it would become even more meaningful to the farmers of this

September 12, 1973
Crop Insurance Act
land. He did not do so and all I can say is that it was a disappointment.
I do not intend to hold up the bill any longer. There isn't any objection to it because it doesn't do very much. Whether it is 50 per cent of the premiums, or 50 per cent of the administration and a shift, or if some sections of the country in the west will perhaps benefit a little more monetarily because of the shift from 50 per cent one way to 50 per cent the other way, in terms of Ontario, about which the minister knows a little, certainly in terms of eastern Canada the benefit in dollars to the farmers is really no more than a pittance. It would have been of benefit if the resolution passed by all members of the committee had been attended to by the minister and if he had risen at the beginning of this debate and told us what he intended to do about that resolution.
If he is prepared to do so now, I will sit down. But I still want to say in summary that the minister, as a parliamentarian, has been exposed to the committee on agriculture when there have been many more contentious items before it. The debates may have at times appeared to be a filibuster, for good or evil, depending upon which side of the table you sat on, but certainly the farmers of this land were always the main concern, even if there was a misinterpretation of how you helped them. But he ought not to malign the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) publicly, regardless of what he said to the mushroom growers. And that was sort of apocryphal in terms of the crop; it is a great crop, we love mushrooms and we love mushroom growers. However, I think it is perhaps allegorical that the minister should say now that his notes were out of order. We all read what the press reports quoted him as saying in Alberta about my hon. friend from Peace River, and he knows that when there are 13 members wishing to speak on a farm bill, with two days of debate, a total of 16 Vi pages in Hansard!-two pieces of a day-and then only two committee sessions, this is not a filibuster. I expected more from the minister, just as the farmers of the land expect more from the minister by way of crop insurance, support prices and a meaningful agricultural policy they can start to build on rather than keep shifting their gears as the policy of the government shifts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that the minister requires unanimous consent if he is to speak at this time, having moved third reading of the measure: that would ordinarily be considered as a contribution. Is it agreed that the minister be permitted to speak?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William George Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I happen to want this bill passed. If the House would agree to sit until about ten minutes after six o'clock I would be prepared to restrict my remarks to about five minutes so that we could get this bill through and benefit farmers throughout Canada. I should like to say a few words on crop insurance, period.


An hon. Member:: Send a letter to the minister.


William George Knight: I think I have a serious matter to bring up.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There seems to be agreement on this point. However, I would remind the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) that he is not prevented from speaking after the minister has spoken. However, I have recognized the minister at this point.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I think we should set a time limit and that it should be ten past six.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I cannot recognize the hon. member, otherwise eminently recognizable, because of his situation in the House.


Walter David Baker: If it is the case that the hon. member is willing to give an undertaking to ensure that the bill will pass, and if a time limit is imposed on the hon. member for Assiniboia as well as on the Minister of Agriculture, perhaps we should agree, if we agree on anything, to extend the sitting to ten after six by the clock opposite, and no longer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is prepared to sit here until Christmas, as far as that is concerned-


An hon. Member:: A good idea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: However, unless the minister indicates that he will finish in time to give the hon. member for Assiniboia his opportunity, I do not see how we can make a decision.


Eugene Whelan: I agree to the suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak about crop insurance. The hon. member from Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) referred to a motion in the committee. I should like to refer to another. In the committee we recommended to the minister a motion related to crop insurance having to do with the old PFAA fund and what could be done with it. My point is this. A general crop insurance program is in existence in Canada today. The government of Saskatchewan has passed a bill to improve that legislation. Further legislation has been presented by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to bring about a reduction in the premiums, the only legislation which has been forthcoming from the hon. gentleman.
I wish to point out that there are some areas which crop insurance does not cover. I refer to disasters which affect local regions alone. For example, parts of northern Saskatchewan were flooded this year and for the most part the farmers concerned were not covered by crop insurance. The constituency of Assiniboia experienced serious losses due to grasshoppers in certain municipalities. This caused heavy losses for producers.
The committee recommended that what is left in the old PFAA emergency fund be used as a base for establishing a regional disaster fund, flexible in nature, which could be used in cases of severe damage not covered by crop insurance on a regional or national basis. I said this fund could be called the Whelan regional disaster fund, or anything
September 12, 1973

else they wanted. It could be used by the municipalities to cover such cases as the grasshopper infestation that I have mentioned. The experts are now saying what they said last year. Last year, when there was a severe outbreak of grasshoppers in my municipality, they said it would be worse this year. And it was. This year it spread through more municipalities and it was more severe. They are saying that next year it will be worse again, that it will be a real problem across the entire west, given certain weather conditions.
A fund of the kind I have mentioned, used with flexibility, could help look after farmers whose crops have been badly damaged by such outbreaks. I wish to thank members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture for supporting that resolution in principle. Many of them were Liberal members, many of them were not even from the west. I wish to thank them, but I was disappointed about two things: first, that the Conservative party should have opposed the use of the PFAA emergency fund, which I found to be unbelievable, because some of them come from the dried-out areas of western Canada and should know of what use that fund has been; and, second-and I intend to be very blunt because I was most annoyed about it as a whip-when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said that the passing of this piece of legislation to reduce premiums to farmers had been held up because of the Conservative party, he was perfectly right because that is exactly what happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, some question has been raised about why I did not rise when third reading of the bill was moved today. I did not think that I needed to rise. I thought the bill was urgent and that it had waited long enough for passage through the House. The provinces have indicated that they passed their legislation in accordance with this legislation, and did so in good faith because I told them that I thought this House was full of reasonable and responsible members, that the legislation would pass and that they could count on it being passed so they could run their budgets accordingly.
Let me just go over the budgets to indicate just how much it means to the provinces. Take, first, Nova Scotia; the amount is not large, $23,000. The amount for the province of Ontario is over $2 million, for Manitoba over $2 million, for Saskatchewan over $4 million, for Alberta over $4 million. So that is what it amounts to. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) referred to it as a minor bill. I said, Mr. Speaker, that it was a small bill, and it is. It is small in content and should not take 13 hours of debate. I can think of other legislation that went through this House, for the veterans of this nation, just like that. That is the way this bill should have gone through for the farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I sat in this House, as the officials sat in the gallery at different times, waiting for this measure to be passed. We asked time and time again for unanimous consent of the House, and the measure would not have
Crop Insurance Act
taken five minutes if hon. members had really been serious about what they had said about agriculture. I am not ashamed of one thing that I have said to the mushroom growers of this nation, because they are part of the agricultural scene. What is more, you do not pick them off the ground, you pick them off the trays using ladders, lift trucks, and so on. The hon. member from Annapolis Valley should visit a mushroom plant some day and then he would know what he was talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I had a speech prepared dealing with the recommendations of the committee which I said were good recommendations at the time, and I still think they are. I met with the provincial ministers of agriculture and discussed the very suggestions that had been made by the members of the committee. As I say, I said they were good at the time and I meant it.
In fact, what I should be doing now, instead of wasting my time, is attending a cabinet committee meeting and discussing three agricultural proposals that have been put before the committee. If hon. members want to make politics out of this, then I will make politics also every chance that I get; let me tell hon. members that. I will tell the farmers of this nation that this bill should have been passed straight away, just like that. I am not going to take this sort of guff as Minister of Agriculture. I can put on the table a long list of the things I have done to benefit agriculture, to improve the livelihood of the farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: This insurance bill is just one little step in the direction I think we should be going to help the farmers of this nation. The meetings that we will have with the ministers of agriculture for the provinces and the farm organizations of Canada, which I and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have announced, will be discussing many of the things that the serious members of this House want for agriculture.
It really makes me mad sometimes to come to this House and listen to what some politicians and people in the media are saying about food. I appear in defence of agriculture at every opportunity that I get, and I try and get across the facts if I can. I do not use the House as much as I should. But these people say that I have no right to go out and talk to the public. I have every right to do so as Minister of Agriculture responsible for part of the food production of this nation. We have ten provincial ministers of agriculture who are just as responsible.
When there are different programs in different provinces, provinces that are rich and others that are not so rich, for producers who are competing for the same markets, it is a big challenge for a Minister of Agriculture to try to stabilize agriculture in this nation. That is what the meeting to be held on September 27 is to try to do. We have been working on this matter for weeks to formulate something that is realistic and will constitute a program for the consumers and producers of this country so they know what food is going to cost them.
If I had talked last spring, or the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) had talked last spring, about what we were going to do for the wheat farmers of the nation, hon. members opposite would have accepted our proposals readily. Ever since I have been a farmer I have

September 12, 1973
Crop Insurance Act
never received $3.25 a bushel for wheat, not up until this year.
We have been asked for a stabilization program. I have had letters from the leaders of every responsible farm organization in this nation asking me to help initiate a program to stabilize agriculture, a program that will give them the same kind of security that everybody else has in every other walk of life who is productive in this nation. That is what these programs will do that we hope will result from the federal-provincial meeting we are going to have at the end of September. We will have a new crop insurance program that I hope includes every good suggestion that members of the House have made.
Some members have made very good suggestions about crop insurance. Others who have been very vocal have not made one suggestion. Since I have been Minister of Agriculture I have asked for suggestions from every one of these members. Every one of them had the right to make suggestions. By God, some Of those who come from really good farm ridings in Canada have not made one suggestion. It is similar to what some people say about food costs, "We don't care what you do, but do something." Then when you do do something, they do not like it. Perhaps that is their right, but I ask them to be constructive.


Mr. Towers:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Eugene Whelan: As I have said, the suggestions-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) is rising on a point of order.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. When suggestions were made to the minister, he did not accept them; and that is exactly why we did not want to pass the bill without a unanimous decision. We wanted to ask the minister specifically what he was going to do about the suggestions we had made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is more a point for debate than a point of order.


Eugene Whelan: If the bill had come before the House when we asked for unanimous consent, I would have told hon.
members exactly what I am telling them now. There will be more proposals presented to the House later in the session in regard to the very matters I am talking about now. However, I must have the concurrence of certain parties in regard to a crop insurance program, principally the provinces. I must also have some input from the farm organizations. I have had some input from them already by way of certain resolutions they have passed.
These are all being considered and formulated and they will be presented along with other programs to make agriculture what all farmers in Canada are dreaming of, not something with which to gouge the public or that goes up and down like a yo-yo. This new program will be something that gives them stability. It was something that we presented to the House in principle over a year ago. I am not saying that it is perfect, but it is what was asked for in Charlottetown and what was asked for in Calgary, and it is what we are going to be presenting to them in September.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If it is the will of the House, I shall put the question.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If we were to reach government business tomorrow, is there anyone present who can tell us what it will be?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I understand the order tomorrow will be, first, second reading of the Canada Pension Plan amendments, followed by the amendments to the Parole Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This House now stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m. tomorrow.
At 6.12 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, September 13, 1973