1973-10-17

PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
MR. MacINNIS-DISCREPANCY BETWEEN DOCUMENT

['Mr. Speaker, these papers will be tabled as soon as we have the translations.']
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from an answer given me yesterday by the Minister of Justice when I asked him a question with respect to the discrepancy between a court document presented by the Cape Breton Development Corporation and evidence to the contrary as expressed in a letter, and before a parliamentary committee, by Mr. Tom Kent, the responsible officer for that Crown corporation.
I have evidence to substantiate my statement and refute what was said by the Minister of Justice, who told the House he had had this discrepancy investigated. Perhaps I should first quote what the Minister of Justice said yesterday as reported at page 6906 of Hansard in the second column:
I have had a report on the matter which leads me to believe there is no such element present.
I have here a letter dated April 14, 1969, referred to as exhibit E, presented to the court by the Cape Breton Development Corporation and signed by E. C. Cuddy, director of claims and benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, in which a statement is made about preretirement leave as applied to Cape Breton miners. I do not intend to quote the whole letter, but this is part of it:
As mentioned in your sub-plan, payments are not earnings.
It is emphatically stated in this document, used in court, that they are not earnings.
I quote, now, from a letter directed to me by Mr. Tom Kent on April 3, 1973, after the court case had been terminated. The opening paragraph reads:
I think you must be misunderstanding PRL. The payment has always been considered earnings at all times.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question or doubt that the views expressed in court by Devco and those expressed after the court action by the president of that Crown corporation are diametrically opposed.
If this evidence is not enough to convince the minister that the whole system has gone wrong and that the miners of Cape Breton are not getting their due in accordance with the legislation passed in the House in 1967, I can provide the hon. gentleman with details of a discrepancy between the views of the late Mr. Justice Gillis and the Minister of Justice himself. Two points of view expressed in a letter from the minister to myself are diametrically
opposed to what was contained in the judgment handed down by the late Mr. Justice Gillis.
I am prepared to table the letter from Mr. Kent. I am also prepared to table a copy of the document used by Devco in order that these discrepancies may be fully examined by the minister. If the hon. gentleman wishes, I will also table his own letter and the judgment handed down by the late Mr. Justice Gillis so that he may be aware of the discrepancies in them.
During the hearings in the committee the discrepancies which arose were too numerous for me to mention at this time. I refer this matter to the Minister of Justice. What he is supposed to provide in this country is justice for all, not justice for the high-paid employees of this corporation who have taken care of themselves and who have yet to initiate any action to implement the legislation as provided in section 18(a)(1) and 18(a)(2) of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act. I can provide document upon document, including one of the minister's own, pointing out the discrepancies in this whole affair.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, I suggest to the hon. member and to the Minister of Justice, who have been involved in an exchange of questions and answers for some time in relation to the very important matter which has been raised, that there should not be a debate at this time. The hon. member has raised this matter by way of a question of privilege, but it would be very difficult for the Chair to agree that there is here a breach of parliamentary privilege which ought to be looked into and investigated by a committee of the House.
The hon. member may have a grievance. He says there are discrepancies between statements made or letters which have been written. That is quite possible. But, with respect, I suggest this is not the type of situation which can be cleared up by means of a debate under the guise of a question of privilege. The whole matter to which the hon. member has been alluding has, in the past, been considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. If the hon. member has a grievance, as may well be the case, maybe it could be revived in that way. As I said, I respectfully suggest it should be done in some other way than by a debate on a question of privilege.
The hon. member referred to the possibility of tabling documents. The Standing Orders do not provide for this procedure. If the hon. member has documents he would like the minister to see, he can always send them to the minister. Regretfully, I have to inform him that, as he knows, hon. members cannot table documents in the way he is now proposing to do. I would suggest that the documents be forwarded to the minister and that, with the agreement of the Minister of Justice and all members of the House we might for the time being allow the matter to rest on the statement which the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has made.

October 17, 1973
Privilege, Mr. Lewis



Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.
I rise on a very serious question of privilege. I appreciate that I have not given Your Honour notice as required by the rules, but I did not learn about the matter I want to raise until literally 12 minutes ago when the bells were already ringing.
I do not want to make a mountain out of this but it does concern a very important matter of privilege affecting the House of Commons, parliament and all members of parliament. I learned at about two o'clock-I grin a little about it because of events that have happened elsewhere-that we had a bug at our caucus meeting this morning. During the meeting of the caucus the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), who is our caucus chairman, pulled a little mike out from under the table, put it on top of the table, and said to me and to others: "This looks like a bugging device". Having no knowledge of such things, I could not tell him whether it was or not and we went on with the meeting. However, the person responsible for placing that bug there, a journalist working for the CTV network-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -was honest enough to come up to me at about two o'clock and inform me that they had done this in connection with a program that they have in mind, to be aired in the month of November, in which they will be attempting to show, so he informed me, how easy bugging a meeting is, and how important legislation to deal with the matter may be.
Whatever purpose, admirable or not, the people responsible for this in the CTV network may have had in mind, I suggest to you, Sir, that it is a violation of everything I can think of in connection with the privileges of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Whether or not it is illegal under the present Criminal Code, or any other statute of which I may not know, is irrelevant. Certainly it is totally illegal as far as the rules of parliament are concerned. I hope that those responsible will not find it more offensive than I intend it to be when I say that it is morally and socially wrong in every respect for them to have done this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: No member of parliament, no politician, certainly not a leader of a political party, wants to alienate anybody in the fourth estate or fifth estate, or maybe all four or five estates that they now represent, as I sometimes think. But I believe that the search for news and for spectacular things in the news, particularly as far as television is concerned, should no longer justify and never should have justified the kind of action which is considered by everybody with any sense of propriety to be indecent and anti-social.

I have no motion to move, Mr. Speaker, though I am going to suggest something in a moment. I am not worried about what happened at the caucus or about the publicity it receives. I am certain that the people concerned, when they were honest enough to tell me about it, will be honourable enough to deal with the matter in a way which we will approve rather than in a manner which would be wrong. However, that is not the point. The point is that everyone in this country, every member of the press gallery and every other person concerned ought to know that this parliament will not stand for that kind of behaviour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Even though I have the assurance from the person concerned that the tape will be brought to us, as a mark of official action by the House, if Your Honour considers there is a point of privilege. I would move that the person concerned be ordered by this parliament to deliver that tape either to Your Honour or to me, whichever you think more appropriate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. As the Chair is aware, I and other members on this side of the House have spoken to this matter on more than one occasion in the past. Indeed, Your Honour has caused two investigations that I know of to be conducted into allegations that bugging activities were taking place within the confines of the House of Commons and other buildings.
The example that has been exposed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party brings to the fore once again a situation which I, and I am sure all other hon. members, believe to be deplorable in the extreme. I am not satisfied that the activity is not more extensive and is as isolated as the instance which has been mentioned by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, particularly since the evidence which the standing committee examining the bill dealing with this matter has received indicates there have been well over 1,000 instances where telephone taps or electronic interventions on telephone apparatus have been placed by the police forces of this country.
I would go further than the hon. member for York South and suggest once again, particularly in light of the circumstances disclosed here today by him, that Your Honour cause a further investigation to be made into the whole matter of eavesdropping and electronic devices being placed on members' telephones and in offices as well as in their caucus committee rooms. I do not think it is enough that the House simply order the tape to be produced by the offender. This offence is serious enough to require the offender to come before the bar of the House and give an explanation of the whole affair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The House has the power to so order. I am not going to suggest anything other than that the Chair consider that course of action at this time. This is certainly not something that can be sloughed off by the mere production of a tape. It is an extremely serious affair and
October 17, 1973

one that should be considered very seriously by the Chair. My suggestion is that Your Honour consider the advisability of having the offender appear before the bar of the House to explain the origin of the idea, the manner in which he accomplished his objective and, indeed, all of the details of the rather sordid action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that at this stage it might not be in order to have a debate on the very important point raised by the hon. member for York South. In any event, it is obvious to the Chair that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege involving the type of situation which is normally investigated and looked into by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of the House of Commons. The hon. member for York South proposes a type of action which might better come as a recommendation from the Committee on Privileges and Elections. At the same time, if there is a desire on the part of the House that the motion proposed by the hon. member be put to the House at this time it would have to be done by unanimous consent because it is a substantive motion.
With respect, I would suggest to the hon. member for York South that for an hour or two the matter might be allowed to rest unless he wishes to put the usual motion that the matter be referred forthwith to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. There could be an immediate meeting of the committee and an immediate recommendation perhaps that the action suggested by the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Yukon be taken. It would be more regular if we proceeded on this basis rather than on the basis of the motion suggested by the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: On this point, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks you have made. I wish to make it very clear to the House and to the CTV employee that I have complete confidence in that employee's decency, honesty and integrity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: And he bugged you!


David Lewis: I am as ready to condemn people as are others. Some people may be in a position to do things but I am not prepared personally to be judge, executioner and perform the punishment and everything else at the same time. What concerns me is whether or not that person keeps his undertaking to me. Obviously the tape is in someone's possession and could be duplicated between now and the time it comes into my possession. It is for that reason, Sir, I think my motion should be acted on by the House immediately and without debate, I hope.
May I also say that the best way to point out the concern of the House is to take action immediately without the usual delay of committee meetings. The committee can discuss the broader issue but this matter should be dealt with now. I would therefore move, subject to you, Sir:
Privilege, Mr. Lewis
That the person or persons who taped the proceedings of the NDP caucus this morning be required to surrender any such tapes forthwith either to me as Leader of the New Democratic Party or as the hon. member for York South or to Mr. Speaker.
I would urge you, Sir, to ascertain whether members will agree that the motion be put immediately without debate so that there is action taken without delay.


Mr. Speaker:: A moment ago I indicated the thoughts of the Chair that the regular motion would be a motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. At the same time, if there is unanimous consent of the House to put the motion at this time I will put it. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The agreement is that the motion be put at this time. Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Knowles moves-


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, it comes to our minds that the motion should be worded on the basis of any or all tapes, because we are now checking our caucus room to make certain there are no taping devices there.


David Lewis: I am quite agreeable to that amendment, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Conservatives are paid the same honour. I do not know whether there would be any value in doing it to the Liberals.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest, with respect, that the motion should be worded that the tape or tapes be returned to the leader of the NDP. The privilege that has been abused in this case is the privilege of that group which was conducting its considerations of policy, as is its duty. May I point out, with respect, that I do not believe that those tapes should go to anybody else but the people who were in that room at that time. That is their privilege and their business. I think it is extremely important that we keep in mind that those tapes belong to the people who were recorded, not to anybody else in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure how we are proceeding. We have had a suggestion by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster that the motion be amended to read, "any or all tapes". The hon. member for Vancouver South has proposed that the motion be amended in some other way. My understanding was that we were proceeding on the basis of unanimous consent. For the orderly conduct of the business of the House I think we should consider the motion I have in my hand, which is in writing as required by the Standing Orders, proposed by the hon. member for York South. Hon. members may want to vote against it, they may wish to do so, but the motion will be put in the terms in which I have received it. I suggest that any other procedure would be disorderly and certainly very complicated. Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves:
That the person or persons who taped the proceedings of the N.D.P. caucus this morning be requested to surrender any such tapes forthwith either to the member for York South or to Mr: Speaker.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

October 17, 1973
Grain Movement


Some hon. Members:: Agreed. Motion agreed to.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43, to seek the consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity, the subject matter of which was an exchange of question and answer between myself and the Minister of Transport yesterday, relating to the shortage of boxcars for lumber shipments in north central British Columbia. I would therefore like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urge the government immediately to establish a lumber products railway car co-ordinator to ensure an equitable distribution and adequate supply of railway cars to lumber shipping points and sawmill sites in British Columbia.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the hon. member's motion cannot be put.


MOVEMENT OF GRAIN-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgency arising from reports from western Canada that many country elevator points are plugged with grain and many farmers have been unable to deliver a single bushel in the new crop year to date. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That the whole matter of grain movement and the ramifications of the feed grains policy on the movement of Canadian Wheat Board grain be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for study and report.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. MacKay: Does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have a clear policy on accepting gifts or discounts?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes. it is departmental policy that gifts or discounts offered to public servants by members of the public should not be accepted. In special circumstances, however, after discussing the situation with his branch director, an employee can accept a gift of nominal value where it would be wrong for reasons of courtesy to refuse.


Mr. Bawden: To date, how many (a) reserve Indians (b) non-reserve Indians (c) unemployed Indians are there in each province?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a)	(b)
On-Reserve Off-Reserve Crown Land
Prince Edward
Island	276	181	Nova Scotia	3,393	1,483	14New Brunswick	3,470	1,197	Quebec	17,171	7,392	4,671Ontario	33,665	19,616	4,487Manitoba	26,666	9,366	2,030Saskatchewan	27,211	10,656	1,209Alberta	23,823	5,105	1,896British Columbia	32,852	16,982	428Yukon	874	1,737Northwest Territories	457	6,372
(c) This information is not available within the Department at the present time.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What was the name of the representative of the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the government sent to Zambia in connection with the deaths May 15 of Marjan Drijber and Christine Sinclair?
October 17, 1973

2.	Did that person (a) travel to Zambia on commercial or government aircraft (b) stay in a hotel or private or government residence?
3.	What was the total cost to the Canadian taxpayer (including the equivalent cost if that person travelled by government aircraft or stayed in private or government accommodation) of this mission?
4.	In the past five years, on how many occasions has the government guaranteed anonymity to a person or persons as a condition precedent to the undertaking of a special mission by that person or persons which involved either a direct cost to the Canadian taxpayer or the use of government aircraft or similar services?
5.	What was (a) the purpose (b) the cost of each such mission in the past five years?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Dr. W. J. Phillips, the special envoy sent to Zambia has now agreed that his name may be made public. His previous wish that his name should not be made public had not been made a precondition to the mission.
2.	Dr. Phillips (a) travelled to Zambia on a commercial aircraft and (b) stayed in hotel accommodation.
3.	The total cost of the mission was $2,768.50.
4.	As far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, there have been no such occasions during the past five years.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What government programs are computerized?
2.	What was the annual cost per program for such services in the fiscal years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973 to date?
3.	Are these services secured by tender and, if not, how are contracts awarded?
4.	What was the total cost in the years mentioned?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.
Computerization has been applied to accounting as well as research and the storage of data banks. Under these various functions most government programs today use computers in one way or another.
2.	While the cost figures for electronic data processing are known generally, financial procedures have not demanded a per-program reporting of all computer uses and such figures are not available.
3.	Government contract regulations apply when computer services are obtained outside the government.
4.	Not applicable.


Mr. Rose: 1.	What are the names, occupations and home addresses of all the applicants for participants, group leaders and co-ordinators of World Canada Youth?
2.	What are the names, occupations and destinations of all the participants, group leaders and co-ordinators of World Canada Youth?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Canada World Youth is not a project administered by the
Order Paper Questions
federal government, but one of several non-governmental voluntary organizations in the private sector in receipt of grants from the Department of the Secretary of State under its Travel and Exchange Program. Requests for detailed information on its operations should therefore be directed to the organization headquarters, 1750 St-Denis St., Suite 100, Montreal.


Mr. Mather: On what date will the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs issue regulations governing information to be given to consumers on the labels of products, as required under the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act of 1971?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As required by section 19 of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, proposed regulations were published in the Canada Gazette (Part I) on September 22. A period of two months from date of publication will be afforded to consumers, dealers and other interested persons to make representations. It is intended that the act will be proclaimed and the regulations issued by the end of this year.


Mr. Darling: 1.	On what date will a new list be published of areas that are eligible for DREE grants?
2.	For what reason was the Parry Sound-Muskoka region on an earlier list and then struck from the list presently being used to determine eligibility for DREE grants?
3.	Will the Parry Sound-Muskoka region be included in the new list of areas eligible to apply for DREE grants?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. The current designations of regions under the authority of the Regional Development Incentives Act will continue until December 31, 1973. Consultations are now under way with all provinces on the new approach to regional development, as outlined by the minister on April 10, 1973, to the Standing Committee on Regional Development. These consultations will include the question of future designated regions. An announcement will be made concerning the designation of regions, as covered in the Regional Development Incentives Act, at the conclusion of these consultations. This is expected to be in the fall of 1973.
2.	Under the Area Development Incentives Act, the Parry Sound-Muskoka region was a designated area for the period August 4, 1965 to July 9, 1969. With the enactment of the Regional Development Incentives Act on July 9, 1969, new designated regions were established after consultation with the provinces. In the case of Ontario, the Parry Sound-Muskoka region was not included as a designated region because its main development potential was considered at the time to be in fields of activity other than those covered by the Regional Development Incentives Act. It was designated as a rural region under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act and assistance
6946

October 17, 1973
Order Paper Questions
has been provided to the rural area since 1970 under the ARDA program.
3.	Same as answer number 1.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What uses of Canada's national parks have been declared (a) limited (b) prohibited in each year 1967 to 1973 in (i) Banff National Park (ii) Jasper National Park (iii) Waterton Lakes National Park?
2.	In each case, what was the reason for the change in status of the use?
3.	What other changes in use of each of (a) Banff National Park (b) Jasper National Park (c) Waterton Lakes National Park are contemplated and what is the reason for each contemplated change in status?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: After a careful search of records covering the period 1967 to 1973, we can find no instance of any of the traditional "uses" of Canada's National Parks being prohibited in Banff National Park, Jasper National Park, or Waterton Lakes National Park. All types of uses such as riding, boating, fishing, camping, skiing, etc., which were permitted in 1967 are still permitted in 1973. However, in many instances, and for many different reasons, and for varying lengths of time these uses may have been limited. Hiking trails can be used to illustrate this situation. There are many such trails in each of the three parks in question and one of these trails might have been closed because of fire hazard, bear activity, avalanche hazard, overuse, etc. and for varying lengths of time. The work involved in finding out and listing the limiting factors applied to each use in each park would be an expensive undertaking both from the point of view of manpower and financial resources. In view of this, it would not seem to be in the public interest to carry out the necessary research.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	What was the nature of the discussions held by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the dealer(s) responsible for the importation of Universal No. 65 Tractors from Roumania?
2.	How many dealers were involved?
3.	What was the name of each of such dealers?
4.	What agreement was reached as to the servicing of any of such tractors imported?
5.	How many people were brought into Canada to (a) sell (b) service such tractors?
6.	What was the (a) previous position held (b) qualification (c) immigrant status (d) job opportunity offered for each person brought in for the purposes of selling and/or servicing these tractors?
7.	What arrangements were made for the setting up of servicing facilities for these tractors in each province?
8.	How many Canadian technicians (a) were employed on the arrival of these tractors (b) are now employed across the country to service these tractors?
9.	How many people brought in under agreements made for the importation of these tractors are (a) in Canada on temporary visas (b) in Canada as Landed Immigrants (c) returned home?


Mr. Mark MacGuigart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1, 2 and 3. The
Department of Manpower and Immigration has had no discussions with potential or actual Canadian dealers regarding the importation of Roumanian tractors. Those discussions which have taken place have been with the Canadian importer (Westport Importers, Provost, Alberta) and Roumanian government officials and were for the purpose of arranging for the temporary admission to Canada of those Roumanian nationals who would be involved in launching this operation.
4.	It was agreed that temporary admission would be authorized for sufficient Roumanian personnel to provide an initial servicing capacity and to train Canadian residents to perform such functions in the future. Once this has been accomplished, only those considered necessary to look after special problems of service and warranty are to remain in this country on a temporary basis. It was also agreed that temporary admission would be authorized for those required to look after the Roumanian manufacturers' interests in this operation.
5.	(a) None; (b) the number of service personnel has fluctuated between 12 and 15.
6.	(a) Service personnel of Roumanian tractor manufacturers; (b) qualified mechanics or technicians; (c) nonimmigrants; (d) servicing tractors and training Canadian residents to perform a similar function.
7.	Dealers, with initial assistance from Roumanian mechanics, are to establish their own servicing facilities.
8.	(a) None; (b) approximately 240.
9.	(a) sixteen including service and management personnel; (b) none; (c) five or six of the original entrants, but they have been replaced by others.
ROYAL MAIL/POSTE ROYALE DESIGNATION ON NEW MAIL BOXES


Mr. Forrestall: Is the government giving consideration to placing the words "Royal Mail/Poste royale" on the new series of mail boxes being put into service across Canada and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: No. As far
as it has been possible to ascertain, the words "Royal Mail/Poste Royale" have never formed part of any legend or insignia on Canada's mail boxes.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Have discussions been held between the people of Igloolik, NWT and representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding the proposed building of a scientific research laboratory at Igloolik and, if so (a) by whom (b) how many times (c) on what date?
2.	Prior to the announcement that the building of the laboratory had been approved and the money needed allocated (a) were any meetings held between representatives of the laboratory and the local people (b) had any literature explaining the laboratory, its purposes, functions, staffing, been prepared in the Inuit language so that they could consider the project and its implications for them?
October 17, 1973

3.	Have there been discussions between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as to the role of the local people in the research laboratory (the numbers that would be employed, etc.) and, if so, have any such written assurances been given to the local residents?
4.	What response, if any, has the Minister made to the proposals of Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, that more information about the laboratory be given to the local residents in their own language, following which, discussions be held with them to actively involve them in the whole project?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes; (a) Mr. Graham Rowley, Scientific Adviser of the Department; (b) originally at a public meeting at Igloolik called for the purpose by the Village Council and subsequently on several occasions with the chairman of the Village Council; (c) The public meeting was held on November 14, 1971.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) No; the public meeting, conducted in both Inupik and English, covered these points.
3.	Discussions have been held; no written assurances have been given.
4.	Matters concerning the laboratory are being handled through the Village Council whose chairman is Mr. Joseph Kadlutsiak, a member of the Board of Directors of Inuit Tapirisat. Since November 1972, the department has had a scientist at Igloolik to make preliminary arrangements for the laboratory, in which several local residents are actively involved. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is also in direct correspondence on this matter with Inuit Tapirisat of Canada.


Mr. Dick: 1.	For what reasons do Canadian television networks cover the President of the United States and interrupt their programming to carry live his half-hour speeches?
2.	Do American networks every carry our Prime Minister's speeches?
3.	Is it part of CRTC policy to Americanize our television networks?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: 1.	The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation feels that it has a public responsibility to carry U.S. Presidential speeches when these are expected to be of major historical or international significance or are expected to contain information of importance to Canada. For example, the U.S. President's address of August 15 was his first following the many revelations of the Watergate hearings and this was considered by the CBC to have major historical significance. A similar judgment was made by other radio and television broadcasters and the news media around the world including the BBC, which felt the speech warranted scheduling of a live satellite feed at 2 a.m.
It is not the general practice of American networks to carry speeches by our Prime Minister. However, one network in particular, NBC, has carried excerpts from several addresses in addition to an exclusive 14-minute tape interview with Mr. Trudeau broadcasted September 16, 1970.
3. Part of the mandate of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission is to encourage Canadian programming. A
Order Paper Questions
recent example of CRTC policy in this regard is the regulation concerning the reduction of non-Canadian programs on Canadian television stations from 50 per cent of the total broadcast day to 40 per cent. This regulation became effective October 1, 1972.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Are direct fees charged for access to each national park in Canada?
2.	What are those national parks for which entrance fees are (a) charged (b) not charged?
3.	If entrance charges apply to some national parks, and not to others, what is the reason for the difference?
4.	How much money was received in 1972 from park entrance fees?
5.	Into what budgets were the proceeds of those entrance fees deposited?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Daily and seasonal park motor licence fees are charged at some but not all National Parks.
2.	(a) Park motor licence fees are charged at: Banff, Elk Island, Glacier, Jasper, Kootenay, Mount Revelstoke, Point Pelee, Prince Albert, Riding Mountain, St. Lawrence Islands and Waterton Lakes National Parks; (b) Park motor licences are not charged at: Baffin Island, Cape Breton Highlands, Forillon, Fundy, Georgian Bay Islands, Gros Morne, Kejimkujik, Kluane, Kouchibouguac, La Mauricie, Nahanni, Pacific Rim, Prince Edward Island, Pukaskwa, Terra Nova, Wood Buffalo and Yoho National Parks.
3.	In accordance with the National Parks Highway Traffic Regulations, P.C. 1971-940 of May 18, 1971, park motor licence fees are charged at the parks enumerated in 2(a) above. No park motor licence fees are charged at Baffin Island, Forillon, Gros Morne, Kluane, Kouchibouguac, La Mauricie, Nahanni, Pacific Rim and Pukaskwa as these areas are not officially national parks as yet and thus national parks highway traffic regulations have not been invoked in these areas. No park motor licence fees are charged at: Cape Breton Highlands, Fundy, Kejimkujik, Terra Nova, and Prince Edward Island National Parks. When some of the parks in the Atlantic region were first established the lands were provided by the provinces with an agreement that no park motor licence fees would be charged on through highways. This precedent has been continued. Park motor licence fees are not collected at Georgian Bay Islands, as the National Parks highway traffic regulations do not apply to this water-oriented park. No park motor licence fees are charged at Wood Buffalo because of the low volume of traffic into or through this park and the costs of operating and maintaining an entry gate (s). No park motor licence fees are charged in Yoho as many vehicles entering Yoho do so via Jasper, Banff, Kootenay or Glacier National Park, where a park motor licence fee has already been levied.
4.	Revenue collected from park motor licence fees for the fiscal year 1972-73 totalled $1,907,147.
26635-9!

October 17, 1973
Order Paper Questions
5.	This revenue is deposited in Parliamentary Vote 70 Conservation Program, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Stevens: As of August 31, 1973, what were the aggregate outstanding CIDA (a) 0-10-50 (b) 3-7-30 Aid Loans and, in each case (i) who were the debtor nations (ii) what was the amount outstanding from each nation (iii) were all loans in good standing?


Mitchell William Sharp: Canadian International Development Agency
(a) $558,409,997.
(i and ii)
Afghanistan	$1 1,272,691.
Algeria	768,762.
Bangladesh	4,750,000.
Barbados	663,090.
Bolivia	190,845.
Botswana	23,759,066.
Brazil	847,001.
Chile	3,964,096.
Columbia	15,179,828.
Dahomey	3,788,818.
Dominican Republic	95,000.
East African Community	13,605,744.
Ecuador	1,967,840.
El Salvador	269,643.
Senegal, Mali, Mauritania	897,855.
Ghana	10,235,230.
Guyana	6,733,156.
India	276,379,861.
Indonesia	11,544,358.
Ivory Coast	4,705,848.
Kenya	894,042.
Malawi	1,468,043.
Malaysia	396,276.
Morocco	3,621,073.
Nepal	2,046,070.
Niger	13,749,236.
Nigeria	25,613,980.
Pakistan	76,421,690.
St. Lucia	308,738.
Senegal	435,149.
Sri Lanka	14,175,902.
Tanzania	11,218,196.
Thailand	994,180.
Togo	3,672,595.
Tunisia	16,556,937.

Uganda	1,654,400.
Zaire	1,856,730.
Zambia	1,708,028.
Total	$558,409,997.
(iii) All loans are in good standing.
(b) $34,623,227.
(i and ii)
Barbados Brazil Chile Jamaica Korea Malaysia Nigeria
Trinidad and Tobago Turkey
Total
(iii) All loans are in good standing.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Are lumbering operations currently being conducted in Wood Buffalo National Park and, if so (a) who are conducting the operations (b) how extensive are the operations (c) what revenue does the government receive from the lumbering?
2.	Since Wood Buffalo National Park was established (a) how much commercial lumber has been cut in Wood Buffalo National Park (b) who cut it (c) what revenue did the government receive from such lumbering?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes. (a) Swanson Lumber Co. Ltd. of Edmonton, Alberta, (b) Two timber blocks of approximately 192 and 55 square miles respectively, (c) For the 192 square mile block: Ground rent, $5 per square mile annually; forest fire protection charges, $12.80 per square mile annually; and timber dues, subject to annual review, presently at $6.75 per 1,000 board feet. The actual figure depends upon the total lumber cut every year. For the 55 square mile block: a combined ground rent and forest fire protection charge of $30 per square mile annually; and timber dues based on the same rate as that prescribed by the Province of Alberta for timber cut in the vicinity, as reviewed from time to time, which is presently $8.50 per 1,000 board feet of spruce saw timber.
2. (a) 296,550,000 feet board measure, (b) (1) Eldorado Mining & Refining Co. Ltd. (1959-62, burned down); (2) Denney Logging Co. Ltd. (1959-60, defunct); (3) Northern Forest Products Ltd. (1960-62, defunct); (4) Wood Buffalo Park Timber Co. (1955-57, defunct); (5) R. Walter (1961-64, defunct); (6) Primrose Forest Products Ltd. (1968-70, defunct); (7) Swanson Lumber Co. Ltd. (Since 1955 to date), (c) $588,855.


[Stage Direction]
October 17, 1973
Mr. O'Connor: Has the government and particularly the Department of the Secretary of State any plans to comply with a resolution of the Town of Georgetown, Ontario, requesting the development of a program to provide for continuing facilities for the accommodation and needs of youth travelling through Canada with the encouragement and financial assistance of the government?


James Hugh Faulkner: The
provision of facilities for the accommodation of travelling youth is the subject of continuing review by the Department of the Secretary of State and in this process consideration is being given to the resolution of the town of Georgetown, Ontario.


Mr. Corbin: 1.	Did the Department of the Secretary of State receive an application for assistance (a) to finance a school for Frenchspeaking students in Fredericton (b) to finance a cultural centre for francophones in Fredericton?
2.	In either case, under which agreement or program would the financial contribution be made?
3.	(a) On what date was the application made (b) by whom, on behalf of the Provincial Government (c) orally or in writing?
4.	What would be the contribution of the federal government and, what is the total estimated cost of the project?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
The Premier of New Brunswick has had discussions with the Secretary of State about the desirability of considering a joint project in Fredericton for a French language cultural centre that would include educational facilities. He was advised by the Secretary of State of the willingness of the federal government to co-operate in such a project.
2.	Such co-operation would be offered under the federal-provincial program of bilingualism in education.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Information not yet available.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Are registered letters delivered personally to the door of the addressee by the letter carrier?
2.	In the event of non-delivery during the first call, is an additional charge made for a second call and, if so, what is the amount of the additional charge?
3.	Does the additional charge for second calls represent a new policy and, if so (a) on what date was the change made (b) what was the former procedure (c) for what reason was the change made?


André Ouellet: 1. Yes, where letter carrier service is in operation.
2.	Yes, 25 cents.
3.	No, this policy has been in effect since March 1961.
Order Paper Questions GRANT TO PACT


Mr. Hellyer: What were the names and addresses of the Co-ordinator and support staff of PACT (Peoples Acting on Concerns Together), in Winnipeg, who received payment from the $5,000 grant announced by the Secretary of State on July 27, 1973?


James Hugh Faulkner: The
cheque for $5,000 was mailed June 7, 1973. The director and support staff were at that time: Reverend Wm. J. Jay, director; Mr. Ambrose Ojah and Mr. Fred Prebilcock, 650 Burrows Ave., Winnipeg, Manitoba.


Mr. Corbin: 1.	Since 1970, has the government of New Brunswick requested the federal government to extend the FRED agreement to the whole of the province or to other areas not presently covered by the agreement and, if so, when was the request made?
2.	Was such a request made before 1970 and, if so, on what date?


Marcel Prud'homme: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. At the request of provincial officials the possibility of extending the geographical area covered by the FRED Agreement was discussed, on an exploratory basis only, by the Federal-Provincial Joint Planning Committee in December 1970.
2. There is no record of such a request prior to 1970.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	How many visitors were at Fundy National Park during the 1973 season?
2.	How does this compare with 1972, 1971 and 1970?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. 713,068 (April 1-August 31, 1973).
2. 605,080 (April 1-August 31, 1972); 629,786 (April 1-August 31, 1971); 568,283 (April 1-August 31, 1970).


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order arising out of the answer given on Monday last to my question No. 2428 by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in which there is an obvious discrepancy. I have given the minister notice of this matter and I hope he will be able to correct it. The reply to the fourth part of the question reads in part as follows:
-as no interest has been registered by any other party, the ministry has no plans at this time for calling tenders.
The question was with respect to the operation of a bus line. The date of that particular answer was Monday of this week.
In a letter which I have here, dated September 18, written on the letter paper of the Department of Transport, and signed by an official of that department, the following sentence appears:

October 17, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Other operators have expressed an interest in this service so it must be let to tender.
The discrepancy is obvious. I should like it cleared up.


Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the answer given, when I was unavoidably absent on Monday, by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) in response to my question No. 2414.
For fully three and one-half months my question concerning the Opportunities for Youth program sat unanswered on the order paper, and I rose at one point to draw my question to the attention of the parliamentary secretary.
The refusal of the Secretary of State to supply answers to questions on the order paper within a reasonable time limits the usefulness of putting questions on the order paper in the first place. This minister has made it clear that he will not answer letters from members of parliament concerned about the program. In my case, for example, I wrote the minister on July 23 and September 11, and since that time called his office once or twice in regard to one project. All I have received in the intervening three months is a letter from the minister's liaison officer dated July 30 stating that the minister would be in touch with me "in the near future."
On Monday the minister answered my question on the order paper by refusing to give information to which members of parliament, who ultimately must accept the responsibility for government programs, are entitled. The first aspect of my question, which dealt with grants requested and given within the constituencies of ministers and parliamentary secretaries, was dismissed with the assertion that "OFY does not maintain statistics on grants by constituency."
In my hand, Mr. Speaker, I am holding a copy of the applications sent me by the minister last April 2 in which he included a memorandum, sent to me, requesting my comments and stating that the bundle represented "copies of the summary sheet of all submissions concerning your constituency." It is quite apparent that the applications were sorted out by constituency. The minister's memorandum which was addressed "To all Members of Parliament," and his assertion earlier this year that members of parliament would be requested to comment on applications from their constituencies, should leave no doubt of that fact. Yet the minister on Monday informed this House that no such data is available. No doubt there are bound to be errors in the sorting of applications by constituency, but the minister did not even bother to try to provide the information and his answer only served to mislead the House.
The second aspect of my question that was dismissed by the minister was my request for the names of the people who acted as references or contact people for applications who also were made members of the local advisory boards passing on their projects, and further information concerning the acceptance or rejection of their projects. The minister's reply to me was that, "Information is not available as to the number of reference or contact people involved with the making of OFY applications who were also members of a local advisory committee."

No answer could be more patently incorrect unless this multimillion dollar program is so incompetently organized that the department does not know to whom money is given or on whose advice it is given. Unless, after sending copies of this information to each of the members of parliament concerned, the department mysteriously destroyed the information for some unknown reason, this data is still available. Indeed, the minister sent me the relevant information for my constituency, and I have it here in my hand.
In two instances the reply given on Monday by the minister was demonstrably false and he has misled the House, albeit unintentionally, with his sloppy and inadequate responses. As a member of parliament, and as a member of the standing committee responsible for overseeing the administration of Opportunities for Youth, I believe that my rights to obtain important information have been abridged by the minister's answer, and it is for that reason that I rise on this question of privilege.


Mr. Reynolds:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns a question I have had on the order paper since May 17 regarding Collins Radio Canada Ltd. of Toronto, Ontario, and Triton Industries of Vancouver involving a contract awarded to the Ontario company on a tender, and not submitted to the company in Vancouver which already had the radio in question in stock. I would like to know when the government intends to answer this question because it is a very important issue.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might raise a point of order with respect to the lack of response to motions for the production of papers that were passed by this House many moons ago. The parliamentary secretary and I have had a number of conversations about this matter. I do not want to misrepresent his view, but I gather that each time he spoke he said they would be tabled soon. I am talking about an exchange of papers relating to a fish cannery in British Columbia. Can the parliamentary secretary tell me when these will be tabled?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, these papers will be tabled as soon as we have the translations.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I hope he is in a position to give the House specific answers with regard to fuel supplies for the coming winter. Can the minister now answer the question I asked him on September 21? Has a way been devised to avert the possibility of a cutback in supplies to gas consumers in British Columbia? When I asked that question on September 21 the minister said that he expected to be in a better position to respond in a couple of days. Can the minister respond today?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The National Energy Board has taken as a matter of priority the securing of alternate supplies of gas for the West Coast Transmission system in lieu of those lost in British Columbia because of the structural fault in the field.
The West Coast Transmission Company, at the urging of the board, has carried on negotiations with Alberta gas suppliers for access to Alberta gas supplies, both in the northern part of the province and in the southern part as well. I understand that those negotiations are now in progress between the companies. The position we take is that until the situation is clear with regard to alternate supplies we would not move to take action to curtail.
In addition, some of the British Columbia distributors, particularly Inland, have been in conversations with their customers to discuss the arrangement of alternate supplies where dual burning facilities are available to industry within that province. Indeed, the Chairman of the National Energy Board is meeting this afternoon with the Chairman of the British Columbia Energy Commission for the purpose of clarifying the current state of negotiations for alternate supplies and to discuss further steps that will be taken.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I gather that the situation is still in doubt.


OIL-SITUATION RESPECTING SUPPLIES FROM MIDDLE EAST AND CARIBBEAN
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell us what contingency plan he has ready in the event Middle East supplies of petroleum to Canada are interrupted?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, depending on the nature of the commodity and the type of interruption, there are at the moment reserve supplies of between 45 days for crude oil and products to over 100 days for home heating oil. Arrangements have been made to call a further meeting of
Oral Questions
the industry in Canada, particularly the industry operating in eastern Canada, to discuss their present arrangements for supply from overseas in the face of a possible Middle Eastern interruption. I would hope that meeting could take place on Friday but at the moment a final date has not been confirmed. I think it will depend very much on the exact arrangements each company has, to be able to predict the contingency arrangements we should have.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that although the minister has apparently been worried about supplies from the east for years he has not had this kind of meeting previously. Can the minister tell us what the status of heating oil for the winter is with regard to supplies normally delivered to Canada from Caribbean refineries?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have
responded several times in the past on this question that, because of the tight supply internationally of these commodities, Canadian purchasers of home heating oils have not been able to secure the same supplies overseas as in past years. It is for this reason that I took the initiative in mid-summer of obtaining assurances from all of the major importers and refiners that supplies were adequate. Until the potential interruption-there has been no actual interruption in Middle East or other supplies to Canada-we have the assurance that while it would be a narrow balance there would be adequate heating oil supplies for this winter. I think one of the questions that we will want to canvass with the companies is what, if any, effect the events in the Middle East in the last ten days have had upon those assurances earlier this year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You have not canvassed them yet? Oh, oh!


NATURAL GAS-SUPPLIES FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSUMERS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT CUTBACK, IF NECESSARY, WILL BE MADE IN EXPORT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the statement reported this morning to have been made by Mr. Ronald L. Cliff, Chairman of Inland Natural Gas Company, Limited of Vancouver, who seems to be much less optimistic than the minister about securing alternative sources of supply for the gas consumers of British Columbia, can the minister give us a clear and unequivocal statement to the effect that if a cutback is necessary in gas consumption in British Columbia this winter it will come out of the 70 per cent of British Columbia gas which is exported to the United States and not out of the 30 per cent which is absolutely essential to meet the needs of the people of British Columbia?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be specific on a hypothetical question like that. The priority which we have given to the National Energy Board is, of course, to see if alternate supplies can be arranged, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know what Mr. Cliff said, but the advice I have from the board is that there is

October 17, 1973
Oral Questions
some expectation in any event that alternate supplies may be arranged with Alberta producers. We will know the outcome of those discussions better in a few days.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the Alberta and Southern Gas Company has announced its willingness to ship gas to British Columbia through an interconnection at Pendleton, Oregon, and that Mr. Cliff, the Chairman of Inland Natural Gas Company, Limited, says that the APCO group has refused to allow this transfer of gas, I want to ask the minister what steps he and his department are taking to ensure that this gas will be made available to the province of British Columbia and at what price will it be made available? Does the minister think that the people of British Columbia should continue to export cheap gas and pay for higher priced gas from Alberta?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the information I have with regard to the APCO arrangement is not in accordance with what has been stated by the hon. gentleman. I think I would like to ask the board to confirm from Inland if indeed the APCO refusal has been made because my understanding is that this is not so.


NATURAL GAS-POSSIBILITY OF EXPORT CURTAILMENT UNTIL BRITISH COLUMBIA DOMESTIC MARKET SATISFIED
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary. I should like to ask the minister if he is aware that Inland Natural Gas Company, Limited expects a critical period as soon as November 15 and that in order to take any advantage of Alberta gas a 40-mile pipeline would have to be built? Can the minister tell us-he has avoided the question-if the National Energy Board has made any decision to curtail exports of gas until such time as domestic markets are satisfied in British Columbia?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, no decision to curtail exports has been made. The priority, as I stated to the Leader of the Opposition, is to secure alternate supplies. The board appeared to feel that in turn the distributors felt this could be arranged.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have stated to the minister that it is quite impossible to build a 40-mile pipeline in two weeks. What other steps has the minister taken to secure not only industrial but domestic users of natural gas in British Columbia and, particularly, has he assured that this shortage will not result in higher prices in British Columbia?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to take the advice of the National Energy Board rather than that of the hon. gentleman on this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Can you build a pipeline?


An hon. Member:: Thumper is back!
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale). j


SUPPLY OF OIL FOR EASTERN CANADA-RESULTS OF MEETING BETWEEN MINISTER AND VENEZUELIAN AUTHORITIES-PROPOSED EXTENSION OF PIPELINE FROM TORONTO TO MONTREAL
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Could he tell us if the recent meeting which he attended in Caracas allows him to be optimistic as regards the supply of oil products to eastern Canada, and if he intends pursuing his efforts for the extension of the pipeline from Toronto to Montreal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions in Venezuela concerning the supply of crude oil in the long and the short term for the eastern Canada markets. There is no firm commitment as regards the short term supply, but we shall have discussions in order to arrange, if possible, for an agreement concerning the long term supply of oil. As for the Montreal pipeline issue, it can indeed be said that such an arrangement with Venezuela could be made in conjunction with the operation of the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal.


INQUIRY AS TO MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS AND INDUSTRY TO ARRIVE AT NATIONAL POLICY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is as follows: In view of the pledge the minister made to the standing committee and to the House when the papers on energy were submitted that there would be a meeting of provincial governments, industry and the federal people interested to try to arrive at a national energy policy that would enable Canada to act on its own initiative rather than responding to these continual crises, has the minister yet decided on a date for that meeting?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I have had meetings with all of the provincial governments on this question and, indeed, with a broad spectrum of the industry. With respect to a federal-provincial conference, in this regard at least it is the view, I understand, of the premier of Alberta that the appropriate time for such a conference would be May, 1974, and that we would for this purpose have a meeting of the federal and provincial ministers on November 23 next to set the terms of any such conference and discuss arrangements for it. At the moment, we have in contemplation a meeting of governments, federal and provincial, rather than a three-way meeting of the two levels of government and industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will note that there are a few members seeking supplementaries on this subject. Perhaps we should try to limit supplementaries for the time being in the hope that we can go on to other
October 17, 1973

subjects. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain is rising, as are the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Calgary North. I would hope we could go on to the next subject after their supplementaries.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources have an opportunity, as the minister promised, to discuss these matters with him before he meets with the provincial governments or with industry again?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. gentleman that the committee now has an order of reference in general terms before it which would enable this discussion. I would be quite prepared to meet with the committee any time it wishes to arrange new hearings.


NATURAL GAS-REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT BY GOVERNMENT THAT BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSUMERS WILL BE SUPPLIED
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is a rather uncomplicated one. Short of all possible decisions that may come from the Energy Board discussions, is the minister prepared now to commit the federal government to the proposition that it will move to ensure supplies of natural gas to British Columbia consumers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, they will certainly make every effort to do so. It depends, really, on the availability of the gas.


Frank Howard: It is available.


OIL EXPORT TAX-DIVISION OF PROCEEDS BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. He mentioned that there would probably be a meeting with the provinces in May, 1974. Has there been any meeting so far with the Alberta government, and as a result of that meeting is there an agreement to return to that province 100 per cent of the surtax now being collected on crude petroleum?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement on that. There is agreement to meet with the Alberta ministers again later this month for the purpose of discussing that question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Has there been any meeting with the province of Saskatchewan, which stands to lose $70 million by this tax, and is there an agreement with them to return 100 per cent of the tax?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have met with both the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia as well as with Alberta on this question. Essen-
Oral Questions
tially, the division of the proceeds of the export tax, once passed by parliament, is a matter still to be settled with all three provinces.


EFFECT OF PERSIAN GULF OIL PRICE INCREASE ON PRICE AT MONTREAL
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the proposed 17 per cent increase in the price of Persian Gulf oil, will the minister advise the House whether this will result in a corresponding increase in the price of crude oil at Montreal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I am correct in saying that about 60 per cent of the oil arriving in the Montreal market comes from elsewhere than the Persian Gulf. I think it is true, however, that an increase of this kind, whether it be a Venezuelan tax measure or an increase in the posted price in the Gulf, is bound to increase the cost of oil landed in Montreal, and in due course that will affect the price of products in the eastern Canadian market.


OIL-PRICING POLICY FOR DOMESTIC CRUDE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view, particularly, of the answer the minister has just made, can he tell the House if he proposes to use the meeting to be held on November 23,1 believe, with the provincial energy ministers to reach a decision on pricing policy for domestic crude in Canada? Does he intend to reach a decision with regard to pricing policy at that meeting or prior to that meeting?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the discussions on the question of pricing policy have been extensive. I am not certain whether we are at the point where an earlier decision could be taken in that regard.


OIL EXPORT TAX-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POSITION ON DIVISION OF PROCEEDS-POSSIBLE CURTAILMENT OF PRICE INCREASES BY COMPANIES
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact the government has not reached an agreement with the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta on the question of the allocation of funds resulting from the implementation of the tax on oil exports, can the minister inform the House of the position the federal government is taking on this oil tax? Can he also inform the House as to what action is to be taken if American oil prices should increase and whether the 40 cents a barrel export tax will therefore be increased?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, specifically, in response to the hon. gentleman, the answer would be yes. The intention is to achieve a two-price system in this country. If the fair and reasonable price for Canadian oil in the American
6954

October 17, 1973
Oral Questions
market should increase, then the differential would increase and, therefore, so would the tax return. The principle upon which settlement could be made I have reiterated publicly a number of times, and it is that a large part of the proceeds of the tax should be returned to the producing provinces-


An hon. Member:: One hundred per cent.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -for the purpose of stimulating additional energy supplies available for Canadians in all parts of the country.


William George Knight: In view of the minister's answer that he is moving-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish the minister would answer a few questions.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, if I have to talk louder I assure you that I can.


Some hon. Members:: Louder!


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of his statement that he is trying to establish a two-price system related to the use of fuels in Canada, can the minister inform the House if he has been in touch with Imperial Oil and other major oil companies in view of their desire to increase prices on the domestic market in Canada, and is the minister prepared to curtail any increases in those prices in light of the excessive profits which have been occurring in that industry?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have had requests, as indicated in the Prime Minister's statement, for increases in product prices in the eastern Canada market resulting from increases in the landed cost of oil. No decision has been taken in that regard.


FEDERAL PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Since the premier of Quebec stated last week that he would seek the holding of a constitutional conference if he is re-elected on October 29, would the minister tell us if the government would favour calling such a conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it has been quite clear for a number of years that the government of Canada is prepared to sit down with the provinces, and has already sat down, and if there seems to be some promise, some expectation of a useful

revision of the constitution, we will certainly be prepared to participate again.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance.
In view of the contradictory opinions expressed with respect to the budget presented by the Parti Quebecois, would the minister inform us if he intends to comment upon it publicly, or have it done by analysts from his department?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that the hon. member's question is in order. I doubt that it comes under the administrative jurisdiction of the federal Minister of Finance.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could he tell the House whether the new departmental program concerning Quebec economic expansion will be officially announced before October 29?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I would think not, Mr. Speaker.


SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS TO YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister on the same question which I have asked him several times before. Since he has had the matter under consideration for many months, can he now inform the House, and particularly residents above the sixtieth parallel, when DREE is going to be applied nationally to those parts of Canada as well as to the rest?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly agree with the proposition posed in the hon. member's question. My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I and our officials have been working on some mechanism which would achieve the result the hon. member is seeking.


BUGGING AND WIRETAPPING
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the interest of the House today in bugging and wiretapping, would the minister indicate whether the wiretapping bill is being held up because the government has instructed the chairman of
October 17, 1973

the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs not to call the committee until November 6 for clause by clause study, which may mean that it will be too late for us to get the bill through all stages before the end of the session?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker, there certainly has been no such instruction, which would be quite improper. The government is most anxious to proceed with this important measure, particularly in view of the fact the bill contains important provisions making illegal the possession and sale of the kinds of devices which can be used in wiretapping.


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED OIL IMPORTS FROM VENEZUELA IN EVENT OF INTERRUPTION OF MIDDLE EAST SUPPLIES
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the event of a disruption of Middle East oil supplies to Canada and the necessity of increasing our imports of Venezuelan oil, what conditions did the Venezuelan government put before the minister for increased import of their oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it was clear from the discussions that Venezuela would not be in a position to make any substantial increase in exports either to Canada or to any other country. Our objective really was to obtain the assurance that the very substantial supplies coming to Canada would not be interrupted in so far as the government of Venezuela can take action in that regard.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Has the government of the United States requested the Canadian government to increase supplies of oil to the United States and, if so, what is the position taken by the Canadian government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No such request has been made.


MEASURES TO PROVIDE HEATING OIL FOR ONTARIO AND QUEBEC THIS WINTER
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Following the minister's statement I should like to address this question to him. In view of indications that parts of Ontario and Quebec will also be faced with critical shortages of oil for home heating, could the hon. gentleman tell us what special measures he is taking to ensure such supplies will not be cut off this winter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have already responded to questions in that connection asked earlier today.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


FLOOD DAMAGE TO CROPS IN AREAS OF MANITOBA- GOVERNMENT ATTITUDE TOWARD FEDERAL COMPENSATION
Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the hon. gentleman been contacted by the province of Manitoba concerning the need for assistance in consequence of heavy rains which have caused flooding, resulting in severe damage to hay and other crops in the Interlake region?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I would have to check and let the hon. member know.


Peter Paul Masniuk: Bearing in mind the assistance given to other areas in past years, would the minister look favourably upon a request for assistance in this case from the Manitoba government?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, when it has been a question of aid provided to one segment of our farm population, the same treatment will be accorded to farmers in any part of the country.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Considering the fact that the McDonnel Douglas Aircraft Company, employing many thousands of people in northwestern Toronto, will soon have completed its production of DC-9 and DC-10 wing assemblies, and in view of the fact that many thousands of people in this community are afraid of consequences similar to the Arrow experience, can the minister tell us when the decision concerning a replacement for the navy's Tracker aircraft will be made, and whether McDonnel Douglas' superior entry is being looked on favourably?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: We have completed our studies of the proposals made by four aircraft manufacturing companies and I expect to be announcing in the near future the entry into the contract definition stage with two companies.


INQUIRY AS TO DECISION ON REPLACEMENT FOR ARGUS AIRCRAFT
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I have a supplementary to the Minister of National Defence arising from the fact that his statement of October 10 regarding the role of the forces and related capital expenditures raised more questions than it answered. Could the minister tell the House the situation with regard to the Argus replacement? When will an announcement be made in this case to reduce the number of competing companies to two for. detailed specifications?
26635-10}

October 17, 1973
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to a replacement for the Argus and possibly, also, for the Tracker when I referred to the studies which have been taking place. We will be entering the contract definition phase in the near future. I expect to make a recommendation to cabinet within the next two or three weeks.


EDUCATION
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact the government of British Columbia has declined to apply for assistance on behalf of private or independent schools under the federal official second language instruction program, can the minister tell us what steps, if any, are being contemplated to make financial aid available to these schools on the same basis as the public school system?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member probably knows, there has been an indication of a change in policy with respect to independent schools. I received a letter from the education minister of British Columbia, Mrs. Dailly, on September 29 indicating a change in position, and as a result of that letter my officials are in British Columbia today discussing possible changes arising from that change in policy.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the political unrest in Chile, would the hon. gentleman inform the House whether it is still the intention to hold the next Law of the Sea conference in Santiago, Chile, next spring as scheduled?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would doubt that the conference would be held there, but no decision has yet been made.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the importance to Canada of the outcome of this conference, and since bilingual translation facilities are available in Canada, would the minister consider extending an invitation to the nations concerned to hold this conference in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I think that is a very useful suggestion. I can assure the hon. member that there will be many competitors.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of Treasury Board why, when the cost of living is rising this year at a rate of more than 8 per cent, his officials in Treasury Board were not willing to offer the clerical employees of the federal civil service an increase of more than 3 per cent this year, 3 per cent next year and 2 per cent in the third year?


Frank Howard: Cheap, that's why.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: think the hon. gentleman is asking me to comment on negotiations which are still in progress, and this has not been the policy.


David Orlikow: If the minister does not feel he can comment at this point, possibly he could comment, when the process is completed, on the very generous increases given to senior civil servants of between $4,000 and $10,000 a year, though only 3 per cent is to be given to the clerical civil servants.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Would the minister advise the House whether he is now prepared to withdraw the offer made to public servants in the clerical group and to make a new offer indicating that the government recognizes the cost of living is rising for these public servants?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: When the application for binding arbitration was made, the government appointed a mediator under whose auspices some six meetings have since taken place, leading to modifications of the wage demand on the part of the employees and a counter offer by the government.

[Transla tion]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
On September 7 last, the hon. member for Bellechasse asked whether the policy concerning designated areas or special areas would apply in the future. The minister replied that he was discussing with the provinces a new policy to assist the slow growth areas. Can he say when he will announce that new policy and will it be before this coming winter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure it will be done before the winter. The draft of the joint development agreement with not only Quebec but all the provinces but one is virtually ready for submission to my
October 17, 1973

colleagues in the federal cabinet and to those in the provinces. I expect this development agreement and the subordinate agreements which will flow therefrom will be ready in a month from now, or a month and a half at the outside.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment. In light of the recent meeting between Canadian and United States officials of the International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes water quality agreement, can the hon. gentleman assure the House that adequate staffing and funding will immediately be provided for the proposed clean-up, as the IJC has admitted the lack of same? Further, is it the intention of the government to accelerate steps to prevent the continual discharge of water pollutants into the Great Lakes before it is too late?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, I am glad to give the hon. member that assurance, Mr. Speaker.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS REQUEST THAT MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT BE PERMITTED TO ATTEND EDMONTON TRI-LEVEL CONFERENCE AS OBSERVERS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the importance of the national tri-level intergovernmental meeting in Edmonton next week, and the fact that this meeting is open to the press but closed to official observers, will the minister undertake to ensure that members of parliament wishing to attend the meeting will be accredited as observers?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Arrangements of this sort are under the direction of the secretariat which is organizing the meeting, and the direction of the chairman who is acting on behalf of all three governments involved. I understand that the problem is purely physical inasmuch as there is just not sufficient room available.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked by the hon. member
Oral Questions
for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. It is directed to the government House leader. In view of the fact the Speech from the Throne promised that revisions will be proposed to the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act, can the hon. gentleman indicate when we may expect the necessary bills to be brought down?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: As the House will recall, the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, Mr. Finkelman, is currently examining proposed revisions to the legislation. He has not yet completed his work, but I expect it will be completed within a reasonable period. The report will be made public and the House will have an opportunity to deal with measures at that time or subsequent to the tabling of his report.


NATURAL GAS-PROPOSAL FOR TRANSMISSION FROM PRUDHOE BAY BY TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE AND TANKER-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to ask the minister whether the government of Canada considers the proposal of El Paso to move Prudhoe Bay gas to market by means of a trans-Alaska pipeline and tankers both practical and feasible?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: So far, Mr. Speaker, we have had no report on this matter. As the hon. member knows, there has been no application filed with the Federal Power Commission regarding this proposal, but it does seem to be a feasible one. The real question is that of cost relative to construction of a pipeline up the Mackenzie Valley.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the minister aware of the involvement of members of the Black Panther movement in the recent disturbances and violence at the Caughnawaga reserve, and could he say what steps have been taken to ensure that the activities of this uninvited group have been stopped?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have heard these rumours myself and, to palliate this situation, we have made sure there would be adequate police protection in Caughnawaga. The matter of undesirables entering

October 17, 1973
Oral Questions
Canada comes under the Department of Immigration. We have brought this problem to the attention of this department where we were advised that the utmost would be done to prevent their entering Canada.
May I take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for claiming, as I do, that Canadian problems may be solved better by Canadians than by foreigners.

[ English]


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that most pensions that come under the responsibility of the federal government either are, or soon will be, escalated by the full percentage increase in the cost of living, would the minister seek to prevail upon Canadian National Railways so that CN pensions can also be escalated not just by 2 per cent a year but by the full percentage increase in the cost of living?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows very well that this is something that is negotiated between the unions and the railway company. I in fact supported the original demand that was made when I was a member of the committee before it became the negotiating committee. Now the figures are being revised by an inquiry officer. I think Mr. Deutsch is the one looking into the data that have been supplied by the companies, so let us wait and see what the result will be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer, but in view of the fact that employees who have already retired are not covered under any such collective agreements, and in view of the fact that Dr. Deutsch is not studying the pensions of those already retired, would the minister again consider the plea that I make to him to make these representations to Canadian National?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, when I was in the labour movement as a unionist we were interested in former union members and it was the union that made representations, not members of the House of Commons or members of any other legislative assembly.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question may I ask the Minister of Labour when we can expect a report from Judge Hall in connection with the negotiations settling the rail strike?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I cannot say precisely, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, this is a complicated area. Judge Hall has been meeting constantly and steadily with the parties and is working as quickly as he can to get his report out. I cannot tell the hon. member precisely, but perhaps within a few days I will have information in rather more precise terms as to when this report will be available.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister, at a recent official banquet in China, simply chose to ignore a vicious verbal attack on the state of Israel by Premier Chou En-lai, as reported in the media?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might assume that the question has been asked directly rather than asking the Acting Prime Minister to confirm or deny a press report. The Chair is prepared to assume that the question has been asked directly.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when I heard this story I immediately transmitted a message to Peking and found that it was completely without foundation. No such attack was made upon Israel in the presence of the Prime Minister.


BUGGING AND WIRETAPPING
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the House showed today its reaction to bugging, even though in no way was a member of the press gallery connected therewith. None the less, what Watergate has revealed is the danger of empowering a small cabal to bug even for a few hours. Therefore I would ask the Minister of Justice this question. Having regard to the revelations in Washington, does he not now feel that that portion of the bill now before the committee which permits emergency bugging should be withdrawn?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the so-called emergency provisions which allow for the use of electronic devices to detect serious criminal offences when a judge is not available are, of course, similar to what some of the colleagues of the right hon. gentleman would have made the general rule in regard to the whole use of such electronic devices. Since the responsibility of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General is involved in those cases and was the source sought by some of the hon. member's colleagues as the only responsible source, the government felt, in contrast, that as a general rule a judge ought to approve the use of any of these
October 17, 1973

devices. But notwithstanding that, on the clear evidence that serious crime might not have been detected but for the very rapid use by law enforcement officers of such devices, it was felt desirable to keep in their hands, under the responsibility of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, use of those devices to detect serious crime so as to ensure the safety of all citizens in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that statement is, of course, a transparent deception. My impression is that there is no part of Canada where judges would not be available. My suggestion to the minister is that, if this particular provision remains, every Canadian will be subject to snooping for a period of 36 hours. That is a dangerous challenge to Canadian liberty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will, of course, allow the minister to reply, but I would suggest to hon. members that at this point we are debating an order of the day that is not before the House at the present time.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have been able to obtain and to place before members of the public, and bring to the attention of the public, police information that on some occasions such serious offences as shipment of a very large quantity of heroin was brought to the attention of law enforcement officers at 2 a.m. on a Sunday, that within 30 minutes a meeting would take place in a city, and that very prompt action was required on the part of the law enforcement officers. It was surprising that they were able to obtain the information without having to go to a judge. In the interest of apprehending such criminals, who themselves use these devices, I think we are justified in giving this power to police officers as well.


OIL-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE SECURITY OF SUPPLY TO EASTERN CANADA
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. With regard to supplies of oil from the Middle East, in the event of a cut-off of supplies, which has been a matter of concern for some time according to the minister, I ask whether the minister has done anything specific to increase security of supply to oil consumers in eastern Canada in the event there is a cut-off, other than the projected meeting he will have with the industry? Has he done anything at all to increase the supply for eastern consumers such as, for example, increasing storage supplies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in specific response some time ago to this question, the proposal for storage was found not to be practicable. At a time when it is difficult to secure regular supplies of oil because of the tightness of the international situation, it is obviously difficult to obtain additional supplies. I remind the hon. member that extensive discussions were carried on with the United States to obtain a security agreement to protect
Family Allowances
Canada. That was not possible. Extensive discussions were carried on in the OECD but for reasons over which Canada had no control the OECD discussions broke down. I have taken direct steps by talking to our principal supplier, Venezuela, to attempt to secure protection of the supplies now coming to Canada. In addition, we will have a meeting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the position of the minister: the question asked was in very general terms and it was difficult to reply briefly. I bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that we have reached the end of the question period. I had hoped to be able to recognize a number of members. Perhaps before calling orders of the day the Leader of the Opposition might be permitted to ask a supplementary, and that the minister would reply.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want a simple, direct answer. Has the minister done anything?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should advise the House that in accordance with the special order which was passed, found in Votes and Proceedings for Friday, July 27, tomorrow we will be dealing with the report stage of Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code. Under the terms of that special order, the sitting of the House will begin at 11 a.m., although routine proceedings will take place as usual at two o'clock. While I am on my feet, may I say that if the family allowance bill is passed we will spend the rest of the afternoon on the CNR financing bill.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-211, to provide for the payment of family allowances in respect of children to supplement the income of Canadian families and for the payment of special allowances to provide for the care and maintenance of other children, and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I was saying yesterday that it is really discouraging to realize that, from 1950 to 1972, that is to say over a 22 year period only, the birthrate for Quebec has fallen from 30.3 per cent to 15.2 per cent per 1,000 habitants.

October 17, 1973
Family Allowances
The current birthrate, especially in Quebec, is one of the lowest for the entire western world-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. I again bring to the attention of hon. members that when we call orders of the day it is extremely difficult to proceed with the business before us when members carry on discussions, interviews and consultations, sometimes standing in the House which is highly irregular. I suggest to hon. members that these discussions take place sotto-voce or behind the curtains.
[Trans la tion]
The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) is trying to make himself heard and perhaps we should have the courtesy of listening to him.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful for your intervention because it is quite difficult to make a speech when there is so much noise in the House. I was saying that the current birth rate, especially in Quebec, is one of the lowest in the western world while a few years back it was among the highest.
Faced with all those facts we should respond as soon as possible. This is why we suggest that, to be at the level of the present situation, family allowances should be depending on the number of dependents and increased to $30, $60 and $90 a month.
And yet all hope is not lost. This progressive society should do its utmost to increase its population through generous incentives which would encourage married couples to bring their contribution to the demographic needs of a comparatively young country so as to give it the population required to meet its objectives.
We are all aware that the birth rate is intimately connected to the economic conditions. Let us take the necessary steps to settle this thorny problem and ensure an adequate well-being to all families.
Since the aim of the production of consumer goods and services is to meet peoples' needs, work and capital are the means to reach this goal. Profit is an incentive aimed at facilitating the work of grown-ups but it should not take too much importance in the life of our society.
This is the origin of all our economic troubles. Although good in itself, profit becomes bad and even harmful when reaching excessive proportions. In our affluent country the richest are becoming richer and richer and the number of poor is increasing daily. This economic unbalance is prejudicial to children, students, the unemployed and the small wage-earners who do not have sufficient income to enjoy our resources comparatively to the prices asked. What makes it so difficult to adjust family allowances to the cost of living and the rise of the gross national product is precisely the fact that we never consider our economy as the activities of the people as a whole, in order to meet their needs. For many years, the members of the Social Credit have been advocating the payment of a stable and guaranteed salary to each Canadian. I am sure that such a step would cope with most social problems of our country.
I support the bill although I would have liked the government to do much more for the welfare of young Canadians.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable pride that I participate in this debate. I wish to point out that I have had occasion to participate in debates on other legislation presented to this House, all of which has been most progressive indeed. There has been a considerable amount of discussion on this bill. The position adopted by the Progressive Conservatives in this instance ought to be given very little attention, primarily because it is very difficult to ascertain exactly the position of that party although it is easy to determine what the conservative position might be.
We have heard the contribution of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). I will have more to say about that later. We also heard the contribution of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). I commend that hon. member on a very excellent contribution. It was one which might well be classified as being a liberal contribution. I also wish to refer to the contribution of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). It appears that his association with the Liberal party in the past has put him in good standing with regard to this bill.
From reading the contribution made by the hon. member for Hillsborough which appears at page 6871 of Hansard for October 15, it appears that the position of the Conservative Party is indeed expressed in his words as follows:
However, I am a little unhappy-indeed, I am profoundly disturbed-that at a time when the country faces an economic crisis of pressing gravity the response of the government time after time is to throw out another welfare measure. In the emergency session in August and September it was the minister who came through with measures. There was a little change to old age security, an alteration here, another there-
It appears that the legislation introduced by the government in respect of family allowances is considered by the hon. member for Hillsborough, the lead-off speaker for his party, to be a welfare measure. It is little wonder that there is no Tory record of social legislation in this country. It is distinctly repugnant to them to adopt anything which smells of social security because they define it as welfare and use that term as meaning a hand-out.
We saw this attitude recently in the Ontario edition of the Conservative Party. They attached very little importance to the bill presently being debated. It has been noted that they might consider reducing the amount of the welfare payments which would otherwise be payable to welfare recipients in proportion to the amount by which their revenue might be increased as a result of this particular legislation. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is this penury of social legislation coming from the Conservative Party. Someone might ask: Why, then, are they supporting this particular piece of legislation? The reason, I suggest, is that this legislation is demanded by the Canadian people and is an expression of the Canadian wish. The expression of that wish has been received by a party which has been accustomed to presenting social legislation of this type and calibre.
When I turn now to the NDP my heart is glad. I am encouraged by the fact that the NDP have chosen to
October 17, 1973

actively support this legislation. However, I am somewhat saddened by the posturing which has been engendered by that party. Indeed, the posturing was very well expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in the debate of October 15 when he claimed complete credit for this piece of legislation. He said the following, as recorded at page 6881 of Hansard for October 15:
If some of my friends in various parts of the House think that I am being too generous-
Indeed, he was most agreeable to the legislation.
-in welcoming this legislation, it must be obvious that the reason we welcome it is that we know we are responsible for it.
He expressed those words with great relish. However, I would point out that the day after, yesterday, he was promptly corrected by one of his own backbenchers. The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) indicated that he recognized-indeed, he recognizes it because it is an historic fact-that our social security legislation is a product of Liberal governments and is a Liberal philosophy. As recorded at page 6909 of Hansard, the hon. member for Scarborough West said:
As a final compliment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the minister and the government on his and their return to the policies of the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson and the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.
Of course he is right historically. We accept the commendation. We accept the recognition by the party to the left-I stand with my back to you, Mr. Speaker, when I say "to the left"-that the Liberal Party has generated socially conscious legislation. I refer to the old age security legislation, the unemployment insurance legislation, the veterans allowance legislation and the family allowance legislation. All these pieces of legislation which have evolved, and have been consolidated, improved and approved throughout the years were introduced in this House by a Liberal government. There have been some improvements. There have been contributions from private members of other parties. There is no doubt of that. I will not deny there have been contributions from Conservative members in respect of this legislation. I have seen in committee how effectively they work. However, their principles have not changed; they are still there.
No one pretends to know everything about any given topic, so every piece of legislation when it is introduced is not invariably right and can be improved by this House. This is indeed a parliament and it can work only if the government introduces legislation. It is recognized in our parliamentary system that the government is responsible for this legislation, so, for members of the NDP to claim they are responsible for it is indeed misleading and most inaccurate.
The minister said that there will be an increase of $840 million in total capital expenditure for this program. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that is because the economy of the country can absorb this additional expenditure. This is the time when family allowances should be increased. Indeed, the government chose this time since the economy is booming; our productive capacity is up to 94 per cent. There is demand for a greater quantity of Canadian goods. There is need for additional investment in manufacturing and processing, and indeed in the
Family Allowances
extraction industries. No one can deny this. We have a very rich economy. The tax revenue is proof of this. The indexing of income tax announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is another indication of the substantial revenue available to the Canadian government and the Canadian people. Now is the time when this legislation should have been introduced.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party-and I would like to emphasize the word "new"-was not even here when the Liberals were legislating on these basic principles.
And I should like to point out to the House that they are now claiming responsibility for the bill before us. This reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of a fable by the great poet of two hundred years ago, Lafontaine, who, with his pen, reached across two centuries to describe these people to the left of the spectrum. I quote;
Climbing a hill through sand, as though the load were lead, Scorched by burning sun directly overhead,
Six horses dragged a coach with a lurch.
Women, a monk, as well as old folk were walking,
Yet the sweating, blowing horses were balking When a fly buzzed toward them determined to perch;
Convinced that noisiness could goad the horses on,
Stung one, stung all, sure that what she had done Could move the weight at a bound.
She rode on the coach pole; soon the driver's nose smarted,
As the wheels were turning round And the vehicle started.
Then insisting that credit be laid at her door,
She would rush to and fro like a sergeant till spent,
Who must urge his men forward wherever they went,
While claiming the honor of winning the war.
The fly complained that what she had done,
Was a task for them all and not for her alone.
Heavy work each should do had been left to her.
The monk had let matins be his share;
They took a long time. A light heart overflowed,
But song can't move coaches along the road!
Pestering each ear, Dame Fly must incommode,
Buzzing in foolhardihood!
At the top of the hill the tired horses delayed.
"Better stop for a time! Take a breath," the fly said.
"Since I've guided you up to the level again,
My good horses, admit that I've been under strain."
So consummate boors, too brash to be lessoned,
Making disturbance everywhere,
Worry themselves with a world of care-
As pests whose departure one longs to have hastened.
This, Mr. Speaker, is an accurate description of the situation and of the position taken by the New Democratic Party. This fly wants to claim all responsibility for the legislation brought before this House.
I have heard that a number of times before. I have been told by all members of that party to whom I have spoken that they are responsible for the legislation which is now

October 17, 1973
Family Allowances
before the House. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I take strong issue with the leader of that party who today commented in the House that bugging the Liberal caucus might not be worth while.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blais:: I suggest that discussions in caucus, which I am not at liberty to reveal, are most interesting. This is my first year in the House. The last election was not quite a year ago.


An hon. Member:: And it is your last.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that Liberal caucuses-indeed, I am sure all caucuses held as a result of the traditions that have been established-are most helpful and useful. That is why I am sad when a member of the press uses the caucus as a source of information for the special program that he is planning. I am in agreement with the motion which was put forward today. I feel it is very important that we protect our prerogatives. But I take issue when someone says that the Liberal Party does not contribute its greater than fair share to the affairs of this country.
It is a Liberal government that is administering this country at a very difficult time. No one can tell me that there is an economic crisis in Canada at present. The opposition might want to create some sort of panic, but the fact that this particular piece of legislation has been introduced, as well as the fact that some hon. members, at a time when they say there is a terrible crisis, call for an investigation into the situation in North Africa, proves that there is no economic crisis in Canada. Surely, had they believed that there was a terrible crisis in Canada, they would not have gone to North Africa.


Mr. Epp:: You are not at your best right now.


Some hon. Members:: A little louder.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I have invited contributions from the peanut gallery, Mr. Speaker, but these are unintelligible comments and therefore I cannot reply. Those gentlemen who enjoy the lakes of northern Ontario cannot now say they cannot enjoy them in perfect peace. Those members who enjoyed the last three weeks when the gorgeous leaves of northern Ontario were most beautiful cannot now say that we are facing an economic crisis in Canada.
Indeed, as I was saying before I was interrupted, the legislation presently before the House is indicative of the fact that we are concerned with social security and interested in the equitable distribution of wealth, we must recognize that there is wealth to distribute. There is no question in my mind that we will be able to pay the $840 million, and that it will not impose an additional burden on the taxpayers of Canada.
I suggest that this legislation is worth while, and when I look at the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has been in the House almost since the year I was born, I say that this is not the end-all of the equitable distribution of wealth; it is one step in the right direction. A number of other steps will be taken and I would like to be here when they are taken. However, at this time this is the best

legislation which can be presented in our economic situation and I invite all hon. members to support it wholeheartedly.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party reminds me of the chameleon which continuously changes colour so as to blend into its environment. It is interesting to note how that party responds when it is under pressure in this country. They seem to have come a considerable distance in our direction or in whatever direction protests come from. I recall the 1940s when the CCF party first won an election in Saskatchewan and came very close to it in Ontario. It went ahead of the Liberal Party nationally at the polls. I remember the era when family allowances were first introduced, the era when the Wheat Board was first set up when there was a grain crisis. That is why I say the Liberal Party is very much like the chameleon because it makes changes in order to adapt to its environment. Nothing is more indicative of this than watching these fellows since last October 30 and seeing the legislation that is brought before the House. It is indicative of the chameleon-type attitude of these people.
Last year they brought in a very complex family allowance bill which contained a means test. Family allowances were supposed to go up or down according to age, sex, family income, and so on. That bill was so complicated that it would have made the Unemployment Insurance Act look simple. Our party objected strenuously to it and said it was unrealistic. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hel-lyer) also objected strenuously to that bill. We said it should be a universal bill, that it should not contain a means test and that the rates should be increased.
According to government members at that time, those demands were unrealistic and impossible. That was prior to October 30. Now, suddenly we find the Liberal Party accepting our ideas. They have brought in a bill that is universal, that provides more money for the families of this country and that is sound in principle. It is interesting to watch the Liberal Party. That is why I was so pleased the other day when I saw the popularity of that party drop down to 35 per cent in the public opinion poll.
Perhaps that chameleon party will be bringing forth some more progressive legislation as they sink lower in popularity. When they sense danger, they respond. Perhaps that is the best hope we have until our party or other progressive elements in the country can form a government that is truly representative of the needs of the people. But the Liberal Party has always fascinated me and I think the legislation before us today is really indicative of how they can change their colour so quickly and appear so natural in a different skin. How anyone can do that as neatly and as subtly as the Liberal Party of Canada, I do not know.
As I said already, the bill before us is based on a sound principle. It will put more money into the hands of ordinary citizens by raising the family allowance from an average of $7 a month to an average of $20 a month. I think that is very good in light of the increase in the cost of living which basically hits people living on low income. However, at this stage I appeal to provincial governments
October 17, 1973

from one end of the country to the other not to cut back on their welfare payments because of the increase in the family allowance, using this as a means of saving provincial money. I know that some provinces have already clarified their stand. My own province of Saskatchewan is not going to penalize welfare recipients. It will increase the allowable welfare level so that family allowance is not deducted.
I would like to see all provincial governments do this, including the Conservative government of the province of Ontario which up until now has hesitated to make this decision. I know that the Ontario minister of social services says his province is considering it, and I think this House should say to him and to all provincial governments that they should not take advantage of this bill in order to cut back on provincial welfare payments; otherwise the increase in family allowances would be quite meaningless to many people.
As I say, this is a good piece of legislation. It is based on a sound principle. But as parliamentarians we should not be carried away, slapping each other on the back, pontificating about what great guys we are and that we are doing such a lot for the people of Canada. Basically this bill will do very little to redistribute income in Canada. It will do very little to assist lower income people meet the cost of living which has gone up faster this year than in any year since the Korean war. As politicians we must not become smug and patronizing toward the ordinary citizen, because really the ordinary citizen is not getting a very decent break at all. To understand this, all one has to do is refer to the statistics mentioned in this House previously which show the distribution of income in Canada.
We find that in the last 20 years income distribution has stayed approximately the same for both the poor and the wealthy. In 1951, the lowest 20 per cent of the population, in terms of income, received only 6 per cent of the disposable income in Canada. In 1971, the lowest 20 per cent received only 7 per cent of the disposable income. In other words, over 20 years, despite all our social plans and programs, the lowest 20 per cent income bracket families have received only 7 per cent of our disposable income. In 1951, the highest 20 per cent of the population, in terms of income, received 41 per cent of the disposable income. In 1971, that 20 per cent received 39 per cent of the disposable income. In my opinion they still receive a much greater proportion of disposable income than they should, despite the large number of social plans which we have, despite programs such as the family allowance program which basically and essentially is a very good one.
I would like to remind hon. members that the Senate Committee on Poverty stated that 4 Vz million poor people in Canada are living in poverty, and of them 1.7 million are children who are deprived of decent nutrition and cannot develop in a healthy manner because they do not have a decent diet. This is something that will affect those children and the families to follow in the years to come.
We should reject some of the insinuations made in this House by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) who referred to this legislation as a welfare type of hand-out measure. Mr. Speaker, it is not a welfare measure. It should be viewed as a measure that is helping the children of the country, that is helping in a small way
Family Allowances
to redistribute income and wealth all across Canada. As I say, it is only a small step in that direction. Much more has to be done. The House should seriously consider the idea articulated many times by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) of paying salaries to mothers who elect to stay at home and look after their families.
For mothers who do not want to stay at home we should be accepting the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and spending a lot more money right across this country, including provinces which have NDP governments, on day-care centres. By doing so the mother would be liberated in the same way as the man. She could go to work and pursue a career, without being restricted to staying at home and looking after her family, or she could choose to stay at home and look after the family. This type of choice should be allowed in a society as affluent as Canada's. The provision of day-care centres, or of salaries for mothers who elect to stay at home and look after their children would give a great deal more freedom to Canadians in general. This would provide a great deal more initiative to people in terms of exploring their creativity and developing themselves. It would be a boon to the economy by placing more purchasing power in the hands of people who really need it.
As I have said, we should not regard this legislation as being the be-all and end-all. But it is one measure to help redistribute income and wealth. That is the main issue. In some way we must do more for the lower income people by providing them with more funds, with better jobs, by providing retraining, higher minimum wages, more work opportunities in processing and manufacturing industries that are labour-intensive and have potential in terms of growth, and by encouraging the average citizens to form and organize trade unions so that their points of view will be represented at the bargaining table, where presently one-third of the work force is represented, that third being the highest paid segment.
These are things that must be done if the ordinary lower income citizen is to receive a greater portion of the income pie in Canada. For people at the top of the income scale who make their money through dividends, capital gains on the stockmarket or other speculation we should have a more progressive taxation system so that they would not see their incomes go up by leaps and bounds every year despite their being only a small proportion of the population.
Along with all this we need strong governmental action in other areas to protect our citizens. As I said in the House a few days ago, we need a prices review board that is really tough, that has some guts, to stop the gouging and profiteering in areas that affect families, in areas such as food prices, the price of lumber, fuel and energy. These are the things our party says should be controlled if there is excessive pricing and gouging. In Canada we produce energy, lumber, fuel, iron and copper ore. These should be controlled on a selective basis for the benefit of the Canadian consumer. In these areas we, as federal legislators, can take action and this could have a spin-off effect to help the ordinary consumers and families of the country.

October 17, 1973
Family Allowances
It is in this context that we should look at legislation of this sort, even though it is very good and very progressive. With that, I encourage the provincial governments not to take advantage of this legislation to cut welfare allowances for the very poor and unfortunate. I also encourage the people of Canada to keep on mistrusting the Liberal Party and forcing them into this kind of situation. They are communing with nature and changing their colours as the attitudes and opinions of the people of this country change. It is for us on the opposition side to push them. The minute they become smug is the time they will stop bringing forth legislation such as Bill C-211.
I am pleased to support this bill, but I serve notice that I will not be satisfied by it and will continue to push as hard as I can for much more original and progressive legislation that will help the people of this country.
[ Translation]


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago, several of my constituents, particularly mothers of large families like those we have in the constituency of Madawaska-Victoria, good families, complained that for some time we had been giving too many increases in old age security pensions and that the government was not doing enough for young families, for young parents who want to have children and provide them with the necessary comfort during the period of their development and education.
Of course, I told them that I respected their opinions, but that I did not necessarily share their points of view and I explained to them why.
For both groups, that is for older citizens and young parents, we could perhaps contribute more. But, what pleased me most recently when discussing with these people was their approval of a formula featured in the bill of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde); not only did they recognize all its social justice because of its flexible approach but they also saw it as being essentially an initiative of the Liberal government, despite the claims of hon. members on the other side who compete to inflate like frogs to attribute themselves all the credit for it.
All great social measures in Canada have been Liberal initiatives, Mr. Speaker, and history speaks for itself. Recently, during a social meeting with my constituents, we spoke at great length about government programs relating to equality of opportunities in society. I am referring in particular to many employees of the Fraser companies, in Edmundston, who repeated the request they had already put forward to reduce to 60 years the optional age of retirement so they can qualify for the old age security pension, Canada pension plan, etc. for themselves and their spouse.
Of course, this debate is not the ideal background to discuss this matter, but many Canadians are ever more conscious of it and I tend to agree more and more with it and I even believe that this matter falls within an overall policy of social security and socio-economic strategy. I intend to ask several questions to the minister and, consequently, the government about this matter during the next meetings of the Standing Committee of Health, Welfare

and Social Affairs. The only requirement, in my opinion, for a serious and in-depth discussion of all this problem is that hon. members be provided with all available information in order to easily and effectively deal with it.
To come back to family allowances, I cannot help thinking how much easier it would have been for my parents, as for those of many of my friends in the village where I was born, to keep us in college, for instance, at a time when there were no scholarships or loans to students. These parents would have been assured at the same time of more comfort, had family allowances been a little higher at that time. However, we got out of it and in any case, I am pleased, as all my constituents are, with the excellent legislation now under consideration and which will answer a great many of the most immediate needs of the Canadian family.
Like my colleague from Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc), I regret the kind of publicity which, at first sight, seems misleading in a certain New Brunswick newspaper, and which tends to serve the political purposes of that province's government regarding the announcement of contributions to the family allowances program.
The least I can say is that that newspaper remains faithful to its tradition, a questionable one, brought to light a few years ago at the time of the Senate inquiry on Canadian newspapers. The fact is that the federal government is paying the full amount of these allowances and I do not think that it would be possible to keep on misleading New Brunswickers much longer. They will repudiate that kind of crafty journalism in their own way.
As most other members who spoke before me, I could boast to no end the merits of this Bill C-211, but it has all been done many times before. I shall abstain. But for a few moments, I shall dwell on one or two parts from the speech delivered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).
I should like to quote a part from pages 11 and 12 of the text of his speech. There it is:
Apart from increasing the income of Canada's "working poor", the increased allowances should to some extent ease the pressure on provincial social assistance expenditures. The increase in the allowance should in many instances be enough to keep families off the welfare rolls.
I don't know exactly what the minister means by this part which, in my view, lends itself to two different interpretations. The minister obviously recognizes that provincial governments have jurisdiction in matters of administration of public assistance programs, but there is the fact that the family allowances plan is not a public assistance program, as we usually mean it, that is a welfare program, since it is a universal program. But I wonder seriously if provincial governments should or even have the power to reduce their provincial public assistance programs through the family allowance plan. Of course, the provinces might talk about the burden of their program but at the same time it seems to me they would really jeopardize the prime objective of family allowances which is alleviating the burden of poor families.
I do not know whether I interpret the Minister correctly. I hope I am wrong in my interpretation. Finally, perhaps it was necessary to make a concession to the provinces-I do not know-but a thorough investigation of
October 17, 1973

that matter in committee will allow to shed some light on that point.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I consider essential to the intrinsic value of the bill, the provision calling for periodically-increased allowances to offset the increase in the cost of living. This has been done or is being done for other pension or social security plans and it must, of course, be done for family allowances to maintain the purchasing power.
Mr. Speaker, when one has before him such an excellent bill as this one one cannot but desire its quick passage and congratulate quite earnestly the minister and his government for their initiative.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom) has referred to the similarity between the Liberal Party and the chameleon which changes its colour to blend in with its surroundings. Fortunately for the people of Canada, the last election put the Liberal Party into the position of needing to adopt some ideas of the NDP. I say that is fortunate for the people of Canada. Yet not even the chameleon is capable of adopting the sort of advanced colouring that is represented by all the ideas of the NDP, and we are finding out that the government cannot adopt all that colouring. That is why, although we accept this measure with satisfaction, we are at pains to point out that it is only a partial measure, only one among others required to bring dignity, security and proper pride to the families of this country many of whom are labouring under great difficulties. I say that what has happened is fortunate for the people of Canada because one year ago the Liberal Party, in the full glow of its false or fancied security, showed colours that are vastly different from those it is showing in bringing forward this bill.
Like the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, I was a member of the standing committee on health and welfare which studied the previous FISP bill. I shall not quickly forget the great dismay of members, even on the Liberal side of that committee, when they realized what a nightmare that bill was. It was apparent that there would be much red tape and much filling out of unnecessarily detailed forms. We all realized the foul-ups that would occur and the confusion that the FISP legislation would create among the mothers and fathers of this country.
I recall that some members from remote areas of this country practically begged for assurances from the then minister that in remote areas there would be a government agent who could assist parents without too much schooling, and without too great a familiarity with elaborate government and legal documents, with filling out forms. Many changes in situation and status would need to be listed if a family was to get the proposed level of family allowance. All kinds of details would be listed, and all kinds of changes in status would need to be set down.
People would need to list changes in levels of income. If the family received a little more in unemployment insurance, that would need to be reported. If the father's wage or salary went up, that would need to be reported. If one of the children attained a certain age bracket, that fact
Family Allowances
would need to be reported. If a child moved out, or if the family's circumstances changed, that would need to be spelled out. The whole thing was a nightmare. Now, as another colleague who spoke for our party said yesterday, we are back on track; we are back to the original intent of the legislation. Actually, I think we have gone a little further. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) put it in proper perspective when he spoke on this measure the other day and said, as recorded at page 6866 of Hansard:
The original family allowance program was introduced for the purpose of giving a maximum measure of income support to families to help ease the financial burden of bringing up children and to provide a measure of equal opportunity for children regardless of a family's economic situation. The objective of the new family allowance program is to provide a supplement to the income of Canadian families in such a way that those with the greatest need will receive the greatest benefit.
There is a difference, Mr. Speaker. Under the old family allowance scheme there has been an undifferentiated handing out of income to Canadian families without regard to the economic position of the family. With the new measure there has been an improvement. This bill seeks to supplement the income of Canadian families in such a way that those with the greatest need will receive the greatest benefit.
How is this to be done? For years the NDP has been told that this is impossible, that this type of selectivity, inside a system of universality, just cannot work; it just cannot be done. When we advocated the universal old age pension and later, as well, when a Liberal government wanted to introduce a means test principle, we were asked-


An hon. Member:: That was typically Liberal.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, typically Liberal. At that time we were asked, "would you give the old age pension to the millionaire just as you would to the poor person? Would you give it to the millionaire who does not need it? How shamefull!" We answered by saying, "There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it to death with butter. Of course we would give the pension to millionaires too, but we would use taxation to take money back from those who did not need it, and the recovery would be in direct proportion to their affluence." Again we were told that this would be quite impossible. Now, thank goodness, because the Liberal Party has been forced to adopt the ideas of the NDP in this regard we are able to make some headway along these lines. This measure is a definite improvement. It returns to the original concept and takes a step forward as well.
It is apparent, by the various measures the present minister has introduced, that he knows there are wide differences in income in this country. I am glad he has not indulged in this silly talk about averages. I am sick and tired of hearing what the average Canadian income is, what the average Canadian spends on food and what this and that average is. People are not averages; people are people, with wide differences in income, wide differences in needs and wide differences in capabilities for meeting them. The minister knows this. I do not know how far he will be able to push his colleagues. It all depends on how much push we NDP members are able to exert on behalf of

October 17, 1973
Family Allowances
the people of the country whose views we are expressing here. It depends on that, and the minister knows it.
I like the way in which the present minister is concerned about bringing up the level of income of different groups in society. He wants different groups to enjoy a liveable income. He is concerned about bringing up the level of the old age pensioners, of the veterans, of the people on the Canada Pension Plan, of public servants and of other groups in society. One of these days, if the minister lasts long enough and if we NDP members last long enough and are strong, there will be a guaranteed annual income in this country. We will get a guaranteed annual income with the same type of flexibility as the present measure. Its level will depend not on any average income but will take into account differences in needs and capacities of the people involved.
A guaranteed income involves more than handing out money to people, more than handing out a cheque or calculating some sort of negative income tax at the end of the year. A guaranteed income has with it other programs.
I know that this minister knows about those programs, too. You cannot have a workable guaranteed income without at the same time having a guaranteed occupation. Guaranteed jobs with earnings attached to them are necessary so that people can live by them properly, not as working poor but as people who work for an income of a dignified kind. This is also necessary to make a guaranteed income work. You must have guaranteed occupation of a socially useful and socially satisfying kind.
We are beginning to realize that this is not going to be easy to secure. One of the reasons is that during the two worst years of unemployment, that is, between 1970 and 1972, we allowed our young people to simply drift about in idleness without giving them any direction, any purpose or useful work to do. At the same time, we told them absolute lies. We told them that the idea that work was a useful life-giving thing was a puritan ethic which should be buried deep. That advice was given by people who held satisfying and good jobs, many of whom worked far too hard and worked themselves into early graves because they were doing something which seemed to them worthwhile and satisfying.
Work is the umbilical cord which attaches us to life. Work is the way we find our friends. Work is the way in which we earn our bread. Work is the way we carry our share of the load. Work is the way we make our social contacts and exchange our ideas. And work is the way we develop the capacities we have within ourselves. With one stroke, the government, by its absolutely stupid idea of trying to fight inflation in some mysterious and arcane way by which it neglected to provide jobs, cut the umbilical cord for thousands of young people in this country and allowed them to drift in a kind of death-in-life from which many of them have not recovered nor will recover during their lifetime. Pick-up programs have been introduced since that time and other opportunities are beginning to develop in some measure, but the ideas put forward at that time were a terrible sin and crime against the young people of this country.

I am glad to see that once again we are trying to demonstrate some kind of care for the children of our nation. I am glad the minister has this vision and that some of his colleagues are beginning to share it with him, even though in a much more limited form. It has not always been like this. There have been means tests. As for my friends over here to the right, my memory goes back to the time when the then premier of Ontario referred to family allowances, when they were introduced, as a bribe to the province of Quebec. He thought that the purpose of family allowances was to enable la revanche des ber-ceaux-the revenge of the cradles-to have its way in Quebec so that Quebec would outpopulate Ontario.


Mr. Paproski:: 


Winona Grace MacInnis: That may be WASP, but it is true. WASP or not, that is what happened. Let me say that I hope things are different now. But I have been noticing that in the Ontario legislature it took two days of waffling back and forth before the Conservative minister of welfare of that province finally made up his mind that he would recommend that they do not cut the family relief allowances in Ontario in respect of family allowances, that they would not reduce the assistance because people were receiving the additional family allowance. Thank goodness he took two days and that he waffled so that people in our party and others were able to get up in the legislature and make a strong plea for common sense and justice. I recommend to the Ontario legislature that they do not cut the relief allowance because people will be receiving the family allowance.
I am proud to oe aDle to announce that in my own province of British Columbia the full amount of $20 will be paid to each child and no cuts will take place in other family assistance rates. I hope this action will encourage some of the other provinces to do likewise, particularly those affluent provinces which have been keeping very quiet on this matter to date. I hope they will be encouraged to come out and we shall see the full $20 given for the children involved.
As I said, I am glad to see that recognition is being given in this legislation to the importance of young children. I think we have been neglecting the needs of families and children for far too long. As a matter of fact, my colleague from Yorkton-Melville made reference to the opportunity I have taken for some years now of urging that where a mother decides to make a career of raising her children and remaining at home instead of going outside the home to seek gainful employment, she should receive a salary for so doing.
I remember the first time I raised this question some years ago it was regarded with some amusement tinged with hostility. People felt that mother love itself was quite enough to raise a child on; there was no need for diapers, bottles, clothes or anything else. It was sufficient for the mother to simply croon to the child, "I can't give you anything but love, baby." That was supposed to be quite enough. Now, thank goodness, women are beginning to discover that they, too, need to have the wherewithal to do the job well.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!
October 17, 1973


Winona Grace MacInnis: It seems to me that if we had the wit to make available a proper salary for mothers with children at home, we would find it much easier to keep women at home in much larger numbers. Over and over again statistics show us that the biggest single cause of women seeking employment in the labour force, full time or part-time, is that the husband's pay cheque is not sufficient to cover the cost of living or because the woman alone has no means of bringing up her children other than going on social assistance. Women who are too proud to go on social assistance are often driven to neglect their families in order to provide money for them to live on.
Many women have come to me and said that although they have a job, by the time they pay their babysitter and pay the extra expenses involved in being presentable and decent at their job, they get less money to take home to their families than if they were on social assistance. That is the truth. If that sort of thing is hard on the morale of a husband, to hang around on social assistance, how much harder is it on the morale of a mother who sees her children dependent on her, in many cases solely dependent on her, when she wishes to bring them up properly.
I wish the minister would give some thought to a measure which I understand has been in existence for some time in France. France has several things we hear about, some which we like and some which we don't like. The measure I refer to is something which they seem to keep under wraps. Whether it is because of their modesty, or whether it is because Canadian journalists have not been interested in finding out about it, I cannot say. But in France, when a mother wishes to stay at home and bring up her family properly, a salary is available. Unfortunately, the salary is paid to the father, unless there has been a change. In Canada there would be no danger of that, even with the Tories in power, because Women's Lib would not let them get away with it.


Mr. Rodriguez:: We don't trust them.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Neither do the women. That is a double entendre and you can take it as a compliment if you like. I think recognition is beginning to be given in this measure not only to children but to family life, to the role of the mother in family life. Surely women should be given the choice whether to go out to work full time outside the home, or to work outside the home part time, or to do small jobs at times when they are not too occupied with household duties. But I firmly believe that, in the case of the majority of women today who have small children, if they had an adequate income and the state were to recognize the service they render by giving them a proper salary to bring up their children, you would find these women beating a path back to their home and children. That is because they would have the wherewithal to bring them up in decency.
How can the male members of this House, so many of whom talk of the sanctity of family life, the importance of motherhood and children and all the rest, be so backward in voicing the needs of women and mothers for an adequate salary to further the well-being of their families? Do they take it for granted that in all cases the salary of the husband will be sufficient to provide for this, or do they
Family Allowances
think that in all cases the husband dutifully goes home and hands over the money to run the home? Or do they think at all? I believe it is time we started to think along these lines.
This measure does have its shortcomings. The minister gave us some very convincing figures showing that people in the lower income groups receive larger benefit from taxation than those in the higher income groups. But it is not what one pays in taxes that counts; rather, it is what one has left over to live on after paying taxes. That is the important thing. People at the top of the income ladder still have a far greater share of their income to live on than those at the bottom after taxation has been deducted.
I can well understand that the minister has to be discreet in cabinet, but I wish he would find some way of handling the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and getting him to zero in on this particular problem. The minister has been exposed to consumer and corporate affairs and he has seen how some people live.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has also been exposed to justice.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, he has been exposed to justice. But time and again the minister gets up in this House and says he cannot understand what all the fuss is about, because, after all, our gross national product is surging ahead by leaps and bounds, our production is simply super and there are more people with jobs than one could ever believe.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: He even has a fan over there. The minister is at a loss to understand the needs of lower income groups. He goes along, of course, with social security measures, though he does not really see the need for them, with a booming economy and a booming everything else. The Minister of Finance is thinking in averages, not of the fact that this great big national income is largely syphoned off by a small fraction of the population, leaving a large fraction of the population living in insecurity, misery and all the rest.
Therefore, I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be enabled in some way to get the Minister of Finance to stop thinking in terms of averages and to start thinking in terms of men, women and children, and preferably not the most affluent ones. I cannot introduce him to the most poverty-stricken ones right away because it might be too great a shock to him; but let him at least see some that he would recognize are living below his ideal average. He might then be prepared to loosen the purse strings a little and do something for them.
My hon. friend to my far right, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), talked the other day about the fact, with which we all agree, that low income consumers are today hardest hit by rising prices. All right, we agree. But let me ask the hon. member for Hillsborough whether he was thinking about this when the Minister of Finance brought in his proposal the other day to cut the corporation tax rate from 49 per cent to 40 per cent. If he was, did he also think of the large profits made by corporations in this country, which have been growing steadily?
October 17, 1973

Family Allowances
If he was thinking about both of those facts, the cut in corporation tax and the profits being amassed by the big corporations, and if he is aware that among these corporations are many of the big food chains and food outlets, then I would ask the hon. member for Hillsborough what was his reason, be it moral, political or anything else, for voting for the measure to cut corporation tax from 49 per cent to 40 per cent?
As a result of this action, the Minister of Finance will have to get additional revenue through applying heavier taxes, directly or indirectly, against poorer people, those who are hardest hit by the rising cost of living.


An hon. Member:: That is the Tory approach.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, but it is not a very sensible one. Perhaps the Tories would move an inch or two on this, because we have to move a little bit these days if we want to continue to live. In other words, we have to get to the root cause. We must get beyond the notion that the welfare state is the cure for everything.
It took a long while to get the idea of the welfare state going and to put in the pieces that make it up, such as the old age security pension, family allowances, veterans pensions and other pensions and allowances. But we are now beginning to discover that it is merely a cruel deception, an illusion, to give raises to people who need them so badly and at the same time permit those raises to be taken away very swiftly and decisively as a result of increases in the cost of living, increases that are controlled by the very large and very irresponsible corporations in this country.
I feel that we have to take measures to bring these large private corporations under control. If we cannot bring them to heel by taking measures to cut their profits and control their operations, making sure our people have a well-rounded diet instead of letting the magnet of foreign trade attract our foodstuffs in great quantities to Japan, the United States, Britain, Europe, Asia and Africa, then all our social security measures will be brought to naught. Yes, the next step has to be control of our means of life in this country.
We have had to fight the large corporate sources of wealth. These must be brought under public control. In many cases there should be public or co-operative ownership at different levels. This will have to be done by various means such as taxation and more and more stringent rules. We are making a start on this, but it must be done much more quickly. It is in this context that we are glad to see this piece of legislation.
We hope the minister will not relax his efforts and will not rest until the guaranteed income is brought in in its initial phase. I hope he can convert the Minister of Finance at least to the point where the money required to do this will be made available. We can press from the outside, but the minister must do it from the inside. I do not know how close he can get to the Minister of Finance at cabinet meetings, but somehow it must be done.
Although we are glad to have this legislation, it will need improvement in committee. One improvement must be an escalator clause based on the full increase in the cost

of living, such as is being incorporated into other legislation. We hope this can be achieved, because it is badly needed. There are other improvements that must be made in committee. Having made these criticisms, I conclude by again saying we are glad to have this piece of legislation and we support it very strongly in principle.
[ Translation]


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, we have been very pleased this week to listen to the statement made by the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) concerning the bill on family allowances. At first sight, this bill is most interesting as it aims at increasing the purchasing power of Canadian families. However, when we compare this with the increase in the national product and those granted in several other areas, we must come to the conclusion that the family allowance rates under Bill C-211 are clearly lagging behind. And considering that the initial Family Allowances Act dates back to the '40s, it is clear that what is being proposed now would have been equitable in the early '60s. To allow families to balance their budgets is about the best thing a government can do, for it is obvious that the best investment we can make as administrators is increasing the families' purchasing power. And we know that it is there where it will do the most good. Our families are our best consumers since they have so many needs.
Moreover, we do not even have to wonder about it since we are not dealing with grants nor with allowances following niggardly inquiries but with the recognition of the right to live. And since the right to live is the first of all rights, family allowances should be given priority. And it is a well-known fact throughout Canada and especially in the province of Quebec that most fertile couples would like to have three or four children. But in view of the spiralling inflation and of the number of three-and-a-half-room dwellings built under the aegis of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, people prefer to abstain. Therefore we have to come to the conclusion that it is the present economic situation which is responsible for the sterility of Canadian couples.
Mr. Speaker, it is my firm intention to support this bill. However, I still hope that the hon. minister will make a few changes to it. I feel that the minister which his age and experience should use his prestige to request the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Turner) co-operation.
Going back over the years and especially to 1944 when the national product was $12 billion, one finds out that old age security pensions were $20 per month while family allowances were $6 per month. In 1973, the national product being $114 billion, namely nine times as much as in 1944, we have followed the graph in the case of the 65 year old retired people by granting them $179 per month. That is fine and I am delighted along with all the Canadian people. Nevertheless, the legislation now brought forward by the hon. minister is really not in accordance with the production capacity of this country. As a matter of fact, at page 6238 of Hansard for September 5, 1973, one can find a reply given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to question No. 2488 put by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). I am quoting it:
1.	What percentage of the gross national product was spent on family allowances, as at July 31, 1945?
October 17, 1973

2.	What percentage of the gross national product was spent on family allowances, as at July 31, 1972?
3.	What percentage of government revenues was earmarked for the payment of family allowances, as at July 31, 1945?
4.	What percentage of government revenues was earmarked for the payment of family allowances, as at July 31, 1972?
As a result of an understanding between the Minister of National Health and the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), it was agreed that the department would provide an answer for 1947, since the statistics were more easily available than those for 1945. Now the answer for No. 3 reads as follows:
3.	For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1947, expenditures on family allowances were 8.99 per cent of federal government revenues.
As for question No. 4, the answer is as follows:
4.	For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, expenditures on family allowances were 2.48 per cent of federal government revenues.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the bill now under consideration proposes an increase; it is true, but such are increase will average $20 per child, three times the present amount.
Two and a half multiplied by three only gives 7'A per cent of the federal government expenditures for 1972 compared with the 9 per cent allotted to that item in 1947.
So, I repeat, the Minister of National Health and Welfare would do well in getting the co-operation of all his colleagues of the cabinet in order to review those figures somewhat.
If it is through administrative techniques that our governments have fostered poverty and unemployment, it is also through corrective legislative techniques that they will restore the balance which will favour Canadian families.
Nowadays, the more people work, exploit the natural resources of this country and increase production, the lower the family allowances percentage. It is a fact that Canadian families and particularly those in the province of Quebec live in very difficult conditions. It is obvious that the proposed increase is a good move for the benefit of families mainly due to the fact that these allowances will be taxable and that taxation rates are relatively low; we must conclude that family heads will receive in one hand and give back with the other.
Then, it is with this situation in mind that I think of the co-operation that the minister should obtain from other cabinet members in order to bring about the early reform needed regarding taxation at source.
Considering that the national output reached $114 billion in 1973, or an average of $5,000 per capita, or $25,000 per family of five, I think it would be possible to exempt from taxation all married couples who earn less than $8,000 a year. By doing that we would only leave them the bare necessities, as an enquiry revealed recently that all Canadian citizens earning less than $8,000 a year cannot even dream any more of buying a house.
I would also like to mention the rate of family allowances in all provinces of the country. I think that the bill
Family Allowances
before us allows too much latitude to the provinces and the amount paid should be the same on a national basis.
I have some fears, Mr. Speaker, regarding the legislation allowing the provinces to choose the payment method because in Quebec particularly, we still have a bad experience in the field of student loans.
The minister concerned has become an expert in intrigue. Young people have to wait months and months before knowing their faith. Unfortunately, there seems to be a very exclusive group which benefits from a large percentage of the money granted this way to the children of the rich, while these grants are restricted or even refused in the case of most students. I have even seen students who had to obtain the services of lawyers to get what they were entitled to receive. And now, three months before the implementation of the legislation before us, the Quebec premier, whom we all know, has told us that he intends to juggle with the figures.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, before we obtain a guaranteed annual income, I wish that the legislation before us be adopted in order to prevent our families from becoming the victims of illusionists.


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words in favour of the bill before the House, and especially about its fundamental value.
I have listened attentively to most of the remarks made by the previous speakers this afternoon concerning the value of the bill before us, and I do not wish to say any more than is necessary on this subject. However I should like to add a few comments which I believe to be of special importance.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the 29th Parliament, in the Speech from the Throne, it was said that the policy of the government contained two important elements: the economic issues and the social issues.
We know that on the economic level, the budget speech of February 19 last brought several solutions to the problems raised. Other departments, under federal-provincial agreements, the departments of Regional Economic Expansion and of Industry, Trade and Commerce, for instance, took appropriate measures. In the social field, it has been announced that the government intended to review all its social policy.
Last April, the new Minister of National Health and Welfare announced in the House his intention to review the whole social security system in Canada over a period of four or five years. Some aspects of the review of the social security system have already been agreed to by parliament as far as older citizens are concerned. In a few weeks or a few months, assistance will be granted to disabled persons, widows and pensioners and the matter now before us, family allowances, will be dealt with.
There seems to be some features of this bill which should be emphasized and recalled to the Canadian public. They are aimed at children up to 18 and this involves about 3,500,000 families throughout the country. From $6, $8 and $10 they are increased to $20 a month per child in most provinces.
It is worthwhile emphasizing the provincial variations which might be made by provinces in the light of their

October 17, 1973
Family Allowances
own priorities as regards age, family size and sometimes both age and family size.
One of the most important features of this new policy at the time of an astounding rate of inflation is the yearly escalation of those benefits. As you know, the new family allowances will escalate with cost of living. Because of inflation which exists not only in Canada but in most countries of the world, and which is hardly manageable even with supposedly adequately flexible structures, this tie in with consumer prices will be definitely a major factor and the most important aspect of this new social policy.
As you know, social benefits were established in 1945 for children up to 16 and the payments were from $5 to $8 a month. A few minor modifications were made along the years in 1949, 1957, and 1964. As everyone remembers, the 1964 improvement was aimed at increasing the eligibility age from 16 to 17. Perhaps I should add that in 1961, that is, four years before the federal government approved the payment of family allowances in respect of 17 year old children, the Quebec government had already established a school allowance, that is three years before the federal program was approved.
Mr. Speaker, there are in my riding a great many families and families with many children. The unemployment rate is also very high there and, as I stated during the debate on the budget, the high unemployment rate is attributable to the manufacturing industries which are encountering great difficulties. However, Mr. Speaker, I must say that in recent months there was a net improvement in that area but the unemployment rate is still much too high. I think that the bill after being agreed to between the provinces and the federal government will surely be the most important bill to be passed in the last two or three years. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that although it does not solve all the problems of a great number of Canadian families at the low income level that bill represents a definite improvement, and I think it is certainly one of the bills that will have the most effect on Canadian families, on the budget of large families, particularly at a time when inflation is so difficult to control.
There is another point, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to raise; that new social policy is the result of negotiations with provincial governments. The new minister in charge of the Department of National Health and Welfare showed an open mind by listening to the provinces and their priorities with respect to new social security programs in Canada. We are certainly moving toward one of the best organized social security programs in the world; the bill before us is but a step in the revision of the social policy of this country. The new minister in charge of the department made what could perhaps be called a giant step toward the improvement of mechanisms to bring about a greater understanding between the various levels of government in Canada.
In the speech he made in the House when he introduced his bill the minister said and I quote:
In addition, it will advance the development of a more equitable regional redistribution of income across Canada. For these reasons, Bill C-211 represents a major step in the overall reform of the social security system to which this government is firmly committed. As a matter of fact, it constitutes I believe the largest

single federal expenditure ever voted by Parliament for any new program.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is surely one of the most important bills, as far as my riding is concerned at least, and I feel, as regards the provinces that are less fortunate than others, and even the whole country, that this bill will get the support of most Canadian families. I will conclude my comments by quoting the last paragraph of the speech delivered by the minister:
Mr. Speaker, I am personally encouraged by the spirit of cooperation which has been shown by the governments of the provinces toward the review of Canada's social security system. I am confident that given the goodwill that has prevailed to date, we shall be able, within the next few years, to set in place a social security system which will ensure a better standard of life for all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues- regardless of their party-who will approve this bill. I believe that we must approve it as soon as possible because winter is almost here and a large number of Canadian families would like to see this bill passed without delay so that they can take full advantage of this review of our social security system, in particular as far as family allowances are concerned.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House will be pleased with the change that has taken place in the past year with regard to family allowances, and with the fact that we have before us now legislation to provide increases in family allowances on a universal basis. I do not think there will be many complaints about the fact that the minister has seen fit to raise to $12 the benefit immediately in the non-taxable category, and on January 1 to raise the benefit to $20 for all children of all families in Canada up to the age of 18. I am sure that in some provinces this has made a considerable difference, because in some provinces the youth allowances program is different than in others and the program is not universal as is the family allowance program.
I am particularly pleased that the minister does not adopt the male chauvinistic attitude which was made evident in his province in the last year or so when this matter was discussed and considerable arguments were raised against payments going to the mother. Arguments were being put forward in favour of the father receiving the money. It seems to me that the present arrangement is excellent for the Women's Lib movement. The children get the $20 through the payment to the mother, the mother gets the money and the father pays the tax on that money. It seems to me to be a fairly good arrangement.
However, I am concerned-and other members of the House have expressed this concern-about two or three other problems which have not been given much consideration. One of them is a problem which we have not faced, and which we are certainly not facing in this piece of legislation. I am referring tc payments to the young person-here I am not referring to those up to 18 who continue their education but, rather to those beyond the age of 18-whose need for financial assistance to continue his or
October 17, 1973

her education becomes considerably greater and for whom no arrangement has been made in many of the provinces.
All provinces administer a program of student loans for education, but the need of young people for special assistance to enable them to continue their education has not been met. Loans and assistance are given in relation to the income of the father and the mother of these young people as well as any other income that may come into the family. The expenditures which families may have are not taken into consideration, nor is another important factor taken into condideration, namely, whether or not the young person wishes to remain under the care of the family.
I am sure that all hon. members know that if a young person is married, he or she does not qualify for provincial assistance in the form of loans or grants for education in all the provinces. The requirement is for them to be in the labour market for a period of time which is different in various provinces. It does not seem to me that because a young woman does not feel happy living at home and does not get along too well with her family, and certainly does not receive any money from her family, it is fair that in considering her application for assistance to continue her education the government should consider the income of the family, il know of several young women who have married for the simple purpose of gaining independence from their parents. This happens more often in the case of families that are well off than in the case of families in the middle or lower income group.
Another aspect which may not meet with approval from all members of the House is that when family allowances are increased, welfare payments may be cut accordingly. I would like to quote from today's Toronto Star a passage regarding a statement made by Mr. Brunelle in the provincial legislature. It reads as follows:
In the legislature yesterday, Brunelle denied reports that Canada's ten provincial welfare ministers agreed in a closed meeting in Ottawa last week to prevent welfare families from getting the full benefit of the increase.
I am sure the minister does not agree that they should not get the full benefit of the increase. If it had been his position, obviously this plan would not be on a universal basis and we would be again faced with the FISP of last year. The article continues:
Holding up a clipping from the Star, Brunelle said Ontario has not made up its mind but definitely did not agree to abide by a federal government suggestion to keep part of the family allowance raise away from welfare families.
In my area the two groups receiving most advantage from family allowance are the low-income group and the welfare group. In setting the allowable budget for welfare families in Ontario, family allowances should not be included. If they are, then you and I, Mr. Speaker, and every other member of this House are being ripped off. Almost all members of this House agree that we should increase the amount being paid through family allowance to $12 per child immediately, without any income tax provision, and to an average of $20 per child after January 1 next.
Obviously we intend that the mother will get $20 for each child. I understand there has been agreement with the provinces of Quebec and Alberta to vary the amount
Family Allowances
* per child. I have not heard the details but I presume that the younger the child, the less the payment; and the older the child, the more the payment, provided the average remains at $20. But if we are to be told by the Ontario minister of social and family services that he will deduct the $20 family allowance from the budget allowed to welfare families, then I think we had better make this payment in another way. We certainly should not make it in a way whereby the provincial government can benefit from it. That would be dishonest and the public should know about it.


An hon. Member:: It's a Tory government in Ontario.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, a Tory government; and certainly the Tories are even less apt to be fair to the poor than the present federal government.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thanks very much.


William Arnold Peters: In the province of Ontario, if a person receives workmen's compensation or some federal payment and he lives in a rent-to-income project, his rent can be increased. I know of one family in such a project who paid $36 in rent for an apartment. Then the family was covered by a cost-shared program. It must be remembered that in Ontario the provincial government pays 40 per cent of cost-shared programs, the federal government 40 per cent and the municipality 20 per cent. Anyway, as a result the rent of that apartment went up to $84, even though the cost of the apartment was covered initially by the $36 payment. That is often done in welfare cases.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) should be prepared to introduce an amendment to ensure that the Ontario minister cannot take the increased family allowance out of other welfare payments. Of course, we could increase family allowances to the point where Ontario would not have to pay anything. But, Mr. Speaker, Ontario is not a poor province; it does not have to be niggardly.
This is something that has also been done by the federal government. When old age pensions were increased, the increase was taken off war veterans allowance. A previous minister of veterans affairs could never understand this. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I spent half an hour one day trying to explain it to him. We tried to show him that the veterans would lose money. The present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has been able to get that point across in cabinet, so that an increase given under one piece of legislation will not be removed under another piece of legislation.
The government must be given full credit for the universality of the family allowance scheme. I will not complain if people who have enough money of their own must pay back some of the family allowance through income tax, but I repeat that it would be a shame if provinces deducted the increase in family allowance from welfare payments. Welfare families constitute the one category that needs assistance above all others. We have all dealt with welfare people. We know that there is a certain percentage of people who, when they receive welfare cheques, may spend them on drink. But the family allowance is paid directly to mothers, and in my experience

October 17, 1973
Family Allowances
they use the money to buy clothes and food for their children.
I certainly do not want to leave the impression that all welfare families take their cheques down to the local liquor store to cash them. That is not true. But it is a fact that many people on welfare have difficulties, mentally, physically and emotionally and in a number of other ways, and are least able to look after their money and to provide for their children. If Mr. Brunelle in the province of Ontario deducts the additional money that will be paid by the federal government now, and in particular after January, the people who will be hurt are the children, the very people whom we are passing this legislation to protect.
Members of this House can say that is a provincial matter, but I am not very sympathetic to the provinces playing around with legislation when we are making the sole contribution. I do not see Quebec's point of view at all. I do not see why Quebec wants a different program from anyone else, and I do not see why Alberta wants a different program. If the province of Quebec feels that the youth allowance should be increased, then they should put some money into it and increase it. That is true for the province of Ontario or any other province. We have the responsibility for all Canadian children and we should provide them with a benefit which is applied all across the country.
If the minister replies, Mr. Speaker, I am sure he will indicate that he has had meetings with the provincial welfare ministers and that they have made it difficult for him to explain this welfare program. I am sure the province of Ontario would like him to give them one large sum of money once a year in lieu of the family allowances, and I am sure most of the provinces would agree to such a proposition and then make their own distribution. But in my opinion it would seldom get to the children and the youth of this country and I am therefore pleased that the minister has agreed to make this program universal. I will be sympathetic with the position he has had to take with Quebec and Alberta.
It may cost less to raise a one year-old child than an 18 year-old child; maybe there is some merit in that argument. I am not prepared to argue that there is not. I have raised children, and in my opinion they were pretty easy to raise when they stayed in the crib; problems did not develop until they started to wander around. Of course, it got worse the more they wandered around; the further afield they wandered, the more expensive it became.
I am concerned about this idea of allowing the provinces to take the low end of the strap, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre congratulated the minister because this is a redistribution of wealth. It is not going to be a redistribution of wealth in the province of Ontario if the minister responsible for social welfare in that province decides he is not going to pass on the $20 payment that we will be making after January, but will deduct it from the amount he has to pay to maintain the young people in the province.
What really concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that it will be two or three years before there is an election in Ontario. A lot of hardship and sorrow could happen in that time. A

rich province like Ontario could use the $20 or a portion of it to add to the welfare rolls that they would normally have to carry and are in fact now carrying at a specific level. This could mean a reduction in the level. And Mr. Brunelle does not make any bones about it; he says that Ontario has not definitely agreed to abide by a federal government suggestion regarding part of the raise in the family allowance being kept away from welfare families. He says they did not agree, and if they did not it means that he is probably going to take this into consideration as part of the payment.
I come from a wealthy province, but welfare is a problem both for the municipalities and the provincial government in my area. About nine-tenths of the townships I represent are unorganized townships and have no form of municipal government. They therefore come directly under the municipal authorities for welfare and are paid directly by the municipal welfare branch. I am concerned that the families are not going to get the benefit of the payments that we are making.
The minister should give some consideration to the arrangement that we are making in terms of the cost-shared programs which are already operating. We give 50 per cent of that money and then an additional outside payment. The amount the federal government will be paying and the amount the provincial government will be paying into that welfare structure will be decreased by the amount by which we increase the family allowance. If that happens, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people are going to be very unhappy about the role played by members of parliament in providing for the middle-class, and in some cases the upper-class in our society while having neglected to make the full benefit available where it is most needed, at the welfare level.
I have read that the minister says he did not have the meeting, and the provincial minister said that he did. I am sure the deputy minister discussed it or it was discussed at another level. I strongly urge that in addition to the cost-sharing welfare structure, we bring as much pressure to bear as is possible to see that all welfare families in this country receive the full benefit of the federal government's generosity which should be universally available regardless of a family's income or in what province they may reside.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address myself to this bill for a moment. I remember my grandfather taking his old age pension cheque and using it every month to buy a box of very expensive Cuban cigars. He used to wave his cheque and say, "This is my box of Rey del Mundos". At that time they cost 67% cents each and it used to rather rile me. He used to pick us up and take us home from the store and I did not say anything, but I wondered what he was doing collecting the old age pension ii all he did with it was buy a box of cigars, each cigar costing 67 % cents.
I confess that for many years, Mr. Speaker, I thought that selectivity was the way that pensions should be presented. Until I came to this place and understood the practicalities of the matter, I asked myself why someone who had a substantial income should be collecting a pension. Not until it was explained to me-after all, I do not pretend to be an expert on pensions, taxation and fiscal
October 17, 1973

policies-did I realize, although my grandfather did not realize it, that he was not paying for that box of cigars with his old age pension cheque. I like to think now, may he rest in peace, that he was being taxed at a level at which he was actually paying back the taxpayers' money. That money was going to those people who could use it or who needed it. My grandfather, although he did not know it, was making a considerable contribution through his taxes.


An hon. Member:: So that he could smoke White Owl cigars.


Peter A. Stollery: My grandfather liked expensive cigars.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps he is still being taxed.


Peter A. Stollery: I think that is why the Toronto Star for a long time supported selective pensions and a selective family income security plan. To many of us it seemed reasonable that the money should be paid to those who need it most. Of course, under a system of taxation that is properly managed, that is exactly what happens.
I was also impressed by the reference in the minister's speech to this program as being the initial phase of a program of income supplementation for Canadians whose earnings from employment are insufficient. Personally, as I see it, this variation of an old program is an important step forward in terms of the sum of money involved, as it moves in the direction of a guaranteed minimum wage for all Canadians, and I emphasize "all" Canadians. During the recess I had the pleasure of making my first visit to the eastern Arctic. I must say that I feel happy that this money will help, in a way, to reinforce Canada and will help Canadian families in many parts of the country with which I am not familiar. That is an important aspect of the program. I think this program is probably the most important single initiative to be taken in the field of social security since the original program was introduced by a Liberal government in 1945.
I should like to bring several points to your attention, Mr. Speaker. I have received some correspondence from constituents who complain that they will be taxed at a higher rate because of what they regard as this useless contribution to Canadians. The people, of course, who send these complaints are not in that group of Canadians who will profit from this program. I have received several letters. Actually, I am replying to one now and am explaining to the gentleman that, first, taxes will not be raised. Taxes have been reduced this year. The cost in toto of the new program, as the minister has said, is to be $1.8 billion, as compared with $640 million for the old program. The old program ended on October 1 when the government increased family allowances to $12 on a non-taxable basis for the remainder of this year or until the new program comes into effect.
I have tried to explain to this gentleman that, although he may complain, it is increased revenues resulting from this government's management of the economy, or the increase resulting from an expanding economy, which will pay for this program. I said that his taxes were probably
Family Allowances
reduced this year and the program will not cost him any more money. His taxes are not going to be increased. Actually, by making the new family allowance taxable, the federal and provincial treasuries combined will recover about $465 million. Therefore the cost is being borne by an expanding, healthy economy.
I hope this situation is understood in the country. It is not costing Canadian taxpayers more money to redistribute income and ensure that Canadian families in lower income groups can live better and more equitably, find their place in our great country and receive their share. For that is what is happening. They are simply receiving their share of an expanding economy and that, in my opinion, is how it should be.
I am not the first to say that this government has given priority to social security legislation. Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberal Party has always made a significant contribution in this area. We have always displayed real concern about the social problems of Canada. One has heard during the past while some rather hyperbolic statements about this government and, I suppose, about the Liberal Party. I should like to mention the names of some men who have been responsible for social security legislation in this century. They have been members of the Liberal Party, or of a Liberal Party. May I bring to the attention of hon. members men like Sir William Beveridge, Ramsay Muir, Walter Layton, John Maynard Keynes, who were all members of the Grasmere group and were prominent in bringing forward social policies during this century. It is not unreasonable for me to bring these names to the attention of hon. members of the House, as I am sure they are interested in knowing that they were all members of the Liberal Party.


Mr. Harney:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. member a brief question, if he will accept it, which he should be able to answer very briefly as well.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, I will not accept a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member knows the rules. A question cannot be asked unless the hon. member who is to be asked agrees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us where those persons lived.


Peter A. Stollery: They lived in England. I would have thought that was evident to the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So they were not members of the Liberal Party of Canada.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. gentleman opposite had his turn yesterday and if it would not be inconvenient, I should like my turn now. I should like to bring one more point to your attention. I am speaking of federal-provincial co-operation which is so important with this kind of bill. I should like to mention a fact which is often forgotten by Canadians. Canada is a country of 11

October 17, 1973
Family Allowances
governments. For this kind of complex proposal and project the federal government requires agreement of what in effect are 11 governments. This is often extremely difficult.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) made a point about day-care centres and their importance to the women of this country which I support completely. In the province of Ontario for eight years now, I believe, the provincial government has failed to embark upon a serious program of day-care centres although the necessary legislation has existed for that length of time under the Canada Assistance Plan.
This question is particularly important to my constituency because it is a working constituency housing large numbers of immigrant people and wives who have to go to work while trying to look after large families and receiving practically no assistance in terms of day-care centres. One of the things we have to be grateful for in the Local Initiatives Program is that it drew attention to some of these social problems. It pointed out the weaknesses in the provincial social assistance program and the province of Ontario is now, I understand, reviewing its position with regard to day-care centres. I hope they will take action with the utmost speed as particularly in urban areas this is a matter of very great concern.
I would also add my voice to those who hope that the minister responsible in Ontario will not use this money to cut the welfare program. Next month, I presume, across the province, and I know for certain in my own area, the OHC will be reviewing the rents charged to senior citizens. There is a real concern that the OHC when it reviews the rents will take the old age pension increases as a factor in the income on which the rent is based. We can only hope they will not do it and that the minister will shortly be able to assure citizens of Ontario that this will not be so, and allay their fears.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to bet?


Peter A. Stollery: I see this increase to $20 as another long step on the road to a guaranteed minimum wage for all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Before I recognize the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) it is my duty to inform hon. members that if the minister takes the floor at this time he will conclude the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes at the conclusion of this debate on second reading to make a number of points and to clarify, if I can, certain others. First, I wish to thank all hon. members who have participated in the discussion for the support they have expressed concerning the principle of this legislation, for their agreement to give it early consideration and, one hopes, early adoption in order that Canadian families may be assured of receiving the benefits of this measure by January 1 of next year.

The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) made a point of the fact that the previous bill on this subject passed by the House had no certain time limit attached to it. This was intentional; the object was to make sure that the increase in family allowance to $12 would be in operation until the bill presently before the House came into effect. I may say that if this bill is passed in the course of the next few weeks there should be no administrative problem in making sure that it takes effect on January 1.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the comments made this afternoon by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) concerning the effect of the bill before us in terms of income redistribution, and its effect on various regions of the country. I do not wish to go into great detail on this subject at the present time because I dealt with this particular aspect of the legislation in the course of my opening speech. I suggest that if the hon. member was not in the House at the time I delivered it-and I believe this was the case-he should read it, because I gave a number of statistics relevant to the point he raised, in particular figures showing the degree of income redistribution which would result if the bill were adopted.
I was also surprised by the comments made by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) who said-and I believe I am quoting him honestly here-
[ Translation]
... he said in the House that families with an income ranging between $6,000 and $10,000, for instance, would not have their family allowances increased under this legislation, since the latter provides that such allowances will be taxed. Here again, I did quote rather accurate figures in the statement I made when I opened the debate on second reading, and I cannot understand that the hon. member can make such an assertion in the House. That he makes it here, this is not too serious a matter because we can always correct it immediately, but I hope that neither he nor any member of his party will spread such false information in the population. Such an assertion is groundless, as I believe I have shown it in my statement during the debate on second reading.
As to the ever useful and relevant comments of the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) - [English]
I should like to stress once again that this is, indeed, only a partial measure, only a step toward a complete revision of our social security arrangements. It has not been put forward by the government as being anything else. As I say, it is only a step, though, I believe, a major step in the review and reorganization of our social security system.
We took another step at the recent federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers in which we agreed to make important changes, particularly in the field of pensions under the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. Other steps are to be taken with regard to community employment, income supplementation and the question of a guaranteed income. Working parties are actively engaged in a review of this field at the present time and there is no reason to expect that this joint review will not be completed before the deadline which the government has set itself. We are going ahead as fast as
October 17, 1973

human resources will allow and I hope that our two-year deadline will be met in ample time.
The next step, the hon. member said, is to control the means of life in this country, and she mainly related this to control of large corporations. This is a subject that is outside my jurisdiction but certainly one which is being considered and discussed. It is in this regard that the government undertook certain steps recently in connection with beef and pork. We have even taken steps with regard to oil. However, it seems to prove that the big problem may not only lie with large corporations but also with large provincial governments. I hope the hon. member will give her support to the government when and if it becomes necessary for the federal government to exercise its true responsibility for the national interest of this country.
Finally, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said that if the provinces want to change the family allowance configuration they should do so by using their own money. I think there are two points to be made here. The act provides that the provinces can modify the federal plan according to age or number of children. As I have stated, two provinces have indicated that they will do so, namely, Alberta and Quebec. In addition, Prince Edward Island has decided to supplement the plan with their own money.
I wish to point out that both Quebec and Prince Edward Island are adding substantial funds to the federal family allowance scheme. Quebec is adding roughly $100 million of its own money through its own family allowance scheme to supplement the amount being provided by the present legislation. As for Prince Edward Island, it has decided to use the funds coming into the province by way of income tax transfers as a kind of windfall gain so that the province, through fiscal arrangements with both the federal and provincial governments, can effect an increase in family allowances of $10 for the fifth and subsequent children. So this province, too, will effectively use money coming back to it via income tax transfers to increase family allowances.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the few points I wanted to make. The committee will have an opportunity to go into the details of the bill. As the hon. member for Hillsborough has said, various new initiatives and aspects are put
Family Allowances
forward in the bill which deserve thorough examination. If the committee so wishes, I shall certainly be pleased to make myself and my officials available to the committee in order to discuss the points that have been raised. I might also say that in all likelihood I will have a few amendments to propose at the committee stage.
I listened with great interest to the contributions and suggestions made by the various members of the House regarding the bill. As a result of the two meetings I have had with my provincial colleagues, further suggestions have been made for improving or refining the bill. I hope that when these proposals are put forward at the committee stage they will receive the same degree of support that this bill in general seems to have in the House at the present time.
I should like to conclude with those remarks and I once more thank hon. members for their contributions to this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit one question before he sits down?


Marc Lalonde: Surely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is he in a
position to say whether one of the aspects of the bill to which he may propose an amendment relates to the escalation of family allowances according to the increase in the cost of living?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I am taking account of all the points which are raised by hon. members and by my provincial colleagues. I am afraid the hon. member will have to wait until the specific amendments are put forward before I am able to answer the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be there.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Before calling it six o'clock perhaps I should remind hon. members that the House will meet at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 18, 1973