1973-09-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continuing increase in automobile fatalities and injuries in Canada and the fact that through the introduction of legislation in other countries making the use of seat belts compulsory these same countries have experienced a 20 per cent reduction in automobile fatalities, I would move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie):
That the government implement forthwith legislation compelling the use of seat belts by both driver and passengers in private automobiles.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, due to the deep interest shown in Canadian-American negotiations for the establishment of new airline routes and privileges of customs preclearance, under Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour to table two copies in French and English of the public statement that I will make this afternoon.


Mr. Mazankowski:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that I believe the minister, in doing what he has just done, has in my opinion seriously breached the traditional practice of the House. This statement is of great magnitude from the standpoint of
both the economic policy of this country and, indeed, the future of transportation, and it is customary for documents of this nature to be presented in advance to the opposition parties so that opposition spokesmen can respond adequately. In my opinion, what the minister has now done is a deliberate affront to parliament and the people of Canada and I do not think his action should be condoned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I understand that the minister has called a press conference for this afternoon. I believe that the only reason for his doing so is to maximize the political benefit from his statement as much as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Although this policy may be consistent with the practices of the government- I could cite many examples-and consistent with the practices of this minister who has denied the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the right to examine the Canadian National and Air Canada reports, I do not believe any member of this House has any excuse for allowing this to take place.
I do not want this point to go unnoticed. I believe that the minister's action has created a situation which is not conducive to the traditions of the House nor to its orderly functioning. I would humbly submit to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that he request the House to revert to motions some time later this day so that spokesmen for the opposition parties can have an opportunity to comment on the matter.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in a few brief words I should like to support the point of order raised by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). As Your Honour is aware, this is a point that has been raised a number of times. On most occasions Your Honour has found our objections not valid. On most occasions you have found that the kind of document that a minister was seeking to table under Standing Order 41(2) was proper under the terms of the order itself, but on at least one occasion, when our friend of former days, the Hon. E. J. Benson, sought to table what was in effect a press release, Your Honour found otherwise. I therefore wonder-I can only wonder because I have not seen the document; perhaps Your Honour has-whether this one does not come within the category of a press release rather than a report or a government paper. In that respect I wonder whether it would not be better, since we are still on motions, for the minister to read the statement to us and then hand it to the press conference at three o'clock.
6412

September 11, 1973
Air Transport
[ Transla tion]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment quite briefly on that point or order. In my opinion, the hon. member has raised a point of order which .also seems difficult to me.
There is no formal agreement between . . .


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member a while ago; he can extend the same courtesy to me and after having heard my remarks, he may get angry if he wants to. In any event, I merely say that there is no formal agreement, but only a report drawn up by the head of the Canadian delegation in Washington. The two parties have formally agreed to keep quiet until today but that an announcement would be made in Washington and in Ottawa.
I merely wanted, with all due respect for this House, to table the report in the House before meeting the press.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, it is so seldom this government has anything of substance to lay before the House that we think they should do it in the proper form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: In most cases, members of the opposition extend to the government the courtesy of accepting the fact that when ministers attempt to table documents under Standing Order 41(2) they constitute documents falling squarely within the terms of the Standing Order. However, in the present circumstance, we are not prepared to do so now. I suggest that Your Honour should be entitled to examine the document and that we should be entitled to do the same. We are not prepared to accept that it is "a report or other paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the government." We do not have to accept the minister's statement. We are entitled to see the document, read it and examine it. Only under those conditions will we be prepared to give our consent.
In order to have this matter handled in the best parliamentary tradition, I plead with the minister, who made a very good speech the other day, to fall into the pattern, become a good parliamentarian and handle this matter the way a member of parliament, especially a minister, ought to handle it, by making a statement on motions and allowing members, on this side of the House to answer and deal with it. That is the way it should be done. I urge the minister to consider withdrawing the document and making a statement on motions. I am sure he will have unanimous consent to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, documents can be tabled in the House under the terms of Standing Order 41(2) and statements can be made under the terms of Standing Order 15(3). We have had similar incidents in the past. There is thg precedent to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre alluded. The ruling made by the Chair at that time was that you cannot have a combi-

nation of both whereby a minister attempts under Standing Order 41(2) to table a statement which he might have made under Standing Order 15(3). I am inclined to make the same ruling in this instance.
It is always difficult for the Chair to make a decision in such a case without having had an opportunity to study the document that a minister attempts to table under the terms of Standing Order 41. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River is a valid one. Perhaps we might allow the matter to stand and the Chair will look at the document. But if it is a statement which the minister might have wanted to make under the terms of Standing Order 15, I would respectfully suggest that it could not be tabled under Standing Order 41. That is the ruling which was made on a previous occasion and I would have to make the same ruling again. However, all this would be subject to the Chair being given an opportunity to look at the document.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Would he give the House a very brief explanation as to why Canada now faces both a soaring rate of inflation and an increase in the rate of unemployment?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: The
unemployment figures published this morning show a rise in the seasonally-adjusted rate. They do not in any way reflect a weakening in the economy. As I said yesterday in the speech I tried to finish, the economy has been expanding at a seasonally-adjusted rate of 9.2 per cent. I think the House is entitled to understand that the strength of the economy is reflected by the number of new jobs, August over August, 1972 464,000 new jobs, the largest increase in the history of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yesterday the minister tried to read us the telephone book; I do not know whether he will read us the telephone book again today or not. Now that we have experienced "stagflation" during what are traditionally the best six months of the year, can the minister tell the House whether he has any new measures to propose in view of this increase in the unemployment rate associated with a horrendous rate of inflation?


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman asked me whether there were any unusual factors that might apply. Again, I think the House is entitled to know that during the reference week of August 19, when the survey was made, there were 80,000 men and women on strike, including the rotating strikes on the railways. This
September 11, 1973

had peripheral effects resulting in further unemployment in respect of other concerns which could not obtain supplies from companies that were on strike or supplies that were normally delivered by rail. One cannot expect that strikes, which are supposed to produce an adverse economic effect on the country, will not result in a statistical fall-out as well. This is exactly what happened.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If it is not the weather, it is something else, obviously. I should like to ask the minister whether this experience during the last six months since March- 5.5 per cent unemployment in March, seasonally-adjusted and 5.5 per cent seasonally-adjusted in mid-August, amounting to virtually no change as far as married men over 25 are concerned-corresponds with the hon. gentleman's definition of sustainable growth?


John Napier Turner: I think sustainable growth is reflected by the fact that, as I have said, August over August, 464,000 new jobs have been created in this country. Despite the interpretation the hon. gentleman would like to place upon the figures, the trend of unemployment, discounting monthly variations, has been downward and is well below the figures last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the fact that the adjusted rate, particularly for those in the 14-24 age bracket, has risen from 9 per cent to 9.7 per cent-


An hon. Member:: You share the blame!


William George Knight: -can the minister inform the House whether the government is considering increasing the funds allocated to the Local Initiatives Program?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Not at this moment, Mr. Speaker.


UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE AMONG YOUNGER PERSONS-INQUIRY AS TO YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM NEXT SUMMER
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. In light of this report, and in view of the unemployment rate among those in the younger age bracket would the Secretary of State inform the House whether the government intends to operate a youth employment program over the next summer?


Hon. JameS Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, that will be announced in due course, but I imagine that there would be a student summer employment program next summer.
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED APPLICATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL OF PRICES AND SALARIES
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: I wish to put a supplementary to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Minister of Finance now contemplating the implementation of a "comprehensive" prices and wages freeze program?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, according to the definition given by the hon. member to the word "comprehensive" yesterday the answer is no.
[ English]


PROPOSED TAKEOVER OF ACKLANDS LIMITED BY UNITED STATES COMPANY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It arises out of a report this morning of a United States takeover bid for Canada's largest wholesale automotive supply dealer in Winnipeg, Acklands Limited. In view of the employment implications in particular of this takeover bid, would the Prime Minister assure the House that the government is taking some steps at least to hold back this takeover bid?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, absent on government business, and as Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I would be glad to take the question as notice, study it very carefully, and give an answer to the hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the imminence of this decision as reported in the press-it appears that the decision may be reached within a matter of days, if not hours-I ask the minister or the Prime Minister whether they will assure the House that steps will be taken by the government to ensure that this takeover bid is not completed before there is a thorough investigation by the government in terms of the implications of this takeover for the Canadian economy?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in seeking an answer for the hon. member I will give full note to his representation.


GOVERNMENT INTENTION RESPECTING PROCEEDING WITH FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW BILL-POSSIBILITY OF CHANGES
Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government any intention of shortly reintroducing Bill C-132, which deals with such matters as this; and in light of the information given may I ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to introduce any changes to this legislation, or will it come before us in its original form?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to
26454-41.>.

September 11, 1973
Oral Questions
get an answer to that question as well for the hon. member.


PROPOSED TAKEOVER OF ACKLANDS LIMITED BY UNITED
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister respecting the matter raised by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Has the premier of the province of Manitoba communicated with the government and requested its assistance in this matter?


Robert Knight Andras: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I would have to look into that.

[ Translation]


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
On September 5, I put to him a question that he considered too vague, and having reread it in Hansard I found it very clear and I should like to put the same question again.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he follows the policy of informing his colleagues, the provincial premiers, when the RCMP or the Solicitor General tell him of some compromising or suspicious action on the part of cabinet members in a province?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I find this question if not vague, at least extremely general, and so, the answer should be just as general: In principle, no.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, J shall put a very precise question.
In October 1970, was the Prime Minister aware of the findings of a joint investigation made by the RCMP and the Quebec Provincial Police, concerning specifically the recent disclosures of the Quebec Minister of Justice in connection with the alleged relationships between ex-minister Pierre Laporte and some members of the underworld.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a question relating to events that happened two or three years ago, and I believe that, under the circumstances, it could easily be put on the order paper. If there is any urgency, it could be considered at the time of adjournment.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one directed by the Leader of the Opposition to the Minister of Finance. In view of the failure of the minister's budget of last February either to reduce unemployment or hold the line on the cost of living, and in view of the fact that high interest rates will further increase unemployment especially in the slow growth regions, does the minister intend to bring in a new budget before the end of the year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I replied to that question earlier in response to the hon. gentleman's leader. My present intention is no.


UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE AND RISING PRICES- COST-PUSH INFLATION AS FACTOR
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that we have an increase in unemployment and rising prices, and at the same time have seen no real increase in the gross national product in the last quarter, does the Department of Finance or the Minister of Finance consider this evidence that we still have a large element of cost-push inflation operating in the economy?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. gentleman's conclusion follows his preamble, but I want to remind him that the rate of growth in this country, seasonally adjusted, for the first six months of this year is 9.2 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary, followed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


James McPhail Gillies: Is this real growth?


John Napier Turner: In real terms.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, again this is a question to the Minister of Finance. I would remind him that in the second quarter there was no real growth in the economy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly ask his supplementary.


James McPhail Gillies: What evidence would the Minister of Finance accept that there is still a large element of cost-push inflation in the economy today?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there has been, as the hon. gentleman may suggest, some slight breakout in the rate of labour settlements over the last month, but the prime influence on inflation in this country is the imbalance in world demand over world supply of commodities, particularly agricultural commodities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
September 11, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


James McPhail Gillies: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With due respect, may I say I have never risen on a point of order or personal privilege in the House before, but the answer of the minister to this question, which I think is fundamental, legitimate, and the most important question before the country today, was totally non-responsive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that that is hardly a point of order. It is a question of debate or argument. The minister appears ready to join in the argument, but perhaps we might go on to the next question.


AIR TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the matter raised by the hon. member for Vegreville I would like to ask the Minister of Transport to tell the House what new routes the Canadian airlines will have as a result of the agreement with the United States and, second, what alterations are there under the arrangements entered into between Canada and the United States respecting the preclearance procedure?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that the document that was initialled in Washington between the head of the Canadian delegation and Mr. Styles, representing the government of the United States, is the largest such package that has ever been negotiated not only between Canada and the United States but throughout the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: But, Mr. Speaker, there are so many new routes that I do not think you would allow me to enumerate them at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister not feel that in an hour or so outside the House of Commons he will remember these things that he will not make available to the House of Commons? This is a contemptuous disregard of parliament on his part.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that this document is very important for the people of Canada. I tried to table it here and I was not successful. I hope that somebody will decide to inquire into it.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister should know. He is trying to hide something.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him now, will he treat this House of Commons as a responsible body? I ask that the House agree to revert to motions so he can tell the House
Oral Questions
of Commons what he should announce here rather than outside it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York Simcoe.


HOUSING
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of high mortgage interest rates already creating home buyer resistance with the result that there is a lessening of construction and employment, does the government now intend to order roll-backs of NHA and conventional mortgage rates which are now at IOV2 per cent compared with less than 9 per cent a few months ago and a current average rate of 8 per cent in the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing with the premise of that question, the answer is no.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to put a supplementary to the Prime Minister. Is it the government's position that mortgage interest rates of 10 per cent to 10 V2 per cent are acceptable and necessary in Canada?


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


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In light of the fact that the International Joint Commission, in its first annual report pursuant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, has criticized the Ottawa and Washington governments for lack of adequate and timely support in the first year of operation under the agreement, will the minister say what steps will be taken to ensure more adequate progress in the concerted clean-up drive in the Great Lakes agreed to by both countries last year?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the responsible authorities from Canada and the United States will be meeting early in October to review the report and recommendations of the International Joint Commission.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member for Greenwood. The hon. member for York-Simcoe rises on a point of order.

September 11, 1973
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Prime Minister was about ready to answer my question and I wonder whether he could be given an opportunity to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Greenwood.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact the report criticizes Canada's delay in getting the regional office for the commission in Windsor functioning after its opening in May, has the Windsor office now been supplied with adequate funds and staff?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, I can assure the hon. member that adequate funds are available. It is simply a matter of hiring additional staff which is the question.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that there is confusion among people in connection with the dairy policy reform and the feed grain policy announced by the government, could the minister inform the House whether he or his department have undertaken or will undertake soon a publicity campaign on this matter? In the affirmative, how are they proceeding? Through radio, television, newspapers or through the hon. minister, or his parliamentary secretary or officials of his department?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it can be done even with the help of the minister or the hon. member. The meetings are ongoing at the present time with the provincial authorities, and the people in the provinces who handle milk are also concerned about the feed grain problem and program. I do not know what more we can do at this time, but I do agree we probably should be using some kind of advertising program just to state the facts as they are.



FEED GRAIN-PROTEST OF QUEBEC UPA AGAINST NEW POLICY-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that following three recent regional conventions of the Quebec FPW, it was decided that if, by September 15, the temporary policy on feed grains has not been implemented, a march on Ottawa would be organized to urge the government to action, will the minister give the House the assuranc that he will make a statement before September 15?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I recently met with the President of the UPA and other farm leaders from Quebec, la belle province-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: -and I must say that I found them very reasonable people. They accepted our explanation of the feed grain problem. I told the House last week that there would be an announcement on August 15, that we are shooting for that date. We still are, and they seemed satisfied and ready to accept the minister's explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, but I think this might be an appropriate moment to remind hon. members that with the large number of members seeking an opportunity to ask questions we should attempt to limit the number of supplementaries. For the moment the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.
[ Transla tion]



DAIRYING-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES BEFORE ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW POLICY

Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary for the Minister of Agriculture.
I should like to know whether he consulted the provinces before announcing his policy on subsidies to dairy producers, and whether the Quebec government has given the minister the assurance that it will freeze retail prices of dairy products for the coming 12 months?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I just said that these discussions are still being carried on regarding the subsidy on milk. They have not been finalized at all.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lisgar on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Rocky Mountain.



REQUEST THAT STANDING COMMITTEE CONSIDER FEED GRAIN POLICY

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Bruce who is Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Since the Minister of Agriculture indicated it would be a good idea to have more clarification on the whole matter of feed grain policy, I should like to ask the hon. member for Bruce whether or not it would be possible for the government to reinstitute or revitalize, so to speak, the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that we could have the Minister of Agriculture and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board before us at the earliest possible time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will have to wait a moment for his reply. The hon. member for
September 11, 1973

Brome-Missisquoi rises on a point of order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interfere with the answer to that question, but in relation to my question I would point out-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: A little courtesy is not always out of order in this House. In relation to my question it is obvious that the translator did not keep up with it so the minister could understand it. Therefore I will put it in the other official language. My question to the minister is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognized the hon. member on a point of order. I appreciate the difficulty he has, but perhaps for the sake of order we ought to allow the minister to reply to the supplementary asked by the hon. member for Lisgar and then the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi could be allowed to rephrase his question in English. Then we will try to get on with the next question. We are running short of time already.


An hon. Member:: En fran^ais.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may reply in any language.


Eugene Whelan: Monsieur l'Orateur, I thought the translation was perfect. I thought my answer was fair. However, I wish to make one correction in the answer to the hon. member who asked me the question previously. I said August 15. It should have been September 15.


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


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I must also rise on a point of order and attempt if possible, with the indulgence of the House, to get an answer from the hon. member for Bruce in respect of the question I asked him concerning the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, we will look into that matter immediately.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since unemployment among young Canadians continues at almost double the national rate in a month when all of the make-work projects of the government are operating, can the minister provide the House with any firm evidence that OFY and related programs are creating a significant number of new jobs for young people who would otherwise be unemployed, and in any event has the government any new programs that will break the continuing pattern of high unemployment among young Canadians?
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question got lost in the noise at this end of the House, but I will read the question in Hansard and consult my colleague, the Secretary of State.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that any contract put into effect under Bill C-217 will expire at the end of December, 1974, and in view of the fact that the House will no doubt be called on to legislate the railroad workers back to work in the event of another strike, would the minister give consideration to breaking up the bargaining unit so that separate negotiations can ensue between the railroad unions and the two major railways, namely, the CNR and the CPR, in order that in the event a strike is necessitated between the workers and either one of the two major companies it would not constitute a threat to the Canadian economy?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, without acknowledging at such an early stage the inevitability of legislation again at the termination of the present collective agreement, may I say, as I indicated earlier, that we will study the history of the present events that led up to the strike we have just experienced to see whether we cannot come up with a formula to reduce the motivation to strike next time. Having said that, may I say with particular reference to the hon. member's suggestion: yes, that is under consideration.



HISTORIC SITES


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It arises out of the decision of the federal government not to participate with the city of Hamilton in preserving the boyhood residence of the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson and to develop a park in memory of that great Canadian. As the minister has already joined other hon. members in rejecting the reason given that not enough time has passed since the death of the former prime minister to make an objective assessment of his contribution, has the minister reconsidered this decision and can he now assure us that the federal government will participate in a most fitting tribute to the memory of this great Canadian?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 11, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I communicated to the mayor of Hamilton my view that the reasons I saw published in the paper seemed rather absurd and that Mr. Pearson's contribution to the country needed no judgment by any government official or agency. Whether or not a particular home is marked as a historic site is up to my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. However, I have assured the mayor of Hamilton that if a proposal is put forward for a neighbourhood improvement plan throughout the whole area we will negotiate with Hamilton and the province of Ontario for the application of the National Housing Act provisions to that area.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the government has now embarked on a policy of selective controls as seen by attempts to establish a maximum and minimum price on grain and to freeze the consumer price of milk, has the government any plans now to control the input costs of agricultural producers which are now rising at an unprecedented rate of 13 per cent?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the way in which the hon. gentleman phrases that question makes it difficult for me to reply to it because I cannot accept the tone of his preamble. One thing about which the government is concerned is the stabilization of farm income in this country, which of course has some relation to costs.


Harold Warren Danforth: In view of the fact that world prices of feed grains have pushed the feed costs of Canadian production of meat, dairy and poultry products to a virtual-non-profit level, has the government any plans to control or subsidize these specific costs to guarantee adequate Canadian production for our consumers, or is the government relying on a further consumer price increase?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister will be recognized to make a brief answer, but at least the first part of the question asked by the hon. member would require a lengthy statement which normally should be made on motions.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: We cannot get them on motions.


John Napier Turner: Staying within the confines of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the entire subject will be high on the agenda of the conference led by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, when he reviews with his provincial counterparts the whole question of the stabilization of farm income.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Finance will be happy with the tone of my question. In view of the fact that as of mid-August 433,000 people in Canada were unemployed and looking for work, and in view of the fact that the rate of inflation is some 8 per cent, I should like to ask the minister whether he is able to propose one constructive measure that he proposes to take in the face of this rate of unemployment, this inflation, and the prospect of winter coming on, because I must tell the minister that his record as Minister of Finance in the last six months makes Edgar Benson look pretty good.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. gentleman's concern about the men and women of this country who have not yet found work. I have said on many occasions that the first priority of the government is still jobs. The hon. gentleman might recall the action of my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the fact that there is a $100 million LIP program available this winter. There is also still unexpended $275 million of the winter capital works projects program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister would like to return to motions to make a statement. We are running short of time.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I wish to address to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on the government's fiscal and economic policies. In view of the continuing high unemployment, down slightly in the Atlantic region and up in Quebec, and the fact that these regions are the hardest hit by inflation, has the minister developed a new variable to his multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, decentralization policy which he is so busy expounding, tailored to meet the specific challenges of using DREE to rescue the poorer regions of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will have to study the hon. member's question before being able to determine whether or not it is in order.

[ Transla tion]



AIR TRANSPORT


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and in order to refresh his memory, I will simply ask him what are the particulars of the arrangements with the United States in connection with new air routes for the cities of Edmonton and Calgary?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the agreement is not ratified; it is simply a report and I may say incidentally that as soon as the agreement
September 11, 1973

is ratified, it will be announced in the House first. There will be 46 new routes, some of which will be between Calgary and Edmonton and the south of the United States.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can ask his supplementary, but once again, I will ask for the co-operation of hon. members so that we may try to recognize as many members as possible before the end of the question period.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Transport whether he can give the House the assurance that within 40 minutes his memory will be clearer and that he will be able to recollect the particulars, since he was present at a press conference-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.



FINANCE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the increased unemployment rate and continuing inflation and in view of the fact there is a $200 million surplus in the budget, would the minister consider putting some of this money into the AHOP which subsidizes housing for people in the lower and middle income groups?


Gerald William Baldwin: Talk gently, John.


John Napier Turner: I would assure myself that my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, has enough money to meet the housing problems of the country.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the Minister of Finance confirm a report that he turned down a request by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs that he do just that or amend the Bank Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question in those terms is out of order.



CRUDE PETROLEUM-INQUIRY AS TO MEETING WITH ALBERTA MINISTERS-DISCUSSION OF CONSUMERS' SUBSIDY

Mr. Eldon M. Wooliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he is meeting any ministers of the government of Alberta this week and if one of the matters that will be discussed is the question of the province of Alberta
Oral Questions
subsidizing the consumers in reference to crude petroleum as western wheat farmers have been asked to subsidize consumers in reference to bread in the whole of Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am meeting with the Alberta ministers. The hon. member's formulation will be an interesting one to put to them.



PROPOSED EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL- EFFECTS ON CONSTRUCTION OF SUPERTANKER PORT ON ST. LAWRENCE-DISCUSSION BETWEEN OTTAWA AND QUEBEC

Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view on the one hand of the federal government announcement regarding the construction of a pipeline and, on the other, of the Quebec government statement concerning the development of a deep water port for supertankers in the lower St. Lawrence region, is the minister in a position to inform us as to whether there were consultations or discussions with the Quebec government prior to his announcement? If not, does he expect any now and if so, when?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I discussed the matter with Quebec officials in July and I am supposed to meet my Quebec counterpart this week.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the Prime Minister's statement of September 4 and that little reference to the working poor, is the Minister of Labour prepared to introduce legislation to increase the minimum wage?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is possible to raise the level of the minimum wage without coming directly to parliament, under the legislation. I would indicate to the hon. member that this is under consideration now.



FISHERIES


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is his department prepared to assist fishermen in recovering
6420

Oral Questions
damages for the destruction of nets and other fishing gear by shipping and, specifically, to assist fishermen who it is alleged lost several hundred dollars worth of nets each recently because the gear was run over by a Greek freighter approaching Vancouver off the mouth of the Fraser River?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that particular matter is under investigation in the department.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the price of gold on the free market has been two and a half times the official price, does the government intend to make any change in gold pricing, particularly before the meeting of the IMF in Nairobi later this month?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the exact commodity to which the hon. member was referring.


William Gordon Ritchie: Gold.


John Napier Turner: Gold? No, Mr. Speaker.



SUGGESTED INSTITUTION OF INSURED MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SUPPLIES FOR OLD AGE PENSIONERS AND OTHERS ON LOW INCOMES

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the galloping increase in the cost of living is particularly severe on old age pensioners and those on low incomes, hitting hardest of all those suffering from chronic illness and in many cases requiring expensive services, would the minister consider instituting insured medical and surgical supplies for those people, thus fulfilling the recommendation of the Hall Commission report on national medicare?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the federal government is already sharing on a 50 per cent basis any help given to people in need under the Canada Assistance Plan. At the same time, the government has a firm commitment vis-a-vis the provinces that no new joint program is going to be initiated in this particular area without the development of a consensus with the provinces.



CONSUMER PACKAGING AND LABELLING ACT


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact the Food Prices Review Board, apparently with the minister's consent, has sent over 80 researchers across the country to investigate certain practices of food retailers, would the minister tell the House whether he has given up on the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act which would have permitted departmental investigations of this sort but for the fact that the minister has yet not published the draft regulations so that the act can be proclaimed and be in force?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the board does not need my consent to carry out its mandate, in the way the hon. member suggests. I hope to see the draft regulations published in the Canada Gazette shortly when the work of translation is completed.


Ronald George Atkey: May I ask the minister if he can give the House the assurance that the draft regulations will be published and the act proclaimed and in force at least by the third anniversary of its passage in the House on March 17, 1974?



FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the minister's repeated assurances that the department has been carrying on research over several months into the activities now undertaken by the Food Prices Review Board, can he tell the House the real reason for the existence of Plumptre's posse?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I hope that my hon. friend will read the statement I made at the time of the announcement of the board's terms of reference-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member's call for order is in itself disorder. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.



PROPOSED OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL- PROVISION OF BENEFICIAL COMPETITION AND SECURITY FOR CONSUMERS

Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and
September 11, 1973

Resources. With regard to the recent pronouncements by the government of Quebec on the development of that province's petrochemical industry and the minister's statement in the House yesterday that Quebec has shown no evidence that it can protect its position from a security and cost standpoint in light of events in the international oil market, does the minister still agree with the Prime Minister's statement on September 4 that an oil pipeline to Montreal would provide beneficial competition and security for Canadian consumers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
[La ter:]


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the minister's affirmative reply to my question, does he not agree that the federal government should extend pipeline facilities to Montreal, regardless of the Quebec government's-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question, asked in those terms, is argumentative or debate and is not in order.



HARBOURS


Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the recommendation of the National Harbours Board that $12.6 million be spent over a six-year period at the port of Churchill, would the minister advise whether he has approved that recommendation and, if so, when will the project get under way?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been reached yet. I sent a report to the government of Manitoba and I hope that we will be in a position to make a decision soon.



PROPOSAL TO UNITED STATES RESPECTING SUPPLYING OF CANADIAN OIL TO PUGET SOUND REFINERIES

Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources over the weekend that he would be prepared to discuss supplying Canadian oil to U.S. refineries at Puget Sound in order to keep U.S. tankers from unloading oil in those waters, can the Prime Minister advise what steps have been taken to make this proposal to the United States and whether such a proposal is now government policy?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the latter part of the question, this matter has been stated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on previous occasions.


John Allen Fraser: Can the right hon. Prime Minister
assure the House that such a proposal will be made forthwith to the appropriate U.S. officials?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am expecting to see Governor Love, the President's energy adviser, within a matter of weeks and this will be one of the matters on the agenda.


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. May I ask where he proposes to get the oil that he is intending to offer in his coming meeting?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member obviously was not listening to the testimony given last winter in the committee, perhaps he might reread it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for N orthumberland-Durham.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, mine is a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance relating to the very first answer he gave this afternoon. In light of the assumption of many people across the country when they have read the Statistics Canada reports on unemployment in the past that the figures specifically did not include strikers, and in view of the fact that the legal definition of those unemployed in this country specifically excludes strikers, would the minister tell the House if his answer indicated a change in the position or a change in the policy of the government?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, maybe I did not make myself clear to the hon. gentleman.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He did not understand.


John Napier Turner: What I said was that during the reference week ending August 19-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Stick to the weather, John.


John Napier Turner: -there were 80,000 men and women on strike in this country including the rotating strikes. While the hon. gentleman is perfectly correct that those 80,000 are not included in the statistics, there were obviously lay-offs in those concerns that depend on supplies from those companies on strike. So there is a peripheral effect which would obviously apply to such companies.
26454-42;

September 11, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order brought about because of my difficulty in getting an answer from the government. Although realizing that the question is not one which they are required to answer, I have attempted, through writing and otherwise, to find out if there is anybody on the government side of the House with a sufficient sense of fairness to look at the document presented to the courts by Tom Kent, President of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which has since been denied. Is there anyone who will stand up and defend it, or at least give justice to the men whom Tom Kent is now cheating because of a false document?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that we could get on with the business of the House which is to be called. The hon. member rises on a second point of order. I will try to recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre eventually on his own point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, since the members on the government benches have had the opportunity to defend the action of Tom Kent, and since not one of them has accepted that invitation, do you not think that somebody on that side, especially the Prime Minister, out of a sense of fairness would fix up this situation and not allow Tom Kent to deceive either the courts or parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to another matter. Earlier this afternoon Your Honour ruled that a statement which the Minister of Transport sought to table under Standing Order 41(2) was not one that could be tabled in that way but that it appeared to Your Honour to be a statement which the minister could have made on motions. That being the case, I wonder if Your Honour would ascertain whether there is now unanimous consent for the House to revert to motions, so that the minister can make that statement here, in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his interpretation of the ruling of the Chair differs slightly from my interpretation of what I said. As the hon. member seeks the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions, I will inquire whether there is that unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, there is not unanimous consent. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, September 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-223, to amend the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I note that my eloquence is moving members, even before I have begun to speak.


Mr. Nowlan:: You have not seen anything yet.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: As my colleague from Annapolis Valley has just said, I have not seen anything yet.
This is the last of the trilogy of anti-inflation measures or, as the minister put it on Friday, it "is within the scope of the program which the government has already announced to protect the purchasing power of Canadian consumers." The minister on Friday made references to the bill of his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the amendment to the Old Age Security Act with which this chamber has already dealt. He also referred to pending changes in the Canada Pension Plan. We are thus completing our examination of what one might describe as the prime ministerial welfare package for this country.
Last week the House adjourned for two hours to allow for this magisterial declamation against inflation and rising living costs, of which there has been some discussion in recent days. But it is misleading, I believe, to the public of this country to suggest that on this question of social welfare, what was announced by the Prime Minister last week conveys, implies or inscribes any dynamic, compelling urgency as a motivation for the announcement which was made in this particular welfare field. So, we have here not a series of bold, new thrusts but a rediscovery of items which have been mouldering on the order paper for a good many months.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made references to changes in the Canada Pension Plan. Was this a new and special response to the vaulting cost of living increases throughout the summer months and, indeed throughout the year, that is, through the fall, winter and spring? Canada now, as has been documented in this chamber, has the most rapid escalation of food prices of seven major countries, an escalation which is up to 14.7 per cent per annum, as documented by one of the most prestigious
September 11, 1973

international economic bodies in the world, and an overall increase in the cost of living of 8 per cent per annum.
The welfare package is not a new response, because away back on January 4 of this year we find in the Speech from the Throne references such as the one that follows. I quote from page 5 of Hansard of January 4, 1973:
Subject to the appropriate agreement being reached with the Provinces, changes to improve the Canada Pension Plan will be introduced to provide higher pensions for widows, widows with dependent children and the disabled and to make other needed amendments.
Weeks went by; months went by, and on April 18 we saw the presentation, with great fanfare, of the orange paper. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) said on April 18, as recorded at page 3404 of Hansard:
In this regard, we advance two specific proposals in relation to the Canada Pension Plan which we would like to embody in legislation this year-subject to a provincial consensus. This involves an increase in the level of yearly maximum pensionable earning-and the removal of the ceiling on cost-of-living escalations of Canada Pension Plan benefits.
That was said in April. This is September. All this indicates something less than emergent galvanic action. Indeed, it prompts one to ask how long it will take to get these improvements into our legislative stream.
I ask again, as I asked on Friday and Wednesday of last week, where is the delay? Why is there a delay in this process? A lot of time has elapsed since January 4; a lot of time has elapsed since January 18. Were there not any dominion-provincial conferences in this period? Were there no conversations? Were there no visits to provincial capitals? Why were these matters not discussed? Why, in all the time that has elapsed from January, were the provinces not asked for their approval of this particular matter?
In the old days people used to be concerned if one spoke for buncombe. There is no room for buncombe in a country that is going through the times that this one is going through. So, that part of the prime ministerial statement to which reference has been made was misleading. It was not a new item at all. But there is another statement which is much more serious. I was amazed to hear the Prime Minister say, as recorded at page 6183 of Hansard:
As for the poorest families in Canadian society, the federal government shares 50 per cent of the cost of social assistance paid by the provinces to families in need. The government said in August, and repeats today, that it stands ready to pay 50 per cent of the costs of increasing these payments to compensate for higher prices. Certain provinces have already acted to do so, and others are undoubtedly considering taking such action soon.
Has someone suggested that the Canada Assistance Plan is a new measure to deal with the current cost of living emergency?
The Canada Assistance Plan has been in operation for a good many years. It is in essence a 50/50 sharing by dominion and provincial governments. Therefore, it was not any new pronunciamento, to use a favourite word of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er). In fact, in the 1971 Annual Report of the minister, in
Family Allowances
the chapter dealing with the Canada Assistance Plan, it is pointed out, and I quote:
No upper limit is placed on the benefits for which federal sharing is available.
The dispossessed and the needy were not given anything new last week when it was suggested that this is a new corrective measure. This is a new remedial promise. Many months ago I suggested to the minister that what was needed in the Canada Assistance Plan was a new formula. In this emergency, let the government of Canada undertake to help the dispossessed by giving 75 per cent of the cost until such time as the elaborate new look at social services is completed. When I mentioned that last spring, the minister said it was a short-term bandaid type of approach.
In March, 75 per cent was not acceptable, but the mere statement that 50 per cent would continue to be paid made the headlines in the great prime ministerial statement last week. I hope those in Canada who stand in need, not only of welfare payments, but in need because of the times in which they live, through no fault of their own, of greater aid are not taken in by this pretended munificence, this phony benevolence indicated in the statement.
Last Friday when dealing with this subject, I expressed my regret that the figure of $20 per child in the family allowance was not adopted instead of the minimum figure of $12. I said then and I say now, if we can legislate $12 on an interim basis, we can legislate $20 and give a little more assistance to the people in need.
When the once entrenched Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, introduced this measure in 1945-the minister and I were young indeed, perhaps adolescents, depending on how quickly we developed-the figure then as a matter of income redistribution, and that in essence is what these types of payments are, amounted to 1.45 per cent of the Gross National Product. In 1973, our existing payments amount to .5 per cent of the Gross National Product. In other words, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been presiding over a family allowance system about one third as generous as that of the cautious Mackenzie King. To keep abreast of the value in terms of the Gross National Product which Mackenzie King gave, the present $8 cheques would have to be $17.40 and the $6 would have to become $13.
This is obviously a mathematical concept I am putting forward because we must always take into consideration the horrendous rise in the cost of living. In light of cold economics and in light of the proportion of the Gross National Product that is involved, the 12 per cent is not enormously munificent. As I say, to keep abreast of Mackenzie King, it would have to be $13.40. The minister is almost $1.50 below Mackenzie King; not outstanding progress, not rushing out full tilt toward a generous, compassionate welfare state. It is not the kind of galvanic progress which would guarantee that the minister's party and his party alone should remain in power forever and ever with the continual support of a certain group to my left. Geographically, they are to my left, but their performance in recent months causes me to wonder who is left and what is left.

September 11, 1973
Family Allowances
We have learned, and I suppose when one stops learning he may as well stop living, that in dealing with government, propped or prodded by the NDP-they used to prod them, but now they prop them-we must be thankful for small mercies. We learned officially today what we knew empirically all along, that unemployment is rising and has risen even through the heat of the summer, even with the fanfare and the ballyhoo of LIP programs and the like.
Inflation is tough enough on any citizen, any head of family. How much worse, how much more terrifying and how much more soul destroying is rampant inflation to the head of a family who cannot find work? How does he cope? What does he do? How does he walk among his fellows with respect? How does he look upon his children as he tries to meet their needs and demands and cope with their aspirations?
In light of what is happening to our cost of living and our employment statistics, I hope the minister will not be overly immodest about this improvement. Heaven knows, many, many heads of families will need the increased cheques. I hope they will go out to them as soon as possible without any administrative delays which will cause this group of people to be frustrated in their expectations. These are difficult times. Despite the efforts that have been announced, this government has neither slain nor scotched the snake of inflation. However, for this measure of assistance we have to be thankful because it will for many people make a situation that is a little better.
We in this House would be naive to think that we have in fact accomplished overly much. We would be naive to believe that palliatives have cured. To believe this would be to believe that General Plumptre's army would be a rescuing force. I am sure that latest charade in the phony war against inflation will probably go down in history as the most ineffectual exercise in supererogation undertaken in this country. Whatever the people of Canada need to know, they do not need someone to tell them the cost of living is going up. Whatever else was needed, surely that was not the need.
Finally, true to my long standing tradition of not making long speeches, although they may not be as short to others as they are to me, we are going to support this measure. We note a lack of certainty in this bill. It is an interim bill, but it has no terminal date. We are told that something will start at an early date. I want to know if the cheques will get out on time. When will the new cheques be ready? I know the October date is not to be found in the bill. Is the minister sure that the consultations about which he has spoken will progress in such a way that the people can expect the $20 average in January 1974? If this is the case, we are delighted but we cannot find such an assurance in the legislation itself. I hope that later in our proceedings the minister will be able to give us an assurance of this kind.
For our part we shall support this measure. Faint as it is, it does help, and we wish to help these people as much as possible.


John Edward Broadbent: Speaking on this measure, I really wish to deal with two questions. One is directly related to the substance of the bill before
[Mr. Macquarrie.J
us and to the benefits it provides. The second relates to a broader context, that is the way in which the legislation affects the redistribution of Canadian income.
It seems to me that the area of family allowances is one of the few areas in which the federal government really does involve itself in the direct redistribution of income. In a discussion of this subject it seem to me, therefore, that the bill before us should be discussed in a wider context, one which goes beyond the particular arrangements which have been made.
As the minister explained, family allowance payments in respect of all children in Canada are to be increased to $12 effective October 1. This is splendid. It will mean an average increase in family income of $10 per month, during the period October 1-December 31 of the present year, affecting some 3.5 million Canadian families. So an obvious advantage will accrue to Canadian families under the terms of the bill before us. A great many needy families will be directly assisted in coping with the results of inflation. This is especially important when we bear in mind that food prices have gone up by some 20 per cent in the past year alone. I should like to point out that conditions in which many families are living in Canada today are not such that we can be very proud of them. Some 4.5 million Canadians are living in poverty, and this figure includes 1,700,000 children according to a study prepared for the Senate Committee on Poverty. The fact that as of two years ago 1,700,000 children were living in a state of poverty is one we should keep much in mind when we hear statistics about the growth of real output in the economy, and so on, such as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has brought to our attention.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) has just expressed the opinion that the government ought to bring the level of payments up to $20 beginning October 1 instead of deferring such action until January 1. We in this party support such a proposition because we put it forward last spring when the minister placed his white paper on the subject of family allowances before the House. We said at that time that rather than wait until fall, or until January, the increase should come into effect on July 1. We gave assurances that had such a bill been brought before the House for second reading at that time we would have assisted in securing speedy passage for it so that it might have been implemented before the summer recess.
The minister has assured us that negotiations are going on with the provinces so as to work out the details of the complex formula which has been devised in order that the provinces might have an effective say in the distribution of the eight dollars additional to the $12 minimum. It seems to be a highly desirable formula, one which meets the requirements of a complex federal state such as ours. We accept the minister's assurance that this work will b'e done in time for the bill to be passed by January 1 and, speaking for my party, I can assure him that we shall do everything we can to support these efforts.
The proposal before us will provide Canadian families with an immediate increase in disposable income. The second advantage of the scheme is its universal aspect. It is only a year or so ago, I would remind the House, that the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) when he was
September 11, 1973

minister of national health and welfare, placed a proposal before us which would have introduced a means test into the family allowance scheme. It would have cut millions of ordinary Canadians from the benefit of the legislation. The NDP and the NDP alone voted against the proposal on second reading precisely because such a step would have been socially divisive; it would have been followed, in my judgment, by severe disruption of support for any social legislation which might have been introduced in subsequent years.
I say this to the minister. I hope I am preaching to the converted. He is a different minister and he has brought in a different package, despite the fact he is a member of the cabinet which put forward the plan we criticized so strongly a year ago. I, for one, hope the government does not bring in legislation in the social field or any other field which imposes a means test as a condition of benefit, such benefit being provided by the generality of the taxpayers. That kind of legislation will not get the support of the New Democratic Party. It is the sort of legislation that has been passed in other countries in the world which, instead of creating a sense of community, a sense of co-operation and fellowship among citizens, creates barriers and divisions. It creates antagonism toward government social schemes of all kinds and as such is the kind of legislation that the New Democratic Party cannot support in any way.
I read with interest the speech of the hon. member for Hillsborough on Friday last. When he pointed out that the present bill had universal application and did not involve a means test, he said: "For that we may be profoundly thankful." I would remind him that it was his party, the Conservative party of Canada, which just one year ago in this House supported the kind of legislation that he condemned here last Friday. It was the Conservative party of Canada, the hon. member's party, that supported a family allowance scheme that was based on a means test. I, therefore, welcome the hon. member for Hillsborough to the halls of the converted. I am glad he now accepts that family allowances should be applied universally rather than through a system that involves discrimination in the form of a means test. We, too, join with the hon. member for Hillsborough in welcoming the universal application of this particular scheme. At this point I shall leave that aspect.
I want now to deal with the legislation in a broader context. No matter how immediate and pressing are our needs, particularly in relation to food costs and housing, whether a person lives in Labrador, Halifax, Vancouver, Oshawa, or any part of rural or urban Canada, the fact is that within, I hope, a matter of months, to put it in a realistic context, inflation will be brought under some meaningful control in this country and the economy restored to a more stable or constant level, to the kind of situation where we are not continually preoccupied with how to beat inflation. Once we restore conditions to near normality the real effectiveness of this particular family allowance measure, it seems to me, will then be tested. What this kind of proposal does, or ought to do, is to redistribute income from upper income citizens and corporations to the average citizen and the poor in Canada, so
Family Allowances
that there is created within this country a more equitable society in which there is genuine equality of opportunity for our children to develop their talents and capacities. The real test of this legislation, therefore, which will come when another provision takes effect from January 1- what I might call stage two-will be: Does this bill move us toward a redistribution of income in Canada or does it not?
Before answering that question, I should like to put before the House some statistical information relating to the present situation in Canada. After many years of legislation since the second world war, introduced by governments at the federal level and also at the provincial level-though I am speaking principally of this federal institution-have we had a redistribution of income in Canada? The answer to that question is a resounding no.
I should like to present to the House statistics showing allocation of income prior to taxes for the years 1951 and 1971. Let me take first the lowest 20 per cent of the population. In 1951, the bottom 20 per cent of the population had 6 per cent of the disposable income before taxes. In 1971, after 20 years of a variety of Conservative and Liberal governments, this bottom 20 per cent still had only 7 per cent of the disposable income-a gain of one per cent after 20 years.
The next 20 per cent of the population had 13 per cent of th^ disposable income in 1951, and in 1971 still had only 13 per cent. The middle 20 per cent had 17 per cent in 1951, and in 1971 this percentage had increased to the colossal figure of 18 per cent. The fourth 20 per cent, going upwards in the distribution of income, had 22 per cent of disposable income in 1951, which by 1971 had risen to 23 per cent. We then get to the group of Canadians who are struggling to eke out an existence in this country, namely the top 20 per cent. In 1951 they had 41 per cent of the disposable income, twice the amount that their percentage of the population, in one sense, would seem to warrant. In 1971 this figure had dropped the grand total of two percentage points; they still have 39 per cent of the disposable income before tax.
I remind hon. members once again that we are talking here about family allowances. There were originally intended by the Liberal government of 1944 to provide for real equality of opportunity among young Canadians. If we are concerned to have genuine equality, then we should all be shocked and dismayed by the foregoing. After 20 years of pretty high prosperity in Canada we still have a situation where the top 20 per cent of Canadians have 40 per cent of disposable income in Canada, whereas the bottom 40 per cent of the population have only 20 per cent of the disposable income. There has been virtually no change in the distribution of pre-tax income in Canada during the past 20 years, and I think we should seriously concern ourselves with this fact.
I now pass on to deal with what is seen by many, both in this House and outside, to be an important means of curing this situation. Rather than have a national incomes policy, for example, many people contend that all we have to do to rectify the maldistribution of income that occurs before taxes are applied is to continue to have progressive taxation of the kind that gained some popular political support in the 1930's. This is particularly an argument-

September 11, 1973
Family Allowances


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Blais:: No, Mr. Speaker; I am seeking the hon. member's permission to ask him a question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to deal with that as I do not intend to take all of the 40 minutes allotted to me. However, I would ask the hon. member to hold his question until the end of my remarks.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I simply want to ask it now because it deals specifically with the point that the hon. member has reached.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member who has the floor is the one who will decide whether he will allow a question. Do I understand that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby gives that permission?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I would like to ask the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby whether the figures he is reciting now relate to pre-tax income or post-tax income, and whether he has comparative figures relating to income after taxation with respect to these various sectors in the income groups?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the question is perfectly timed. The figures I gave were pre-tax income. The point I was coming to is that a number of people, particularly in the Liberal party and Conservative party, have said, "All right; you can rectify that situation by 'our' progressive tax policies." Now, I want to provide the hon. member and others with statistics that deal with distribution of income after taxation. I will now deal with the post-tax situation. I will deal with the question of who pays proportionately most taxes in Canada and who benefits proportionately most from government services and programs.
According to a study done earlier this year for the Economic Council of Canada by Mr. Allan Maslove, entitled "The Pattern of Taxation in Canada" we find, after considering the net effect of municipal, provincial and federal taxes, that the tax structure in general is extremely regressive, with the upper income groups paying proportionately less than their share, and the lower income groups paying proportionately more than their share. Who bears the least load of the tax burden? That question is posed and answered in the study to which I have referred. The answer is that those whose incomes are $12,000 and more per year bear the least load of taxes in this country, which is the direct opposite of the effect a progressive tax system should be achieving.
If the rich bear the least load of taxes the question must be asked: who benefits proportionately more from the programs and services of governments? The study reaches the conclusion that the upper income groups benefit proportionately more than the average and lower income groups. It seems to me that in a period of five minutes it would be very difficult to reveal a set of statistics to this House that are more damning of the workings of parlia-

mentary democracy in this country during the past 20 years.
What I have tried to show with respect to pre-tax income is that over the past 20 years there has been little change. The rich are still getting much more than their share of income, and the poor are receiving fantastically less than their share. Spokesmen for the Liberal party and the Conservative party for years have said that they would rectify the situation, but there has been no improvement in the situation with respect to the distribution of income after taxes. Instead, we have a worsening of the situation. That is a shocking condemnation of taxation policies enforced at municipal, provincial and federal levels. It seems to me that the bill before us has to be seen in that context.
When Prime Minister Mackenzie King introduced the original Family Allowances Act in 1944 he said the intention of the measure was to provide real equality of opportunity for young people. It seems to me that when we talk about family allowances we must talk about distribution of income and how family allowances can redress inequalities in it. I and my party strongly support a universal system of family allowances precisely because here we can tax all those who can afford to be taxed, particularly upper income Canadians and corporations, and redistribute money to those who are in need.
I cannot forgo the opportunity to comment on the actions of this parliament last spring when it voted $500 million in concessions to Canadian corporations, concessions that, according to all serious economic analyses made by authorities outside the political parties and the government structure, were entirely unwarranted. Here I am talking about responsible economists. Not one argued that tax concessions totalling $500 million were necessary for the Canadian economy.
I do not at all question the personal integrity of the man who preceded me in this debate, but I do point out the contradictory actions of his political party, which last spring voted in favour of $500 million in tax concessions to corporations which had been making the largest profits in Canadian history. Now, he comes along and tries to act as the spokesman for the average and poor citizen. It seems to me there is a basic contradiction in that kind of action, a contradiction that cannot be tolerated by my party.
If we had divided the $500 million in concessions to corporations among the 314 million families that have children, we could have given each family about $140, which really would have done something to redistribute income in Canada. It might even have reversed the statistical pattern with respect to the distribution of income over the past 20 years. But the Liberal and Conservative parties decided the corporations needed the $500 million more than the average income people and the poor citizens of Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that we in this party certainly support the $12 minimum family allowance payment. In view of the current fantastic surplus position achieved by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) we believe it could be increased to $20 now, instead of next January. But we support the measure because it is a universal scheme. Again I remind hon. members that even if the family allowance goes up to $20 per child, and even
September 11, 1973

if this is an important step, it remains a small step in dealing with the grotesque inequalities that exist in our society. This parliament should be dealing with those inequalities on a priority basis.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us gives us an opportunity to think over a few things, and I believe that could be beneficial. Mr. Speaker, what is accomplished through this bill? I think it palliates at the very least some oversights that were allowed to continue to exist since the advent of family allowances.
It will be remembered how for several years our party insisted on the absolute necessity of setting family allowances at a reasonable level which would at least enable us to acknowledge the value of the most important element of a population, the very people who make up that population. And since the advent of family allowances, the small adjustments which were made have always been stingy ones which failed to grapple with the real problem. It was considered more urgent to deal with other types of subsidies and expenditures without realizing that it was absolutely necessary to guarantee at least reasonable allowances to that major element of any population that is the continuance of the family. There was a failure to deal with that to the extent that for a long time family allowances have been simply ridiculous, and still are. It was simply a mockery to continue to give such allowances.
I will be told of course that this bill will solve the problem. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not true. Of course if we compare an $8 allowance with a $12 allowance, there seems to be a significant increase but it was so unfair to give $8 or $10, as the case may be, that what is now being done is far from solving the problem-even if the mathematical increase might be fairly great.
That is why we wonder why in trying to solve such a problem the work is not more in depth than it is. Why not set logical standards? Why not begin at once for instance to deal with the integration of family allowances in a comprehensive system, under which all Canadian families would be guaranteed the necessary minimum income, so that every Canadian could live decently notwithstanding his age? Sooner or later, we shall need an integrated system of that kind instead of skimming over the family allowance issue, as we are doing now, by granting a certain increase to children up to 16 years of age. We contend that it is not enough. A little more should be granted and thus more respect would be shown the Canadian family.
We agree on that, but we should like the government to realize that there is much more to be done and we would want it especially to consider seriously the possibility of solving the problem once and for all through the establishment of a guaranteed annual income system.
We talked about that very during the last election campaign. We say, and we have supporting evidence, that we can realize that immediately, notwithstanding the arguments the minister could put forward against it. And once we will be provided with an integrated guaranteed annual income program, controls will be lessened and we shall no
Family Allowances
longer be faced by this illogical situation when control and administration are more costly that the benefits paid.
We are still faced with this situation and this is why we should think about it if we truly want to find adequate solutions to this problem.
Many shortcomings should be corrected. I know that everything cannot be settled at the same time but we should at least indicate some kind of orientation and I would like to point out the inconsistency which consists in an exemption of $300 per child.
Mr. Speaker, we know about today's cost of living. We know that the new benefits will be far from adequate, that they will not help the families and yet we still accept those figures. How can we encourage the Canadian family? How can we give to each family the ambition and ideal required to reach education, progress and so on since nothing truly encourages the families. This is why when speaking about family allowances we should relate them to the overall situation of Canadian families. This is why I wanted to point out those facts.
If the government thinks that it will please the people and correct major problems with such a bill it is deluding itself, for not much will be cured in this way. At least if the Minister had agreed to immediately raise these allowances to $20 instead of waiting until the 1st of January 1974, or if he had made the increase retroactive at least to the beginning of 1973, it could have been considered as a more tangible effort the effects of which could have been felt immediately throughout the Canadian economy, since any increase in the purchasing power of the Canadian people could help fight against the calamities which are confronting them: inflation, price increases, and all the other problems which we are facing, Mr. Speaker.
I think that the Minister should think of all these factors which will eventually prompt us to contemplate long term instead of short term solutions. How long will such a law be adequate? How long will we be able to say that we finally found a solution?
That is why we cannot discuss this matter without thinking about the basic problem-a guaranteed minimum income-and that is why also we must think, Mr. Speaker, of the constitutional difficulty as we all know that the government of Quebec in particular jealously wants to control social security. The Quebec Social Affairs Minister tried some time ago, and on that point I agree with him, to set up an integrated social security program. Everyone is aware that it is very difficult to set up such a program when there is a lack of co-ordination, when there is a lack of agreement and when each government follows its own particular way.
At the time it was accepted that the federal government should administer family allowances, we were then of course going against the constitution, but once the population has accepted this principle, of course I am not against the idea that it should continue to accept it. It seems to me however, that a federal government should at least, if it has taken over that field, have the decency to establish logical standards which do not make a mockery of us. When we offer to the provinces such ridiculously small allowances, as I was saying earlier, we do not seem to have the authority of a national government. This is possibly

September 11, 1973
Family Allowances
one of the reasons which prompted the government of Quebec to give its own family allowances. I believe this is quite sufficient proof of the inadequacy of the federal family allowances.
If through legislation we are to establish a general standard for the whole country, I agree, Mr. Speaker, but let us establish a standard which is perfectly admissible throughout Canada and which really reflects the needs of the standard family in Canada.
As to the amount of $20, I do not think it is sufficient and this is why, in concluding, I should like to say again that we must not only find palliatives immediately and try to lessen the difficulties encountered by families, but think right now of establishing programs in order to guarantee everyone this famous material security we need to free ourselves and develop better.
It is our role to find solutions. And it seems to me that it is our duty to say so, insist on old age security pensions and family allowances, Mr. Speaker. Each time we touch on this, we always touch on the basic problem of income security.
And our party has concrete solutions to propose to that end. We do not have reserve rights on this; we are prepared to see the government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in particular steal that beautiful concept from us and we will be very happy to assist them and then some. This is the way we conceive our political role in this House and we want to co-operate with everyone to satisfy all Canadians in a real and concrete way.


Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, the world of reasons and explanations is not the one we live in. Today I begin my speech with these words by Jean-Paul Sartre not because I am an existentialist but because we are debating today a fundamentally practical measure designed to make the daily life of thousands of Canadians easier.


David Réal Caouette: That is what Moses used to say!


Francis Fox: They do not say the same thing in
Temiscamingue.
The world of existence in Canada, in this month of September 1973, is a world in which some Canadians suffer a great deal from rising prices, especially food prices. The world of reasons and explanations, to come back to Sartre, and not to Moses, shows us that these upward trends are for a large part beyond our control. The bad crops of last year practically everywhere in the world, an increased global demand for quality food products, the fact that we have to import from abroad food products such as coffee and sugar,-to mention just a few-,are the main causes of this situation.
But what course of action can we take confronted with such a situation: A few countries such as the United States tried price control and this proved to be a failure. With the increase in the cost of food, the American stockbreeder was obliged to kill his cattle prematurely since the established price brought about a loss which resulted in a shortage of meat throughout the United States.

In Canada, we managed to resist applying simplistic measures to deal with rather complex economic problems, which enabled us to avoid some of the problems that the American people were faced with.
It is often said that price control is the appropriate answer. Well, in such a situation, food prices in the United States have increased, between December and March of this year, twice as fast as food prices in Canada.
In a letter to the Wall Street Journal on April 24, 1973, American economist J. K. Galbraith, one of the most powerful promoters of selective price controls, denounced a price control policy during a shortage period. In addition, price control is not a synonym of freeze. In Quebec, for example, the price of consumer milk controlled by provincial authorities has just been increased as was the price of bread. I do not think moreover that government authorities should set the minimum retail resale prices. Setting maximum resale prices can be justified from an economic point of view but not minimum resale prices encouraging the economic inefficiency of the retailer whose costs must eventually be borne by the consumer.
It might be appropriate, at this time, to refer to the competition legislation introduced in this House by the present Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) who is responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who was, at that time, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Through this legislation, the federal government proposed precisely that minimum retail prices be declared contrary to the law and that only maximum prices could be established.
I could go along in this vain for quite a long time, I think, but what is important, in the long run, once reasons and explanations have been analyzed, is to take some action. And this is what the government did this year, by way of tax reductions in the budget speech and through the measures announced by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on September 4.
The statistical analysis brought to the attention of our Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices proves clearly that the burden of recent price increases weighs most heavily on Canadians on low and fixed incomes. Studied as a whole, the figures compiled in 1972 by the OECD reveal that, in 1971, Canadians spent 20.6 per cent of their income on food, whereas the Americans spent 16.7 per cent, the Japanese, 26.6 per cent, the Germans, 24.2, the French 27.5 and the English almost 24 per cent. It must be remembered that in Canada, 15 years ago, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) pointed out on September 7 last, 38 per cent of the family budget was spent on food. This means that, despite inflation, the lot of the Canadian consumer has, over the long term, considerably improved.
Often, however, such statistics, instead of revealing the extent of the problem some families may know, manage to cover it up and people look no further. Still, if Canadians, generally, spend 20 per cent of their budget on food, the low-income family has to devote to food a higher proportion of it.

The National Council on Welfare, in an excellent report on nutrition published in March of 1973 and entitled "One
September 11, 1973

Child, One Chance", refers to a recent survey conducted by Statistics Canada. The council stresses in its report the importance of food costs to different types of families. For instance, a family of four with an income of $12,000 spends about 15 per cent of its disposable income on food, whereas the same family of four with a yearly income of $4,000 spends 32 per cent of its income on food. Since controls in a world shortage situation can only lead to reductions in output and to rationing, it seems clear that the most rational course of action is to adopt measures which will lead to increases in agricultural output, which will lead in turn to lower prices and in the meantime to put more dollars into the pockets of Canadian consumers so that they may face increased food costs.
If we wish to have a stable and growing agricultural industry, farmers must be able to make investment decisions with the assurance that they will receive reasonable rewards in return for their labour and investment. Stable prices will lead to rational investment decisions. But it is incorrect to believe that farmers will produce in abundance if their investment decisions are to be made in a situation where prices vary wildly from year to year, and if they cannot have some certainty that when their produce is marketed they will not be subject to extreme highs or extreme lows in prices.
The increase in family allowances to $12 is good news for the 3.5 million Canadian families responsible for the 7.5 million Canadian children. This measure, along with the reduction in taxes announced in February which average out to about 12 per cent, reductions in tariffs on imported foods, the substantial increases in universal old age pensions from $82 to $105 within a few months, subsidies for milk and bread, the full indexing of pensions paid by the government of Canada, are important and effective measures.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to pass in silence over the magnificent work carried out by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the area of family allowances. Not so long ago, some newsmen saw in this federal program the stumbling block for Canada. They nearly wanted to bring this country to an end because the federal government suggested increasing the amount paid to the people of this country. Thank God ridicule does not kill for otherwise Quebec would have too few editorialists. The discussions held between federal and provincial authorities in this area show instead that following discussions and bargaining, although points of views may differ on some questions, the real interests of our people shall prevail over jurisdictional disputes, while respecting the necessary autonomy of each level of government.
Once these disputes have been settled, editorial writers no longer mention them. They prefer looking for other issues which they may consider again as as many stumbling blocks for Canada. We may some day come to realize that a certain level of dynamic tension in federal-provincial relations is only normal and healthy, when this tension reflects differing points of view which are finally reconciled in the light of universally acceptable solutions.
Family Allowances
The minister, in agreement with his provincial colleagues, has succeeded in that field in devising a formula benefitting the Canadian people, while complying with provincial government priorities and interests. This is no victory of one level of government over another; it is only a victory for all those who believe in a Canada whose main objective is to afford development possibilities to all its citizens.
[ English]


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have made several speeches on family allowance legislation in the five years that I have been in this House. Along with the number of questions and motions that I have put forth, I am sure this results in a lengthy listing in the index to Hansard under my name. I hope therefore, that this will be one of the last occasions on which I shall have to ask for the passage of all stages of Bill C-223 as quickly as possible so that we can get on with the new bill that will give increases up to an average of $20 to all children in Canada on a universal basis. We hope, as the minister promised, that this will be implemented in time for the cheques to go out in January. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) has indicated the co-operation of our party on all social security measures introduced in the House this week which will help relieve some of the suffering of those who must rely on the government for assistance. I am sure that all hon. members who speak will confirm this co-operation.
I do not think I have to remind most hon. members, but I feel it is necessary to point out that this is the fourth bill which has been introduced on family allowance legislation. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have had four bills since the government introduced its first white paper on income security almost three years ago, in November, 1970. Since that date, we have had a white paper and an orange paper; we have had numerous studies to point out what should be done under social security programs for the country and we have had four bills. At this stage, three years later, the needy children of our country have not seen, nor have the mothers of those children seen, one additional copper to the amount afforded under the family and youth allowance measures which were introduced back in 1945. Bill C-264 and Bill C-170, which were introduced in the last session, are now commonly referred to as the FISP fiasco. I could spend many long hours reviewing the circumstances which we faced over many long months in dealing with those two bills which came to nothing through the incompetence of the government, but in order to speed up second reading I will await the opportunity to elaborate when second reading of Bill C-211 comes before the House again.
I should like to remind the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) what happened to the FISP bill. He can say what he wants, but if I understood him correctly, he indicated that it was the New Democratic Party which prevented the bill from becoming law. At that time, the New Democratic Party, along with our party, tried to introduce many amendments to the FISP bill which contained many inequities. It was a bad bill, but I can confirm that the majority of our members were prepared to vote for it because at least it would have helped the many children in the country. It was the hon. member for Trini-

September 11, 1973
Family Allowances
ty (Mr. Hellyer) who at that time was sitting as an independent, who took the technical action to stop that bill.
We had Bill C-264 as well as Bill C-170 and now we have Bill C-233 which will give temporary increases to $12 per month to all children up to the age of 18, hopefully for the months of October, November and December. Everybody seems to agree with the bill, but the fact it is before us proves that the same objective could have been accomplished by a similar simple amendment in 1970 when there was a need, as expressed by the government, to help the children of our country and there was every reason to do so. Certainly, this action could have been taken earlier when the cost of living got out of control just a few months ago. I, and many other members, have made this suggestion for some time now but to no avail. In May of this year, Mr. Speaker, I suggested this course of action to the government, and that is on the record in Hansard. To quote from a late show debate on May 17, at page 3906, I am reported as saying.
The present family allowances bill could very easily have been amended as it presently exists, if there was any semblance of sincerity by the minister, instead of playing political football with poverty-striken Canadians.
All they would really have to do, if they were concerned, would be to amend the clause in the present family allowance bill, which signifies the amount now received, by s greater amount. The only other clause required-
Which I recommended at the time-
-would be the insertion of a clause dealing with annual increases in the cost of living. This was done very simply under the old age security bill and the war veterans allowances bill and it could have been passed in record time.
Is this not what we are doing now, Mr. Speaker, apart from the insertion of the cost of living index? Could this not have been done back in 1970 when the then minister and the government agreed that, as part of their income security plan, poor families had to be given increases in family allowances? But this was not the concept of the government at that time. They were talking about selectivity in 1970 and they got themselves in such a mess with Bill C-264 and Bill C-170 that the computers could not even cope with it. Now, the minister is back to universality, with which we agree, and which everyone was suggesting with regard to family allowances three years ago.
In any case, I hope that the government has finally seen the light and that the minister will keep his promise that these increases will be contained in the October cheques. I am sure the mothers of the needy children in the country are beginning to get pretty skeptical about the government's promises on allowances. If we go back over the experience of the past three years we will see why. I appeal to the minister and the government to make every effort to implement these measures. The situation in which those citizens who have to resort to welfare find themselves is at a critical stage. It is particularly critical for the many thousands of children in these families. At least it will give a little relief to the families in my province who cannot cope with the galloping increase in the cost of living.
|Mr. Marshall.)
For example, under the Canada Assistance Plan and the social assistance program of my province, a family of five in Newfoundland will get the magnificent sum of $215.00 per month. This particular family, taking for granted that they have three children under the age of 18, is now probably getting $22 under the present family allowances scheme. So, presumably, they will get an extra $14 per month. Together with family allowances, this family's income will now be $250 per month. I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because even though the increases will be welcome, they will not improve the lot of this family to any great extent. Really, we should be discussing in parliament, before we leave, changes required in the Canada Assistance Plan, because many thousands of people on welfare just cannot cope with the cost of living today.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said yesterday that government policies were directed towards relieving the suffering of those on fixed incomes. But he left out a few other citizens, Mr. Speaker. No mention has been made during the past three years of the blind. The minister has been questioned about the disabled people in our country who are under 65. How do they cope? Allow me to refer to another example that affects people in my province. Two people on long term social assistance in Newfoundland get $140 a month on which to live.
I should like to read one of the many hundreds of letters I get from people in this category. It reads in part:
Dear Sir:
X was wondering if you could give me any information on social assistance.
X have been out of work now for six years with a bad heart, and my wife, she has angina of the heart. I am getting up in years. I am 64 and my wife is 58, so I was wondering if there is anything better than the $140 a month.
The writer went on to say that war veterans of his age are getting aid, and that they deserve it. He says that he owns his own home, pays $315 a year tax, and his heating bill is between $40 and $50 a month. In addition, he has to pay the light bill and for repairs to his home, as well as for clothing for himself and his wife. He appeals for help. He says, near the end of his letter:
So you can see for yourself what I have to live on. I am not living. I am just waiting to die. So I would appreciate it if you would let me know if there is anything going to be done.
That is typical of the many hundreds of letters that I get from people residing in my own and other parts of the country. Every time I ask the minister about this problem, the broken record is turned on: this is a provincial responsibility and we pay 50 per cent of the cost of social assistance.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his address last week, repeated that pledge which means nothing, namely, that if the provinces agreed to raise social assistance, the government would pay 50 per cent of the cost. Isn't it time, Mr. Speaker, that there was a halt in this game of passing the responsibility back and forth between the two levels of government and something positive was done to relieve the suffering of those citizens who do not have the means or ability to cope with inflation? Is it not time we revised the Canada Assistance Plan to allow for a bigger contribution by the federal government, particularly in the have
September 11, 1973

not provinces? And isn't it about time that the minister called an emergency conference to deal with this program? This is a very critical matter.
I know that the minister is sincere in his attempts to relieve the poverty that exists in our supposedly great nation, but we are overlooking the plight of too many of our citizens. We can deal in some measure with our senior citizens, because they come within our jurisdiction when they reach 65, and thank God we have reached the stage where two people over 65 can get $325 a month. Under the government's new proposals they will get a little more. But what do we do with people who are 64 years of age? They can be sick or maimed and suffering under the worst circumstances, but our laws allow us to give them only $140 per month. The minister said in one of his speeches that the level of social assistance which is given to the poor of the provinces is a national disgrace. How true that is.
Another serious problem that we, as responsible parliamentarians, should be dealing with is that of the working poor. Once again I will give examples from my own province. At the present moment, a group of hospital workers in Newfoundland is striking for higher wages. Nobody wants strikes, particularly in essential services, least of all the workers themselves; but how are they to cope with the rising costs of food, shelter, oil and other necessities of life? One of these employees gets the grand sum of $55 per week, in this day and age; another gets $420 per month after 20 years of service; another gets $312 per month after having worked for nine years. They have to bring up families. Is it fair to allow that situation to exist in our country?
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree that the increase in family allowances will help these people a little bit. I realize also that this is a provincial matter. But surely the federal government must face up to the disparities in our country, show some leadership and live up to the pledge of the Prime Minister, who stated in the throne speech five years ago that this government was committee to providing a decent quality of life to all Canadians, in all provinces, wherever they may live.
I think the minister should be complimented for bringing in this measure to increase family allowances; however, the problems of our youth are much broader. I hope the minister will consider other programs during the three to five years it will take to introduce social security program for Canadians. More effort must be directed towards youth development. Children in this day and age are growing up undernourished, so they will be unable to cope with society in later years because of that fact.
Let me read one more note from my mail, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the nutrition of our Canadian children. I shall quote in part from a letter from a school board supervisor in my district. I will read the following extract:
It can be stated with a reasonable degree of certainty that the ability to learn is closely related to nutrition; thus we find that often as not the child suffering from malnutrition will either find himself in a 'slow' or special education class. It is obvious that under such conditions the school is not only confronted with instituting special programs in an attempt to remedy the problem but the child's interest in school diminishes to the point that it is likely he will drop out as soon as possible.
Family Allowances
The partial solution to the problem is the instituting of diet supplementary programs in the schools, because it is in the school that the problem can be discovered more readily. The difficulty is, of course, that funds are not available for this kind of program. Once again, when I bring this problem to the minister's attention, it will become a provincial problem because education comes within provincial jurisdiction. At the same time, these children are suffering from inadequate diets and lack of proper nutrition.
The school board to which I referred attempted to institute a program involving eight schools. Under it 200 children were supplied with soup, crackers and hot chocolate and, in conjunction with this program, special education classes were conducted. It is obvious that we are not in a position to serve all the children but can take care of only the most pressing cases. Of course, the ideal situation would be to make a similar type of program available to all children. I am sure we could find, even under the British North America Act, a way to bring such a program under the Department of National Health and Welfare which would ensure that children would develop properly in body as well as in mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of passing this bill I will refrain from further remarks. I shall only say to the minister, bring the bill before the House, let us get it through and let us get on with the job.
[ Transla tion]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I will make a few brief remarks on the bill before us which I think is quite important in view of the present circumstances.
I listened carefully to some speeches. I know the minister has often been asked why he was not making available allowances of $20 or $25 and why he was not doing so immediately?


David Réal Caouette: Because the minister is too slow.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I will limit my remarks to the bill and try to make a suggestion to the minister which I think deals with the problems with which we are faced.
As all other hon. members, I will be pleased to support a legislation which mathematically is very interesting, and I also feel that the increase in allowances to $12 as of October 1 will be quite welcomed by all mothers and, or course, their children.
I would like especially to ask the minister to give particular attention to the age of eligibility. We know quite well that when family allowances came into being, the age of those who completed their education was a lot closer to 16 or 18 than today.
We also know the important changes that took place in the field of education. By that, I mean-I have four children, so I know what I am talking about-that today, because of the deep changes made in our education systems, children must have lunch at school and spend a lot more money than it used to be.

September 11, 1973
Family Allowances
We also know that even if we talk of free education, it does not really exist. Therefore, in view of the additional costs, which today are enormous, I wonder if the minister would consider the possibility of granting family allowances at least until the age of 21.


An hon. Member:: Until 25.


Roch La Salle: We know that today a large percentage of the students do not complete their studies until 21 and even later. I wonder to what extent we could reasonably ask the minister to consider this possibility. The generous additional income which has been granted and which will be available on January 1 would be more helpful to families if the age limit were raised to 21. After seriously discussing the matter with several of my constituents- instead of making a survey-I believe that they are very much in favour of this and endorse my arguments. They find it quite normal that we should consider the possibility of raising the eligibility age to 21. Of course, we could again consider that as long as the child is at school.
Now, I take the liberty during consideration of this bill-which, once again, I consider very worthwhile and will support most willingly-of asking the minister to consider that possibility.
Also, we ask the minister to increase immediately the allowances to $20. As I understood the bill introduced by the minister a few months ago which will come into force in January, it does seem that this basic minimum of $12 will be granted across the country and that the surplus of the general average of $20 will enable the provinces to grant it to large families or people with inadequate incomes, where the need is greater in their opinion.
I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to say that I am very happy to see that the provinces will be able to adjust the family allowances while respecting first of all the national basis, but with the possibility of adjusting the amount from $12 to $20, on the basis of need.
I suggest, as the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) said earlier, that this respect shown to the provinces, this opportunity granted to them, deserves of course some congratulations to the Minister who understood and accepted it; therefore the provinces that wish to exercise this power will be able to do so provided that they respect first of all the principles established by the federal government.
Therefore, I hope that on January 1st, we will have the opportunity of rising these allowances to an average of $20, and I understand that if the Minister-I think this is correct-cannot increase or did not deem advisable to increase immediately these allowances to $20, it is because in January the provinces will have to adjust this amount insofar as they have the authority to do so. And of course, in view of the fact that the $20 allowance will be taxable in January, it might be inconvenient for the people to receive an amount of $20 which would be reduced later on the basis of the provincial policy.
I wanted to make these few comments and again repeat these things bringing them to the attention of the Minister in order to know whether the eligibility age might be
raised to 21 for the reasons I referred to earlier. I want to say of course that I am quite in favour of this increase which will be, I am sure, welcome by all the mothers and I hope that the government will not wait as long before considering again the need for an increase in these allowances based on the increase in the cost of living or the cost of services.
In conclusion, I would like also to state that this might be the way we could perhaps manage to increase the birthrate. Of course, it is often argued that there are less children as a result of the very high cost of living today. I think that this is an argument that we should ponder upon.
I could very well get carried away and say that raising allowances from $12 to $20, as some others have proposed, is inadequate; I could call for $30, but I would like to be rather positive and realistic. To the extent that it will be possible for the government to pay allowances directly related to the child and the family, to the extent that we will be able to ensure an adequate income to families, which would alleviate the very great difficulties which we encounter, we will perhaps be able to believe that it will be more tempting for a couple to raise more children.
After all, we know that there are young couples who have many reservations about the difficulties which have beset their parents and about the cost of living in general.
Thus the bill represents an improvement. Can the government or Parliament review it much more frequently? That is quite possible, and I only hope that it will.
Generally speaking, like so many other hon. members I welcome this most acceptable increase and you may be sure that I shall not hesitate at any opportunity given me to reiterate the requests we have to make in order to bring in more relief to the general public.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate only briefly because it is most important to pass quickly this measure which will increase family allowances and get some extra cash into the hands of mothers who are facing rather substantial rises in costs this fall, particularly for food but also for clothing which their children require as they return to school.
That there is an urgent need for these additional consumer dollars, there is no doubt. This is especially true where the wage earner is not in a strong position to bargain for pay increases which would help him and his family to meet the rising cost of living. Unfortunately, there are still too many people in Canada who are not in a strong bargaining position. Others, the average Canadian worker, have not only been able to keep up, but in many cases to get ahead of the increases in the consumer price index.
Some statistics have recently come to my attention which show that during the period 1969 to 1972, the average weekly earnings of Canadian workers, and this is indicated by the industrial composite, increased by an annual average of 8 per cent. That is more than twice the rise in the consumer price index. The quarterly change for the first quarter of 1973 over the last quarter of 1972 indicates a rise in the wage earnings of 2.3 per cent compared with a 1.9 per cent rise in the consumer price

September 11, 1973

index. These figures point out that the average wage earner has been able to keep up with, and in fact get a little ahead of, the rise in the consumer price index.
It can be said that for most people in Canada, wage and salary increases have enabled them to adjust and even somewhat improve their standard of living. However, and this concerns all members of the House, what is true for most Canadians is certainly not true for all. This has been brought to our attention by many members, including the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Many Canadians who are in a weak bargaining position for one reason or another have suffered a great deal because of the inflationary situation which now faces them. In addition, what has been true about wage increases up to the end of the first quarter seems not to have been the case with respect to the second quarter of this year.
The President of the Canadian Labour Congress said recently-and I have no reason to doubt his conclusion- that Canadian workers lost one dollar a week in purchasing power in the second quarter of this year as a result of inflation. He went on to say that the workers are trapped on all economic fronts and that there are no brighter prospects before them in the foreseeable future. The proposal to increase family allowance will help all workers to offset the loss of purchasing power sustained in the second quarter of the year, and, more important, it will assist those on low incomes to provide the basic necessities of life for their families.
I should like to move, now, into another area related to family allowances. It has been said in the past that the family allowances program assists in providing equality of opportunity for all Canadian children. This view was also expressed a short while ago by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, a member for whom I have great respect. He spoke as an egalitarian-I believe he would consider himself as being one. He thought the program should go further than it does and he praised it particularly on the grounds that it provided for equality of opportunity. Almost everyone agrees that the family allowance program is a good one. Middle-income families have come to accept it and expect it, and any attempt to eliminate the program or to revise it in such a way as to help only those in the greatest need would be met with strong resistance. The strength of such resistance has already been shown.
As I say, it is a good program, a program accepted by most Canadians, and one which is now being improved. But we should not claim too much for it. To say that it equalizes opportunity for Canadian children is to go further than is right or appropriate. No matter how large the payments may become in the future, and the minister has already told us there will be a further increase of up to $20 per month per child in 1974, and even if they were to rise as high as $40 or $50 a month per child, we could not claim they would equalize opportunity for all children. Such a program could never move us toward an egalitarian society. I want to try to explain this point of view, and I want to do so carefully because I could easily be misunderstood.
The source of inequality of opportunity in our society is only partly economic; a large part of existing inequality is due to cultural inheritance. Much of the transmission of
Family Allowances
culture, in the narrow sense, occurs through the family, through the more subtle and profound influences upon the child resulting from love, integrity and family morale. This constitutes a kind of inheritance which cannot, at least for those above the subsistence level, be significantly affected by economic measures. To express these thoughts, Mr. Speaker, is not to cast any aspersion upon the family allowance program, but to place it in proper perspective. If we in the House of Commons could upgrade and improve the quality of family life simply by redistributing tax dollars, as some egalitarians would have us believe, life would be much simpler than it actually is.
Equality of opportunity is an elusive goal and we may be able to assist in modest ways by removing obstacles of one kind or another, but much of the task is entirely out of our hands. As we all know, many a child born and raised in a poorer home has achieved a good deal more and contributed more than others who were nurtured in affluence. This statement is in no way meant to be a justification of poverty or low incomes. That would be silly. But I do argue that the most important factor in equality of opportunity is the quality of parenthood, the quality which enables children to face the challenges of life without being overwhelmed by them. Economic measures alone are no substitute for the good and valuable influences exerted upon a child by his or her parents.
The history of family allowances in Canada shows us that the scheme was brought in primarily as a fiscal measure intended to bolster consumer spending. As such, the program stands on its own as a social security measure. That is what it is, and we should not wax overly eloquent by claiming any more for it in the way of equality of opportunity. The family allowance program is an integral part of the social security program because it recognizes that wage-earners are seldom in a position to relate their income to the size of their families. The birth of a child does not mean that a breadwinner is able to bargain on that account for an increase in wages or salary.
Although, as I have mentioned, the family allowance program is widely accepted throughout Canada at the present time, there are concerned people who raise some questions about it. Such questions have been raised at meetings in my constituency and it is appropriate to deal with at least two of them now. One question which has often been asked is whether this program encourages people to have more children-whether it is an incentive to procreation. It is true, as many authors have pointed out in recent works, that population growth presents a serious threat in today's world. I cannot, however, agree that the payment of higher family allowances, allowances which assist low-income families in financing child-raising, will automatically encourage people to have more children. The experience of other countries does not support such a contention.
Let me illustrate. We have been paying universal family allowances in Canada since 1945, while in the United States no such universal family allowance has been paid. Yet the birth rate in both countries has shown a remarkably similar trend. Both countries experienced fairly rapid declines in birth rates until the end of the 1930's, a small increase during World War II and a sharp increase thereafter until near the end of the 1950's. From then on, birth

September 11, 1973
Family Allowances
rates have been falling quite dramatically. For example, in Canada the number of live births per 1,000 of population fell from 26.1 to 16.8 in the period 1961 to 1971. There is, therefore, no evidence showing a strong statistical relation between the existence of a family allowance policy and the rise or fall of the birth rate. For example, some European countries have quite generous family allowance programs, yet there has been no rise in the birth rate. On the other hand, in African and Asian countries, where family allowances are unknown, the birth rate remains high. Here in Canada, the province of Quebec since 1967 has paid family allowances over and above those paid by the federal government. The Quebec government has been the only one to do this, yet the birth rate in Quebec has dropped from 26.1 live births per thousand in 1961 to 14.8 in 1971. The birth rate in Quebec is now the lowest of all Canadian provinces.
I realize that there are other factors that also have to be taken into account in assessing population trends. However, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the presence or absence of family allowance does not appear to affect to any degree the birth rate of a country. In addition, one cannot argue, in all humanity, that because some persons may think certain parents ought not to have children, we should allow children to suffer from poverty and malnutrition
It seems to me that other measures should be and are being adopted to encourage family planning. For example, the Department of National Health and Welfare has set up a program of public information and education on family planning. In addition, it is promoting the training of professionals and non-professionals who are engaged in providing family planning services as well as supporting family planning research projects. It is through these better programs of public information and education that we are attempting to come to grips with family planning. It is through the family allowance program that we are hoping to improve the living standards of the present generation of Canadian children who, through no fault of their own, may find themselves living in conditions of poverty.
That is one of the questions raised about the program; another is the claim that the increase in family allowances will require higher taxes. Let me reiterate what was said in the working paper on social security in Canada and what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said repeatedly. The implementation of the new over-all approach to social security, including higher family allowances, will take place over time ' within existing levels of taxation". The government has assigned a high priority to social reform. It seems to me that this is one of the very significant accomplishments of the present government and parliament. This means that, in deciding each year how to spend the tax dollars it has collected, the government will be assigning a great deal of importance to ensuring that appropriate amounts of money are allocated to fund the new social security programs, such as higher family allowances.
I conclude by saying that I commend the government for bringing in this measure to increase family allowances. I also share the interest of those hon. members who want
this measure to pass without delay so that higher family allowance payments can be received by the mothers of this country to help them and their children, hopefully as soon as next month.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my comments on Bill C.-223 will be brief. I support this bill to increase the amount paid for a child under 16 years to $12 beginning October 1, effective till January next. At present, as we all know, the family allowance payment for a child under 10 is $6, and for a child between the ages of 10 and 16 it is $8. The increase to $12 will not be taxable, and next January an average of $20 per child will be paid.
Although a newer member of this House, I have been looking with interest at what has been the Liberal government's policy on family allowances over the years, especially during the last majority government and the present one, and have been struck by the amazing number of reversals of policy that this Liberal government and its predecessor have undertaken. In 1972, when the Liberals had a majority government, they introduced a new family income security program. They tried to do what the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) has just said was not the aim of the family allowance system; they tried to use the family allowance system as an anti-poverty program. Under that proposal, which thank goodness never did get through the House, a higher amount of family allowance would have been given to low income families and a reduced amount to middle and upper income families. Under that plan some hundreds of thousands of upper income families would have received no family allowance.
That plan was rejected. It was rejected because the benefits to be paid the poorer families were inadequate and the benefits for middle income families were unrealistic. For example, a family with an income of $11,000 having five children would receive only 75 per cents per child, which was absolutely ridiculous. The NDP opposed that plan for many reasons, as mentioned by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). We maintained that family allowances should be universal.
We are now in 1973 and the Liberals have been chastised by the electorate and now form a minority government. A while ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) grandly announced that, beginning in January of 1974, family allowances would be increased to an average of $20 per child and would be subject to tax. Why that change of heart? Besides the obvious foolishness of the FISP plan, the government is now in a minority situation and realizes that the NDP holds the balance of power. It knows that since NDP opposed the previous plan, it will certainly oppose its reintroduction. Thus the government has come up with this $20 family allowance plan commencing next January.
Then this month the government has introduced yet another plan to increase family allowances to $12 per child beginning October 1. Why this about face, this further change? The reason is that the cost of living has risen so dramatically, and the NDP told the government a few weeks ago that an immediate increase in family allowance was one small way to help compensate families and enable them to meet the rising cost of living. But as is typical of Liberal government policy, it is too little, too late.
| Mr. Penner ]
September 11, 1973

I see it is now five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, so may I call it five o'clock and continue after the supper adjournment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English l

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-Veterans Affairs-Victoria, B.C.-Possible transfer of hospital from federal authority-Request for consideration of views of veterans; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) Veterans Affairs-Inquiry as to increases in war veterans' allowances; the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-Health-Request for assistance to Alliance for Life.
It being five o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.


Mr. Reid:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been agreement to take the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House proceed to consideration of Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (seat belts) standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock) moved: that Bill C-35, to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Seat belts), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act in such a way as to include a change which would make mandatory the equipping of all commercial motor vehicles, notably trucks and buses, with safety restraint seat belts, and further would make mandatory the use of such seat belts by the operators of commercial vehicles. Similar legislation is now in effect in
Vehicular Seat Belts
the United States and is saving lives on that country's highways. My contention is that the passage of this bill, or the furthering of what is proposed in it, would also have a good effect in Canada.
In Canada 5,000 people are killed, 190,000 people are injured-many of them for life-and $1 billion is the economic toll taken by traffic accidents every 12 months. To put it another way, in each and every week in Canada
1.000	Canadians are killed, 3,500 are injured, and the dollar loss is multimillion. If you consider this toll on the order of a war in which people are slaughtered, the economic loss is immense. We can calculate the cost of this road war for, say, a four year period. In the last four years
20.000	Canadians have been killed, 750,000 others have been injured, and no less than $4 billion have been lost, all through traffic accidents.
This is a toll comparable with that in a major war. I consider it demands more attention and more action on the part of the federal government and the provincial governments than have been given to it so far. We cannot hope to end this type of war, but I submit that with proper consideration we can hope to bring about a reduction in the toll that it takes, and perhaps produce an armistice during which we can have time to consider and put life saving legislation into effect. The three main features of motor vehicle accidents concern the driver, the vehicle, and the road or driving conditions. My proposal has to do with two of these elements.
In the United States commercial vehicle accidents
involving the vehicles covered by my bill claim 10,000 lives a year, with 124,000 persons disabled. In our terms, if we take the usual one-tenth standard with regard to the difference in population between the United States and Canada, this would mean that approximately 1,000 Canadians are killed every year and approximately 12,000 are injured in bus and truck accidents.
Towards reducing this loss the United States department
of transport, the federal highways administration, in 1970 introduced regulations providing that seat belts for the drivers of buses and the drivers and co-drivers of trucks and truck tractors had to be installed in all motor vehicles used in inter-state or foreign commerce built on or after July 1, 1971. Older vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1965, had to be fitted with seat belts by July 1, 1972. In the news release which was issued with respect to this legislation it was stated that a landmark provision of the new regulations is the requirement that a motor vehicle, which has a seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seat, shall not be driven unless the driver has properly restrained himself with the seat belt assembly.
This is exactly what my bill seeks to achieve in Canada, the mandatory use of safety seat belts in commercial vehicles. I think it is clear to anyone who considers the situation that the drivers of commercial vehicles, notably buses or trucks, have many lives other than their own in their hands when they are driving such vehicles. It is obvious that if an accident occurs and the driver of a commercial vehicle, a bus or a truck, is not wearing a seat belt and is hurled forward, or into the roof of the vehicle, or ejected from the vehicle, the vehicle would be out of control, and very likely would be involved in the destruc-

September 11, 1973
Vehicular Seat Belts
tion of property, and the possible loss of the lives of people in other vehicles.
It has been estimated that the use of proper seat belts in trucks and private cars has cut the rate of fatal accidents by 40 per cent in North America. In this bill I am seeking to make a change in the safety provisions with respect to motor vehicles, a change which I believe is necessary and simple to bring about. No doubt othei hon. members will argue that while the equipping of motor vehicles with safety facilities is a federal matter, the use of such facilities comes under provincial authority. This is quite true, and it presents a ridiculous picture.
The federal government, under the terms of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act passed by the House on March 11, 1970, has the power to prescribe, by regulation, the design, construction and functioning of motor vehicles manufactured or imported into Canada, including seat belts. But actually the Motor Vehicles Safety Act is not concerned with the use of motor vehicles since this is presently regulated by the provinces. We at the federal level can require seat belts to be in motor vehicles, but we cannot make any provision for their use.
In bringing this bill forward, Mr. Speaker, I am of course conversant with the facts I have just related. But what I am seeking here is not so much passage of the bill as drafted, but the referral of its subject matter to an appropriate committee of the House for further study, and hopefully the encouragement of federal-provincial action in an important and neglected field of Canadian transport safety.
In conclusion I would like to point out that this proposal is non-political in every sense. If the subject matter of the bill is allowed to be sent to committee for study and discussion, no doubt the committee can improve on what I have proposed. Passage of this bill or of similar legislation can save lives in this country. We in this House have the power to do that.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr, Speaker, I am pleased to see that an hon. member has introduced a bill that is not dissimilar to a bill introduced in the Ontario legislature by the provincial member representing the same riding as I represent, designated as Peel South. It is imperative that some regulation be implemented, some direction, some concrete steps be taken to indicate the desired safety requirements that must be installed in motor vehicles. However, I am a bit disturbed about the form of this bill, which indicates that the Governor in Council should pass regulations prescribing classes of belts and so on.
One of the greatest problems we have in this country is that pieces of legislation come before us with some good concept and then the bill goes on to say, "the Governor in Council shall by regulation-". Nothing ever happens, because in many cases the regulations are never formulated. Indeed, if they are, rules are made of a quasi-criminal nature which the citizen must respect, but these rules or regulations are never brought before the elected representatives of the country for discussion, comment and detailed consideration. They are in some way pulled out of

the hat by someone off in his ivory tower who decides that he and not the elected representatives of the nation should make the rules. It is that kind of thing I cannot accept.
While it is imperative that the automobile industry should be given direction in connection with safety, it is also imperative that this House of Commons give that direction. It should not be left to the whim of some inspector in some office somewhere. On this particular issue, I should like to commend the automobile industry for the efforts it has made in past years in connection with the installation of seat belts in private automobiles. Indeed, I find today that one cannot buy an automobile in which the belts do not ring or the buzzers sound or that the automobile will not start without someone hooking up a seat belt. So, this is the situation in which a private industry, the automobile industry, realizing the safety problems and criticism it has suffered as a result of books written by Nader and others, has decided to do something on its own. I am surprised this government has not given the automobile industry guidelines concerning the kinds of things members of this House, representing the people of Canada, would like to see that industry do.
Really there has been nothing. There have been pious hopes that there be safe automobiles, but really what has happened has been that we have a captive automobile industry which imposes on Canadians safety standards perhaps not even worked out in Canada, and perhaps not even those desired by Canadians, but rather requirements which come to us from across the border. The industry in Canada receives no direction from the government concerning the kinds of things we, as Canadians, require for safety on our highways.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) spoke of commercial vehicles. It is high time the government of this country, where commercial trucking means so much in the transport of goods and equipment, came forward with regulations, suggestions and an innovative approach to the industry to bring in safety features that would be appropriate to conditions in Canada.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member if he will allow it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question, of course, can be asked only with the consent of the hon. member.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If it is a short question, Mr. Speaker, since I have only a few moments.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the hon. member is for or against this bill?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is the kind of bright question I would expect from the other side.


An hon. Member:: They should fasten their seat belts.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is right; they should fasten their seat belts because that is what they will need when they are fired out of here.
September 11, 1973

Let me say that this bill needs more work done on it. It is the type of bill which should go to a committee of this House but not in its present form. Indeed, what should happen is that a motion should come before this House directing the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to make an investigation of the kind of regulations and suggestions which should be made for the automobile industry in connection with safety. I commend the hon. member for bringing this matter before the House. I know other members wish to speak on this subject, so I will conclude my speech now.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member, as he resumes his seat, would permit one short question from me?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes, certainly.


Barry Mather: Would he object to the subject matter, not the bill, going to a committee for further consideration?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, in my view the whole subject matter should go to the standing committee immediately. There are a number of important matters on which leadership should be given to the automobile industry. We should not have to depend on foreign suggestions relating to safety and have those imposed upon us here in Canada.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act is designed to protect the public against personal injury, impairment of health or death. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act achieves this end by permitting the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the use of the national safety mark in relation to motor vehicles. These regulations take the form of safety standards applicable to various classes of motor vehicles. In other words, it is illegal to apply the national safety mark to a motor vehicle unless that motor vehicle complies with the safety standards applying to it. Furthermore, provincial legislation makes it illegal to sell a new vehicle which does not bear the national safety mark. Regulations in the form of safety standards are not written directly into the act because the rate of technological change is of such a magnitude that it would be impractical to change the act every time a safety standard was improved.
During 1972, for instance, the safety standards were amended 18 times and three new standards were introduced. Before going further, I must emphasize that our objective is to obtain the highest possible seat belt usage rate. It is obviously impractical, however, to achieve this objective through the amendment of an act which already, by means of the regulations, requires seat belts to be fitted in every new automobile, together with a warning system in the case of front seat-occupants, which reminds the driver to fasten his seat belt and to ask his passenger to do the same.
Seat belts have been required equipment on new automobiles sold in Canada since the regulations, made pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, became effective on January 1, 1971. The effectiveness of the relevant safety standard was widened on July 1, 1972 to include trucks, buses and multi-purpose vehicles. This widening of the safety standard required a seat belt of a specified type
Vehicular Seat Belts
to be provided at each designated seating position of a truck and multi-purpose vehicle regardless of the vehicle weight. It also required that a seat belt of specified type be provided for the driver of a bus.
Various provincial governments required that seat belts be fitted to automobiles some time before the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act became law. Some provincial requirements on this topic go as far back as 1967. The adoption of what is called the auto pact influenced the design of automobiles designed in the United States and manufactured in this country, bringing about the widespread installation of seats belts in anticipation of government regulations.
Seat belt utilization is admittedly more infrequent than we would like it to be. However, improved motor vehicle safety regulations are resulting in safety belts which are more comfortable to wear and are easier to fasten and unfasten. These trends should result in the greater usage of these important safety devices. Furthermore, amendments to the motor vehicle safety regulations, which are in the process of being proposed for adoption at present, will make safety belts even easier to use, resulting, we hope, in a further increase in their usage.
The proposed amendments address themselves to emergency locking retractors and one piece shoulder and lap straps among other things. The inertia reel device allows the wearer of the belt full freedom of movement under all conditions except in emergencies which involved the rapid deceleration of the vehicle. The one piece shoulder and lap strap requirement will result in the wider use of shoulder straps. The effect of this trend will be to reduce the number of instances of the occupant of the automobile striking the windshield, the steering wheel, the mirror, the instrument panel, and other objects within the occupant compartment of the vehicle, thereby reducing injuries in motor vehicle accidents.
The national highway traffic safety administration of the United States government has recognized the hostility of a large majority of automobile occupants to the wearing of seat belts and is slowly moving toward the introduction of a regulation which will require the installation of automatic occupant restraint systems which will necessitate no action on the part of the occupant to make them effective. These systems, however, are complex and costly when compared with the well-tried and well-understood seat belt. It is hoped that in Canada gentle persuasion of motorists to use the seat belt will result in the saving of lives and reduction of injuries, thus creating a trend superior to those that the more complex restraint systems favoured by the United States government can achieve.
While comparing the Canadian situation with that prevailing in the United States, it should be pointed out that since August 15, 1973, U.S. safety regulations require automobile seat belt systems to be interlocked with the motor in such a way that the vehicle cannot be moved unless the driver and passengers on the front seat are first seated and then have fastened their seat belts properly. In Canada, it is considered that such an involved arrangement might merely increase the autmobile users hostility toward seat belts as a result of the numerous inconveni-

September 11, 1973
Vehicular Seat Belts
ences and annoyances. Consequently, the ultimate aim of the widespread employment of seat belts would not be served.
The interlocking of the seat belts with the motor has been included in the proposed amendments to the Canadian motor vehicle safety standards as an option with which the manufacturers may comply if they so desire. It is probable that some automobiles incorporating the interlocked feature will be on sale in this country after September of this year, since a notice leaving it optional in our regulations has already been given in the Canada Gazette Part I of May 26, 1973. For reasons of ease of production, there will be a tendency for identical vehicles to be sold on both sides of the border. The risk of substantial penalties for the sale of non-complying vehicles in either Canada or the U.S.A. could make the small production cost savings resulting from deletion of ignition interlock hardware unattractive for the manufacturers.
The warning light and buzzer telling the driver that he or one of his charges has not fastened his or her seat belt is fairly easily defeated and it is disquieting to hear that many auto salesmen are quick to show possible buyers how to defeat the system. This type of activity destroys to some extent the good work done by the federal safety standards, and if we are going to achieve good results in the fight against death and injury on the highway, this type of behaviour must stop.
A number of complaints have been received by the Ministry of Transport regarding the comfort of seat belts and expressing a fear that the shoulder strap will cause injury to the neck rather than minimize injuries in the event of an accident. These fears are not supported by the in-depth accident investigations conducted by the ministry and the nine university accident investigation teams under contract to the Ministry of Transport.
Three federal safety standards address the matter of holding the occupants of a vehicle inside that vehicle and of preventing them from striking the inside of a vehicle in an accident. Seat belt installations in passenger cars, seat belt assemblies and seat belt anchorages comprise these three standards. They result in a well engineered restraint system on vehicles built in the last few years. But how can the owners of vehicles built before these standards became effective protect themselves and their passengers? It becomes increasingly difficult and not really practical to require the fitting of seat belts to older vehicles because in most cases the engineering task would be too great and the operation economically not feasible. The correct installation of occupant restraint systems as we understand them today affects many parts of the vehicle such as the floor structure, door posts, the roof and the seat frames. It is impractical to add to older vehicles the refinements of recent models, but if by the stroke of a pen we are going to demand that a large segment of the motoring public protect itself by taking some action, then the segment that is unable to protect itself by the means provided to the majority can, justifiably perhaps, complain that it is being discriminated against.
One class of the population that is often forgotten when seat belts are under discussion is children. Good child seats are available for children of up to approximately three years of age and, as we have discussed, the large

majority of automobiles are fitted with seat belts of fairly good quality. The smallest occupant which seat belts are required to accommodate by the safety standard, however, is a fifth percentile female. This female is 59 inches in height and has a weight of 102 pounds. Thus, a child over three years of age who may weigh in the region of 20 to 30 pounds and is smaller than a small adult female, is not specifically provided for. There is considerable danger in young children, even if they are well developed physically, using seat belts designed for adults because of their malleable bone structure. Furthermore, internal injuries can be sustained as a result of a belt exerting too much pressure on the abdominal area of children because of their lack of muscular development. Pediatricians recommend that adult seat belt systems should certainly not be used for children until they weigh 40 to 50 pounds and are four to five years of age at least. Child seat manufacturers are ignoring to a large extent children between the ages of three and six, thus the parents do not have the option of purchasing special seats for their offspring if they are of certain ages and weights.
Shoulder belts should generally not be used by children until they have reached 55 inches in height and are approximately nine to ten years of age because of the possibility of facial and neck injuries due to the high location of the belt relative to the child. Many imported vehicles have been fitted with one piece lap and shoulder harnesses, and all Canadian and imported vehicles will be so fitted after September 1, 1973, so it will be impossible for the child to use only the lap belt.
We will be either forcing children into unsuitable restrain systems or leaving them unprotected if we make the wearing of seat belts mandatory, when what we should perhaps be doing is requiring manufacturers of child seats to offer a wider and more reasonably priced seat for the older child. It should be mentioned that under the Hazardous Products Act a federal standard for children's car seats and harnesses does exist, making it illegal in Canada to sell a child seat that does not comply with safety requirements set out in the standard.
A rather unexpected influence on this whole matter is in the course of developing behind the scenes to some extent. This influence is exerted by the courts in withholding a certain percentage of the damages originally awarded to a plaintiff because that plaintiff did not wear the seat belt provided. The particular case of interest is Jackson et al v. Millar et al, where the judge applied a reduction of 10 per cent to the damages awarded to Jackson because he failed to wear his seat belt.
The accident in which Jackson suffered serious injury was the result of a number of causes. A party of three youths decided at a relatively late hour on a Sunday evening to go to a drive-in movie theatre. One of three was able to borrow his father's car and they set off at about eleven o'clock p.m. After alternately dozing and watching the movies until the early hours of the morning, they decided to drive to a cottage owned by the parents of one of the youths. They found nobody at the cottage and decided to return to Toronto to their homes.
September 11, 1973

During the early portion of the journey the two passengers slept quite a lot, that is, until the accident occurred in which Jackson was injured. The car went into a skid and spun around, during which time it appears to have struck some guard rails causing Jackson to be thrown out of the vehicle. The other two occupants were unharmed in the accident even though they were not wearing their seat belts; however, their location in the vehicle was such that they were not adjacent to the door which sprung open. Jackson was seriously injured. Although the only fault on his part was not to have worn his seat belt, and keeping in mind that the driver was found to have acted negligently in driving when he was tired, damages awarded to Jackson were reduced by 10 per cent, this being the amount by which the judge found the plaintiff to be responsible.
Thus, in reducing the damages allowed to Jackson, the judge could well be setting a series of precedents which, when they have received sufficient publicity, will cause people to be a little more careful about wearing the restraint systems provided for them.
In conclusion, I would like to restate my strong support for increased seat belt usage in Canada. I will support any program that will increase its use. I do not believe that the proposed amendments to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act contained in Bill C-35 can achieve this purpose. The safety standards prescribed in the regulations made under this act are already providing seat belts for passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and also for drivers of buses.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit one question before he resumes his seat?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) is asking the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) for permission to ask a question.


Charles Robert Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Barry Mather: Would the hon. member who has just concluded his interesting remarks object, not to the bill but to the subject matter of the bill going to a committee for further study?


Charles Robert Turner: I agree with that, Mr. Speaker.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by the parliamentary secretary, some of which was basically a reading of the motor vehicle safety regulations of which we are all aware. I also listened with great interest to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather), and I offer my compliments to him on his initiative in bringing forward the important matter of further safety in motor vehicles in Canada. I believe in the safety of all Canadians and therefore I should like to add, possibly in committee, some further amendments to the proposed legislation.
It is, as most members are aware, an indisputable fact that seat belts have saved not only many lives but have on numerous occasions prevented serious and crippling injury. Those countries that have passed such legislation are experiencing dramatic reductions in loss of life. All we
Vehicular Seat Belts
have to do is look at the example of Australia which implemented seat belt regulations for all drivers and passengers in private vehicles and drivers of commercial vehicles. One year after this legislation came into effect, a 20 per cent reduction in deaths by traffic accident was recorded.
Mr. Speaker, the most advantageous aspect of the proposed legislation is that it will serve to make people aware of the value of these safety features in their automobiles. Advertising campaigns by insurance companies, governments and safety councils have already had a certain effect, but legislation in this regard will doubtless enhance the safety program presently being undertaken.
If we but considered the legislation currently in existence in most provinces and states in North America concerning the use of crash helmets by motorcyclists, and the overnight reduction that legislation had in reducing serious head injuries to these individuals, we would all give serious consideration to the immediate implementation of the bill presently before this House.
Mr. Speaker, no one speaking in support of this bill is speaking without facts and figures to back up this proposal. The success encountered by other safety studies speaks for itself. I doubt if there is a member in this House who is not aware of an instance where someone they know escaped serious injury because they were wearing their seat belt, or transversely, suffered serious injury because they had neglected to use the equipment, which is mandatory for all motor vehicles sold in this country, as we all know.
Mr. Speaker, if through this legislation we are able to save one life or prevent one serious crippling injury, then we will have served a great purpose. If through this legislation people throughout our land become safety-conscious and safety-minded, then this too will mark the proposed legislation a success. If we prevent the mutilation of one body hurled through a windshield, or the face of a child being scarred for life, then this too will mark this legislation successful.
As a new member, I am not exactly sure what the amendment means. The explanatory note to the bill is in part as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to require the equipping of commercial vehicles, trucks and buses, with safety belts in the driver position and to require the use of these restraint belts by the driver-
I take it that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock intends that safety belts be compulsory only in commercial vehicles and that drivers of commercial vehicles should wear them when this legislation goes through. When this bill is passed to the committee, for the reasons I have stated I would like to see it contain a provision compelling the use of seat belts by both driver and passengers in private automobiles in this country. Such a step would make the legislation truly all-encompassing. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with these amendments in mind that I will propose in committee, I would urge all hon. members to support the bill.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support this bill because it tries to take positive action to deal with one of the most serious social

September 11, 1973
Vehicular Seat Belts
problems confronting our country. Since the first traffic fatality in North America in the year 1899 there have been almost two million such fatalities in the United States and Canada. In this country we are presently suffering between 5,000 and 6,000 traffic fatalities per year, and it is often brought to our attention that more Canadians and Americans have been killed in traffic accidents than have been killed in warfare in this century.
If we were confronted with the prospect of 5,000 or 6,000 Canadians being killed in military action somewhere in the world, this House would be filled; this country would be concerned. Yet the challenge is there that such a large number of Canadians are facing death within the next 12 months through traffic accidents. We must become increasingly conscious of the need to take steps that will lead to greater traffic safety.
I should like to take a few moments to deal with an aspect of this problem not dealt with by the bill and which perhaps cannot be dealt with by committee. That is the limitation on the effectiveness of such legislation. I agree that we should have such an act, and I agree that the owners of the vehicles affected should be required by law to equip their vehicles with the kind of seat belt that the bill would demand.
But we must remember, even if we accept the terms of reference mentioned earlier by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), that we cannot through legislation make sure that the maximum number of drivers of commercial and personal vehicles will actually use seat belts. You can legislate ownership but you cannot legislate common sense. The trouble is that we can have laws requiring cars, trucks and other vehicles to be equipped with seat belts, but we cannot require people to use them. Even the threat of a penalty often may not be enough to make people do what common sense instructs them to do. That is why I think the government ought to institute an effective educational program.
It has been my experience in elementary and secondary schools of a particular community of this country that such traffic safety educational training programs have an impressive effectiveness. I use the occasion of this debate to draw to the attention of the House the need for the federal government to invest more resources in traffic safety education. We are told that not only are 6,000 people being killed on our roads every year but that 200,000 are sent to hospital as a result of traffic accidents. Indeed, one-tenth of hospital beds in Canada are regularly occupied by accident victims.
In such a situation I think it is mandatory for the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, to help boards of education finance expanded traffic educational and safe driving programs. If we were to do that we would, over the years, build up in the minds of the public a consciousness about this matter that would reinforce what this bill seeks to do.
Speaking in terms of what this would cost, I remind hon. members that local boards are possessed of limited resources and therefore must get assistance from the federal level of government which has much greater resources. If we were to put into traffic safety education

programs across this country even a fraction of the millions of dollars we are squandering on some kookie schemes which have been carried out under LIP and OFY, we would be doing a great service for the safety of the people of this country.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to say a few words on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act with specific reference to seat belts. Having listened to other hon. members speaking, I also feel that the jurisdiction in this field is that of the provinces and of the federal government.
The seat belts now being fitted to vehicles sold in this country are undoubtedly the single most valuable and effective safety device required by the motor vehicle safety regulations. For this very reason I am not opposed in principle to laws requiring the wearing of seat belts. In a very real sense they are a logical outcome of the public concern over traffic safety which brought the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations into existence.
Perhaps it is time for us to say to the public, "The government has done a great deal in recent years to make safe the motor vehicles you drive. Now we are going to require you to do your part and to use this most effective safety device, instead of either ignoring it completely or actively inhibiting its function". I have very serious doubt, Mr. Speaker, that amendment of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act is a proper or even a feasible method of compelling the use of seat belts, but I do not propose to dwell on that point at the moment.
I express my concern that this bill, undoubtedly introduced with the most humane of motives, attacks only one part of a larger problem, implies little appreciation of the wider issues involved, and consequently could ultimately cost more Canadian lives than it would save. Mandatory seat belt wearing could save as many as 1,500 lives each year and could eliminate or alleviate many thousands of injuries which now occur unnecessarily as the result of motor vehicle accidents. However, a partial measure, introduced without the necessary preparatory programs, could well produce such a hostile public reaction that subsequent, more comprehensive and effective measures would be condemned to public rejection from the outset.
For I believe, Mr. Speaker, that public acceptance is essential to success in such measures as the one we are discussing. In a democracy such as ours, conformity with the law does not depend on the powers of the enforcement agencies. It depends on the respect of the ordinary citizen for the social purpose and inherent reasonableness of the provisions of the law. And I believe that the actual usage rates of seat belts in this country indicate that we have some extensive ground work to do before we will get the acceptance which is so essential to success.
For this reason, the government is currently conducting a number of independent studies of the factors which determine seat belt usage. Why do many people appear unconvinced, in the face of all the contrary evidence, that wearing a seat belt substantially increases one's chance of escaping death or injury in a collision? Why do people who believe in the value of seat belts so frequently fail to "buckle up"? How many people support the principle of

legal compulsion to increase seat belt usage? Until we have answers to questions such as these, I cannot but regard Bill C-35 as premature and likely to endanger the ultimate achievement of its own commendable objectives.
Specific studies are going on. I obviously cannot anticipate in any detail the results of such studies as I have mentioned. But it seems to me that there are likely to be at least three distinct types of objection to the use of seat belts which demand separate consideration in drafting any law requiring their use. The first of these might be characterized as rational objections based on personal observations. For example, it is unfortunately all too common to find that if one wears the diagonal shoulder belt, one cannot reach the parking brake release or the window-winder, or perhaps some more vital control. And to get into this situation one has to pass a small test of engineering knowledge; you need co-ordination of hand and eye to fasten the belt in the first place.
I think the public may legitimately press for improvements in the convenience and comfort of seat belts. I hope that the improvements which have been introduced into the motor vehicle safety regulations for the 1974 model year will result in substantially increased rates of seat belt usage. I think that any government is bound to examine very ca fully, before introducing legislation requiring the use of seat belts, the practicability of such a requirement. In a recent, well-publicized study conducted by three students of industrial engineering at the University of Toronto it was found that the seat belt design in a number of current vehicles significantly limited the driver's access to vehicle controls. These findings are also being confirmed in the continuous evaluations of current model vehicles being conducted by the government, in addition to its testing for compliance with the motor vehicle safety regulations.
We must also anticipate a considerable number of rational objections based on misinformation. Questions are asked such as, "But what if I'm strapped into a burning car following a collision?" "What if my car ends up in a river or lake?" Both of these occurrences are quite rare. In both cases a restrained occupant has a far better chance of remaining conscious during the initial phases, and consequently of extricating himself. A seat belt buckle is simpler to release than to fasten, and except in the most improbable circumstance that the buckle itself is damaged in the collision, it will unfailingly release the belt when required to do so. Objections such as these should be countered by an appropriate public information campaign before any law requiring the wearing of seat belts is introduced, if it is to obtain the support which is necessary.
A further factor which would necessitate a public information campaign is the general lack of understanding of the importance of correct positioning and adjustment of the seat belt. Within the practical constraints imposed by the necessity to fit a large range of sizes and shapes of occupant, the seat belt normally falls in approximately the correct position on the body. It can, however, be significantly affected by the seated posture of the occupant. At best, an incorrectly positioned seat belt is less effective than it might be, and at worst it may be lethal. In particu-
Vehicular Seat Belts
lar, it is important that the lap belt should be positioned as low as possible so that it does not bear on soft abdominal tissue. Fatal internal injuries have been caused by lap belts worn high on the abdomen.
Similarly, the importance of not twisting the belt is too little known. The width of the belt plays a vital part in distributing the collision forces over an area. A twisted or rolled belt applies a more concentrated and potentially more injurious force to the body. The importance of ensuring that this type of information is available to every vehicle user before the introduction of a law requiring seat belt use need hardly be stressed.
Finally, one must expect to encounter entirely irrational objections to the wearing of seat belts and these may be the hardest of all to take into account in legislation. I believe that any law requiring the wearing of seat belts must provide for certain exemptions. An irrational fear of being so restrained would seem to justify such exemption, if it can be medically certified. Exemptions might well be required on a number of other grounds, in particular that of physical deformity of the driver or passenger.
While I have treated the problem of gaining public acceptance of the type of law envisaged in Bill C-35 in a necessarily abbreviated way and have barely touched upon a number of other important questions, I hope I have said enough to persuade this House that the real objectives of the bill are most unlikely to be achieved by instant legislation.
The introduction of a law requiring the wearing of seat belts is a matter necessitating the most careful planning and preparation. I think it is easy to be misled by the Australian experience in this area, to underestimate the preparatory work which was done there and to overestimate the ease with which such legislation can be translated for Canadian use. I also fear, Mr. Speaker, that we may soon see in France some of the unfortunate side effects of a somewhat limited requirement for the use of seat belts; one, moreover, which was introduced by regulation and apparently without any prior effort to inform the public of its intent and objectives.
In my concentration on the issues involved in the introduction of a law requiring the use of seat belts I have so far ignored the alternative methods which are available to achieve the underlying objectives of Bill C-35, namely, to increase the safety of vehicle occupants through the use of occupant restraint systems. However, it is important that we do not disregard these other options.
As I have tried to indicate, we cannot yet consider seat belt wearing legislation to be a panacea. For this reason, the government is also undertaking a basic study to determine the relative effectiveness of the various alternative types of restraint systems which are now available. The study will provide data which, hopefully, will enable us to compare a wide range of alternative technical and legislative policies, including some which would undoubtedly fall within areas of provincial authority.
In conclusion, I should like to reaffirm my support for any measure which results in improved utilization of seat belts. I have, however, endeavoured to show that there are very serious dangers in attempting to bring about such improvement through piecemeal legislation introduced

September 11, 1973
Family Allowances
without the careful planning and supporting programs which I believe to be necessary if the intent of the legislation is to be realized.
I have briefly mentioned some of the studies which the government is currently undertaking and which bear upon the substance of the bill before the House. I have also attempted to place the question of legislation requiring seat belt wearing in proper perspective with other approaches to the same objective which are also under study by the government.
While I support wholeheartedly the aims of this bill, I do not believe it would achieve the results which its sponsor anticipates. Further, I am concerned lest it endanger the achievement of the desired reductions in deaths and injuries of vehicle occupants by subsequent, more comprehensive or alternative measures.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but as it is six o'clock the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, with the House's consent I would ask for leave to revert to routine proceedings in order to table a committee report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report on Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Isabelle.
An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-223, to amend the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned this debate at five o'clock for private members' hour I had just begun my speech on Bill C-223, the bill to increase the family allowance to $12 beginning October 1. This is the government's response to the rising cost of living and is an attempt to help families that find it very difficult to feed and clothe children. I was outlining some of the policies of the Liberal government both when it had a majority and in the present minority situation, and referred to the various family income security plans the government had proposed and which in the wisdom of this parliament had been rejected. We now see an interim measure in which the minister of health has decided to raise the allowance to $12 per child. The allowance will be non-taxable. At five o'clock I was pointing out that this step was so typical of Liberal policy, being too little, too late.
The question that comes to the mind of every Canadian is this. If this is an anti-inflation policy, if it is a policy to combat the high cost of food and clothing, why was the family allowance not raised earlier than this date? I have a suspicion that the family allowance would not have been raised at all had it not been for the rail strike, for the fact that parliament was recalled and that the New Democratic Party presented, as one of its proposals to the government to help Canadians meet the cost of living, the suggestion that there be an immediate increase in family allowances.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) as late as midAugust said while he was vacationing in Kenora that prices were hurting but that this was not sufficient to recall parliament. I wonder whether he would have had the nerve to come to my constituency of Sault Ste. Marie and make that statement, for in August a survey conducted by the Canadian Press showed that Sault Ste. Marie was the second most expensive place in Canada in which to buy food. According to this Canadian Press survey, the cost of a food basket of standard products purchased in Saint John was $16.14, in Toronto $13.57, and in Sault Ste. Marie $15.69. The total rise in the food price index in one year has been 14.7 per cent.
This situation, Mr. Speaker, did not catch the Liberal government unawares. Month after month Statistics Canada were documenting the increases in the cost of food. Yet the Minister of Finance and his colleagues in the cabinet did not consider it of sufficient importance to recall parliament this summer to deal with the cost of living. While the cost of feeding a family has been mounting, the government has been procrastinating.
September 11, 1973

In its arguments, which we have heard time and time again, the government have stated that they could not afford to increase pensions or family allowances. In saying that, how on earth do they assume that the Canadian consumer can afford to pay exorbitant prices for food and clothing for his children? All families have been forced to cut corners and make do, especially families of low or moderate income.
Consider, Mr. Speaker, what faces a mother who is sending her children back to school. She has to buy new clothes and shoes for her children. I have received letters to the effect that this fall many mothers are not doing this; they are patching clothes, using hand-me-downs for their children, trying to stretch the life span of a pair of shoes. They are cutting back in this way in order to try to beat the high cost of living. But how on earth do you cut back on essential foods? Growing children need proper nourishment and you cannot cut back on this. Yet the government has sat placidly by watching month by month as the cost of food has risen.
Of course, we have Mrs. Beryl Plumptre, chairman of the Food Prices Review Board. What kind of soothing advice did she give to people trying to beat the cost of living? To mothers of families she said, "Don't buy the more expensive kinds of food. Don't buy steak. Use hamburger instead." I checked the price of hamburger in my constituency, Mr. Speaker. Last year it was 88 cents a pound; now it is $1.12 a pound. There is small comfort there. People cannot even afford hamburger if they are members of unorganized labour, if they do not have unions to help increase their wages or if they are living on fixed incomes.
While the Minister of Finance and the government refused to recall parliament to deal with the issues, somehow mothers had to feed and clothe their families. As I have said, it was hard enough for middle-income families, and it was virtually impossible for the 414 million poor in Canada, those already living below the poverty line. How on earth did the government expect them to cope with the situation? If it had not been for the railway strike and the NDP shopping list we would not have this bill before us today. This bill, to raise family allowances immediately, is only a stopgap measure, and the government well knows it.
Time and again we have tried to prod the government into action, but how reluctant it has been to move. There has never been real initiative on its part. It has always adopted ad hoc measures, reacting to the pressures of the moment, to public opinion and to the minority situation in which it finds itself. From the government and its predecessor we have not seen a concentrated attack on the cost of living in the broader perspective, and by this I mean a redistribution of income through a fair tax policy. I do not know how many members of this House and of the Canadian public are aware of the injustices that are present in our tax system and in the distribution of wealth.
My colleague from Oshawa-Whitby alluded to this point this afternoon, with many statistics. I would like to cite but one. In 1961, taking into account all taxes direct and
Family Allowances
indirect, a family earning under $2,000 a year paid 60 per cent of its income in taxes, whereas families with income over $10,000 paid only 38 per cent of their income in taxes. This unjust system was continued for over a decade by successive Liberal and Conservative governments. Recently some relief was afforded through reforms in the personal income tax laws which our party advocated when the House met in January and which were reflected in the Speech from the Throne.
We do well to remind ourselves of the other side of the coin, that our tax policies point out where the concern of the old-line parties really lies. Here I am referring to the tax concessions given to large corporations. This Liberal government, which says it is so concerned about the average Joe Public, gave $500 million in tax cuts to large corporations in its recent budget, despite the tremendous increase in corporate profits over the last quarter of the previous year.
I want the Canadian people to think what that $500 million would have meant had it been distributed among Canadian families to help them meet the cost of living. If it were distributed among the 314 million families with children, it would average $140 per family. That would have been a constructive move. That would have been meaningful. That would have been a fair and just way to help the Canadian people. But I have no confidence that we will get such a just tax system from the Liberal government or from its mirror image, the Conservative party.
Now the government is giving an increase of $6 or $8 per child through the proposals in this bill. This is too little, too late. But still it is better than nothing. I want the Canadian public to reflect on the history of the old-line parties, especially the Liberal party and its family income security programs. There has been no real initiative on its part in launching a basic attack on the cost of living and on income inequalities. Such initiative will not spring from within that party. It takes prodding. It takes pressure from the public. It takes pressure from the parties in this minority House of Commons to get the government to act. Over the years the NDP has been the catalyst. In the past we have argued for adequate social security measures, adequate pensions and adequate family allowances. We will continue to do so. We will support this bill as a stopgap measure, but we will continue to argue for greater increases and for a fair and just over-all social security policy.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill to increase family allowances to $12 per month per child. But to remain silent would be to turn my back on my true feelings about the bill and the economic and social policies of the government. I think these feelings are shared by many, if not most Canadians today who are bewildered, frustrated and disillusioned by the erratic, self-serving approach of the federal government.
Indeed, Sir, last week I conducted interviews with 159 of my constituents in various economic and social areas of Edmonton-Strathcona. I found that 52 per cent of the people I talked to are dissatisfied with the performance of the government, and 64 per cent think the government is not taking sufficient steps to control inflation. There is a
6444

September 11, 1973
Family Allowances
deep desire by the public for firm, comprehensive policies to cure "stagflation" which, however you define that word, means we have 8 per cent inflation with 5.5 per cent unemployment. Because the public is not getting firm policies from the government, a sense of disillusionment is becoming pronounced in Canada today. This sense of disillusionment with the political process is a far more important question than the government realizes.
The family allowances bill before us is a reflection of the reactive response that so characterizes the government, and it puts me, I am frank to admit, in a quandary. I am very much opposed to increasing public dependency on the government, yet I can see how desperately the poor and middle-class sections of society need to be helped as a result of runaway inflation.
This summer I travelled by car across Canada from Alberta to P.E.I., an exercise I recommend to all members of parliament as distinct from weekly air trips during which you neither see nor feel the fabric of Canada. I talked to many Canadians. I could see just how much an improvement in the family allowance level would mean to them. This experience helped me to resolve the struggle within myself, of fighting big government on the one hand and having concern for the practicalities of helping people who definitely need to be helped.
But, Mr. Speaker, let not members of the government hold up their heads in pride at what they are doing in presenting us with this bill. Let them not think that a $4 to $6 monthly hike in family allowances is the answer to hardship caused by inflation. Let them not think that justice is being delivered to the Canadian people, because this bill, the pension bills and the subsidies that have constituted the government's response to the inflation crisis all deal with secondary problems.
While we debate family allowances as a supposed cure for our problems, the fundamental problem of income distribution remains obscured. A bold, new social program for the seventies is desperately needed, Mr. Speaker, not a tinkering with the family allowance system of the forties. And if there is any doubt about this, ask the people of Edmonton-Strathcona right on their doorsteps, as I did. Ask the demonstrators who came to parliament this afternoon to protest against the gouging of the public through high food prices. Ask the five million Canadians living below the poverty line if an additional $4 to $6 a month per child will lift them out of poverty.
The social security system in Canada today is in chaos. The whole system, at all government levels, costs Canadians more than $6 billion a year, yet it has not significantly alleviated poverty let alone eliminated it. There are five million Canadians living below the poverty line. The special Senate Committee on Poverty reported that "poverty is the great social issue of our time". For the chronically unemployed, the unskilled, the poorly educated, the disadvantaged, infirm, aged, one-parent families or inhabitants of depressed areas, poverty has become a way of life, an ugly subculture within Canadian society.
These are the people who have been most hurt by the government's economic slowdown and inflation. Generally, they have inferior educational, medical, cultural and

information services and lack the skill or knowledge to make use of many of the facilities available to the general public. The greatest tragedy is the children, for they grow up in a cycle of poverty. The welfare system is itself a block to improving the lot of the poor because social programs are not co-ordinated among the three levels of government; there is confusion and intergovernmental ill-will.
The focus of government help is on the casualties of our system instead of the prevention of problems. And to compound this, the increasing welfare costs are squeezing money for prevention programs. People on welfare do not have the sympathy of Canadians today. This is because the government has emphasized social assistance programs so much that the line has been crossed from protection to reliance. The welfare system was designed originally as a supplement to the economic system. Now it has become a political tool of the government, used by the government to bail it out of political emergencies. The government, which brought in restrictive economic policies in the first place, tries to help people by adding social programs such as family allowances which eat up tax dollars and add to the working man's burden. This philosophy is wrong and is producing an overdependence on government by people who should be able to take care of themselves.
The unemployment insurance program frequently provides excessive benefits, particularly in cases where people have other sources of income. What is especially offensive to Canadians is that there are tens of thousands of people who find themselves in the position where taking a job at or near minimum wages provides them with less cash disposable income than they can get from the welfare program. This is certainly unfait to the working poor and contributes to the feelings of alienation in our society. Unless courageous action is taken, the future will bring spiralling costs necessary to prop up an ineffective welfare system. The result will be dissatisfaction and bitterness among both those who give and those who receive. And perhaps worst of all, the element of compassion toward those genuinely in need will erode away. Then our society truly will be poor.
Government is better able to help those who cannot help themselves when it creates an economic climate that enables employable people to help themselves. It is not the government but the initiative of free men and women that enables people to work out their own destinies. The human spirit is best served by encouraging people to be dependent on themselves rather than on the government. This is the route to a life of human dignity for the poor, not perpetuation of government handouts as we have before us in the family allowance program.
Therefore, Canada's goal must be the creation of greater income-earning potential among the poor themselves. When this principle is recognized, there will be public support for more manpower programs to train the unskilled and retrain those in declining industries, and for more adult education leading to employment in expanding industrial projects. A better step toward this goal is to increase the minimum wage rather than try to advance family allowances. Thus people are given money for work done, not subsidized for work not done.
September 11, 1973

Instead of collecting extra tax dollars necessary to finance so many social welfare plans, the government could reduce taxes so as to offset increased costs due to higher minimum wages. An increase in minimum wages actually costs the country less because it cuts down on social security costs. We would then be paying people, not governments. Through steps such as this government is taking, it is lurching toward a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians. The handwriting is on the wall. All you have to do is put together the speeches, actions and policy papers of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).
The government thinks it is doing a good thing in moving Canadians along the road to more social security. But it is leading us deeper into the bottomless pit of the welfare state. And what is unconscionable is that it is using the national emergency of runaway inflation to make Canadian families even more dependent on the largesse of the government in order to buy food, clothes and shelter.
I want social security, too, as a protection for those who truly need help, the handicapped, the poor, the aged. But I am not going to sit idly by and watch this government play politics with the continued development of the Canadian people into a great international nation. I will fight this government in this chamber and on the hustings, because the Liberal Party believes in making people more dependent on the state and my party believes in the uplifting spirit of human independence.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the previous speaker say that this government or a subsequent government will have to resort to the guaranteed annual income to establish security while respecting individual freedom in Canada. The hon. member mentioned the increasing cost of living, minimum wages and price and wage freeze but the bill now before us relates to the family allowances increase to $12 from October 1.
At this stage, I would say that for years now we have been requesting family allowances-not only $12 a month but $20-and I would call the minister's attention on the fact that in 1956 when I was the Liberal candidate in the riding of Abitibi East, and my leader was Mr. Georges-Emile Lapalme, both wearing a white beret at Val-d'Or, we urged the government to grant monthly universal family allowances of $20.
Now the minister is a bit late with his intention of increasing family allowances since it has been a necessity for a long time.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: He was not born yet!


David Réal Caouette: Perhaps he was not born yet. Anyway, he was not very old in 1956 as this happened 17 years ago.


An hon. Member:: He is a young minister!


David Réal Caouette: Surely he was already born even though he is a young minister. Perhaps he was
Family Allowances
too young to understand. But even today even though he is older, his understanding has not improved.
In 1956, we requested a monthly $20 and my colleagues and I have been here since 1962 and urging for monthly and universal family allowances of $20 and I regret that bill C-223 is not providing for the payment of benefits amounting to $20 a month retroactive to January 1, 1973.
Some ministers said that wage increases have just been granted to railway employees retroactive to January 1, 1973. We are in favour of that. But as far as making the new family allowances retroactive, the government does not understand that.
Mr. Speaker, we have asked that a $20 monthly allowance be paid directly by Ottawa to all Canadian children. Yet, this bill provides for a $12 increase and a further $8 increase effective January 1, 1974. But the plan will be provincially administered, and this is where I make reservations. The $12 allowance will be guaranteed to all, but the provinces will be free to play with the remaining $8. In fact, they will be in a position to grant $25 to a group of children and $15 to another. And I am under the impression that in the province of Quebec for instance, $2 or $3 more will be paid each month directly to all and then the remaining $5 will be used indiscriminately. It will not be the first time that this has happened.
It came to my knowledge, with respect to winter works about 2 or 3 years ago, that Ottawa was paying the provinces-I am speaking specifically of the province of Quebec-for the work done, and whenever municipalities or organized groups asked for payment, Quebec answered: It is Ottawa that did not pay. Therefore, they kept those people waiting and forced them to borrow from credit unions or banks, in order to pay their winter works before the grants were paid by Ottawa. I once asked specific questions and learned that the grants had actually been paid to the province of Quebed but that Quebec had tampered with the federal money to pay something else.
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that exactly the same thing will happen with family allowances as with winter works. How nice! Those people in Quebec criticize Ottawa all the time, the federal government, the central government, they protest against the encroachments upon provincial autonomy; but when the time comes to ensure provincial autonomy they misappropriate funds under the pretext that they are poor, that Ottawa will not spend a penny and that they are ill treated.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am fedup with those crybabies who are far too many in the province of Quebec. One of them spends his time railing against Ottawa, namely Rene Levesque, leader of the separatist party, who believes and would have the people in Quebec believe that with the advent of a separatist government, Quebec would become civilized. We had an example of such dealings this afternoon. During the news broadcast a while ago, I heard that the New Democratic Party regime in Chile had been overthrown.


An hon. Member:: It is Mr. Allende.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Allende, yes. The president even committed suicide, according to the latest news.
6446

September 11, 1973
Family Allowances
Mr. Speaker, three years ago, before Mr. Allende was democratically elected, he said exactly what members of the New Democratic Party are saying in this chamber. He said exactly what Rene Levesque is saying in Quebec: Profiteers! We shall get rid of them so that the people may own their economy, their national heritage! The people have become the owners of their national heritage in Chile, but see where they stand today, after only three years. And I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if ever-I hope that this will never happen-someone like Levesque came into power in the province of Quebec, we would end up exactly where Chile is today, in September 1973.
It is all very well to arouse popular feeling against the haves, but it is easy to get to the point where people do not own anything anymore. This is what they have done in Chile.
I said yesterday that I was shown a 3,000-foot movie made by the National Film Board; it must have cost at least half a million dollars. They took union leaders from Rouyn-Noranda to Chile, two years ago, on the occasion of the first anniversary of the coming into power of Mr. Allende, to say how miners were better treated in Chile than in Rouyn-Noranda, Val d'Or, Chibougamau and Nor-metal. And I learned, Sunday night, that Chile had just shipped 22,000 tons of copper ore to be processed in Noran-da by some capitalists, because they are unable to process it in Chile.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy for Rene Levesque and his allies, his assistants, his "sheep", to say that the rest of Canada is no good, that the Anglo-Saxons are mean and should be crushed. It is easy also for the New Democratic Party to say: Let us crush the bad Americans because they exploit us. At the same time, the ministers of finance in the socialist provinces, in British Columbia, in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba spend their time in the United States begging to borrow money from American moneylenders. It is easy to attack people from whom you beg.
Let us be careful, Mr. Speaker. There are some weaknesses, yes. There are some things that we should correct, yes, but let us not destroy what is good in our organization.
I was saying a moment ago that the Chileans wanted to abolish private enterprise completely and they did it; they nationalized. They talked about inflation three years ago. If we were to go there today, we should see that inflation is at least ten times worse than in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as regards the bill now before us to increase the purchasing power of Canadian families by way of family allowances, I hope it will indeed increase their purchasing power, but I know that the whole program introduced by the government will be financed through taxes, which means that again there will be price increases.
And as long as we follow that pattern, Mr. Speaker, the cost of living will not stop rising. A mechanism, a method has to be found so that all Canadians will get additional purchasing power that will not be integrated in prices, and the only way out is through new credits allocated to the people, credits which are not integrated in the prices and which really increase the purchasing power, thus assisting

in effectively fighting unemployment, the rise in the cost of living and inflation. Nobody believes in that yet and neither do the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives or even the New Democrats.
The NDP suggests lower interest rates. Mr. Speaker, no matter how much we may lower them, if one dollar is created and if it is required that it dies at $1.05, $1.07 or $1.08, that is a mathematical impossibility, no matter what the interest rate on new credit.
I do not refer to existing money. If a Liberal member lends me $10 and I give him back $10.50, he is lending me something he possesses. It is a normal thing that I compensated him for the help he provided me, but that is not what the banking system does. Banks lend credit that does not belong to them and insist on interest rates of 10, 11 or 13 per cent. This is inflation! This is an abuse of authority. This is the banking legislation as passed by the present government.
I remember that three years ago I was attending a sitting of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to which representatives of Canadian Bankers Association were witnesses. At that time, an economist of the Bank of Nova Scotia said that if we eliminated the ceiling of 6 per cent on interest rates, we would enable banks to loan more to small people who need credit so that they could live and get out from under. I then said to the committee members: This is wrong, this is a lie. You will not be more helpful to poor people but you will have greater control over the Canadian economy.
Let us see, Mr. Speaker, if this is not happening today. The banking system has more authority than ever; the Bank of Canada has become a real puppet in the hands of financial institutions and the government is the servant of the whole system.
The government is powerless. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and tne Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) both want to help the
people, but they cannot do so because they lack financial means. The minister is aware of that fact. He knows perfectly well that I am right.
Somebody said earlier that the minister was young; I agree and I wish he were young enough not to be lost forever. I also hope that someday the minister will realize that concrete steps must be taken not only in the field of finance but also when it comes to expanding the monetary mass in Canada. We must tally up figures that reflect the resources of this country. And when figures are put on the actual resources in Canada, there will be no stinginess with family allowances, with assistance to provinces and municipalities, and with old age pensions at 60. There will be no more stinginess with the pensions of retired people and those on fixed incomes. But we will have latitude on the basis of the tremendous physical opportunities we have in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the minister does not ask himself, can Canada produce enough to guarantee $20 or $25 a month the children of this country? No, he knows the production is there. Can Canada produce to give pensions of $200 a month to those 60? The minister is aware that Canada can produce. This is so true that all our stores across Canada, our industries, are filled to capacity. We have discount
September 11, 1973

sales in Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax, Winnipeg, and Edmonton. The people in Canada must mortgage their salaries for three to five years with finance companies to buy this year's or last year's production and yet, if the purchasing power was adjusted on the basis of current production, we would have prosperity in Canada. We would not be afraid of Rene Levesque, the Chilean regime or the Communist regime; we could maintain at home a regime of free enterprise where personal initiative would be respected and promoted, where Canada would belong to Canadians and where Canadians would have security with personal freedom.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, this bill providing for higher family allowance as of next October is part of the concrete measure program presented by the federal Liberal government.
Under this bill, a monthly allowance of $12 would be paid as of October 1, 1973. The 3.5 million families now receiving the family and youth allowances, that is to say all families with dependent children of 18 or less, will be granted this new increase. In Canada, the number of children in this category is set at 7.5 million.
Mr. Speaker, I greet this government measure with great pleasure because it will allow Canadians and especially my constituents to really increase their purchasing power. This bill is good because its basic purpose is to add a supplement to the family income and that will be greatly appreciated in my riding as a concrete and positive measure introduced by a responsible and efficient government at grips with the soaring cost of living in Canada.


An hon. Member:: What a supporter!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The great problem of inflation has caused many to worry about this world plague.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We hear and read every day pessimistic announcements by many improvised experts. They often fail to define their miraculous measures based on a so-called economic empiricism which would make us believe in simple solutions to the great world problem which is inflation.


An hon. Member:: It is true.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Wage and price controls are inevitable according to some and perilous according to others. It remains however impossible to find one instance where those control measures were effective in any industrial country during the past 25 years.
In addition, this is a world-wide problem and under the circumstances, it seems to me that the economic facts are altered through so-called political objectives when it is suggested that the time has come for price and wage controls.
The Liberal government has selected to campaign for programs aimed at increasing the purchasing power of Canadians and checking price increases of some basic products for the Canadian family.
Family Allowances
I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is much more difficult to take such a position, because it requires from each of us a special effort to explain the problem to our constituents and to request their co-operation in the fight taking place to assure the stability of our economy.
I accept the challenge and I will try to the best of my knowledge to explain rather than frighten, to act rather than freeze, because in short, Mr. Speaker, it is our duty, as members of Parliament, to inform, to give leadership, to take proper measures, in order to govern responsibly and efficiently.
It has been rightly pointed out for some time, that any inflation more especially affects the citizens in the low or middle income groups or those with a fixed income. Most of them are unable to increase their income at the same rate as the prices they must pay to obtain some goods and other necessities of life. Each new price increase reduces accordingly their real purchasing power and their standard of living.
This is why all the measures announced up to now by the Liberal government are grappling with the problem. They are especially meant for the citizens who generally need more assistance in such difficult times. Furthermore this was pointed out by the. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in his comments on Bill C-223, at page 6351, and I quote:
When one considers that a family of four with an income of above $10,000 spends approximately 16 per cent of its budget on food-


An hon. Member:: It is too much!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -while the same sized family with an income of less than $4,000 spends closer to 28 per cent of its budget on food, it is obvious that the increase of 20 per cent in the price of food over the past 18 months will have a much greater impact on the low-income family as compared with the higher income family.


An hon. Member:: This is true.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in a workers' constituency like mine, where the size of families is larger than the national average, it is obvious that government legislation providing for a $12.00 increase of family allowances will be much appreciated.
Combined with the recent measures taken by the government, this legislation will give our people more purchasing power and, consequently, improve their standard of living.
In closing these short remarks, Mr. Speaker, I note that Bill C-223 fits remarkably well into the already announced government policies-


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -aimed at upgrading the social security system.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-223 follows up the measures already announced related to the

September 11, 1973
Family Allowances
old age pensions and to the guaranteed income supplement, with quarterly adjustments. The government uses its powers and assumes its responsibilities in the war against inflation.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in his speech on Bill C-223, an act to amend the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) suggested that, putting the bill into proper perspective in the total program which the government had announced to protect the purchasing power of the Canadian consumer, the legislation was designed to limit the effects of inflation in Canada. He especially mentioned that Canadians are suffering the first consequences of inflation, particularly in the area of food costs. He went on to say that the exceptional increase in food prices confirms the urgency of passing such provisions.
I agree with the intent of this bill but I suggest that food prices will continue to rise, that far-reaching changes are altering the food industry and the food marketplace and that this bill will act only as a stopgap in the present escalation of food prices. First of all, Mr. Speaker, the rise in food prices was long overdue to the primary producer, the farmer. There had been very little increase in the price paid to farmers, especially grain farmers, in the last 20 years. Also, the number of people who have left the farm in the previous ten years has been nothing short of rural depopulation. Now we are experiencing a rise in food costs around the world and the Canadian consumer is vitally affected.
There has been a rapid rise in the main export grains and commodities such as flaxseed, rapeseed, wheat, barley and other feed grains. This rise has not all been due to a shortage of grain, as some would have us believe, but has come about because the prices of these grains and oilseeds are set around the world and the hard currencies, the mark and the yen, which set our prices have appreciated so much against the Canadian dollar that much of the price rise can be ascribed to the changes in the international monetary market. For instance, the German mark, which only a short time ago traded at four marks to the dollar, is now trailing at 2.4, indicating that the Canadian dollar has devalued 40 per cent against the mark.
The price of rapeseed is largely set by the German mark. What was the going price of $3 for rapeseed for the Canadian farmer a few months ago is now $5. This increase does not represent any actual accrual in price but merely reflects the changes in currency values. This indicates, Mr. Speaker, that the rise in grain prices has been in many instances the result of international monetary changes rather than the result of the drastic moving up in grain prices so far as international markets are concerned.
This depreciation of the Canadian dollar has benefited Canadian farmers. Canadian consumers who benefited for years from the fact that German and Japanese goods were relatively cheap now find there has been a reversal and the other side of the coin has come up, so that the farmer selling foodstuffs has an immediate advantage. However, the government has moved to reduce the farmers' advantage in a swift and sure fashion.

Yesterday in the House we heard the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) detail the convolutions that the government went through in setting the price for wheat to be made into bread in Canada. At first the price seemed to be set at $3.25 per bushel to the millers, with $1.25 of that being paid in subsidy. The next announcement was that it would be $3.25, with a subsidy over and above the $1.25. Then the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, during a trip to Winnipeg, got it up to a $1.75 subsidy.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I know that extraordinary latitude has been granted in speeches throughout the debate today and on the previous day. If we can agree that this debate is to be treated as some sort of debate on the economic affairs of Canada, instead of one which has to do specifically with the act that we are considering, we would be home free. However, if we do not so agree, then the hon. member is clearly not in order as he is not dealing with an act relating to family allowances and youth allowances.
I know we are in difficulties. The Chair has tried to be reasonable and perhaps even a little deaf with regard to hon. members' contributions in the last couple of days. However, once in a while when the Chair does that it is called to order. Therefore, if the hon. member would refer to family allowances at least once every couple of minutes, the Chair would feel much easier.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the minister in his statement said that this bill was brought forward as part of a package to alleviate the pressure of food prices. I believe he said something like that in his opening statement and mentioned that the bill was being brought forward to alleviate some of those problems.
We are in agreement with the proposal that family allowances be increased which, as the minister stated, is to help families cope with the high cost of food. I am detailing some of the reasons why food prices have risen and why this legislation is necessary. I suggest that the rise in food prices has been due to monetary convolutions around the world, and unless changes are made prices will continue to rise. In any event, had grain prices remained low there would have been more of an indication for a fall off in food production. It is important that food production be increased, and this is the result.
I wish to point out something else the government will have to consider with regard to the problem of high food costs. The world market for feed grains has increased phenomenally. The main Canadian feed grain commodD ty-at least the one that moves into the markets of the world-is barley, which is currently bringing over $3 a bushel in the marketplaces around the world and there is every indication it will remain at this level for the coming year. There may be some reduction when the American soybean crop comes on the market along with the American corn crop. However, this price largely represents the increase in the depreciation of the Canadian dollar. This makes it necessary to increase family allowances to help those who have had their incomes depleted. We should not
September 11, 1973

forget that in the international money market billions of American dollars being held abroad are depreciating in value. Many holders of American dollars abroad have been buying American wheat, soybean, and so on, in the commodity market so as to protect their dollars.
This bill is to allay the price of foodstuffs. A certain danger now exists. The price of barley is quite high. It is agreed that with the present state of pricing, producers of hogs and cattle could have to have increased prices. There is also the problem of the hassle between the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. This is a matter of uncertainty and will raise the price of grain and input of the feeder.
As well as this bill, the government could have moved in other ways to improve food production. The tax bill passed recently makes it exceedingly hard for farmers. The manufacturing and processing industries received tax benefits, but the government did not even restore the straight line machinery benefit or a real basic herd provision. The continuing impact of capital gains, dovetailed with the continuation of the estate tax by the provinces, has a very deadening effect on long-term agricultural production and planning. This is perhaps due to the basic individual nature of the farming industry.
I have attempted to detail some of the reasons food costs have risen, prompting the bringing forward of this bill. It has been stated this bill is necessary because of the increase in the cost of living, mainly in the price of food.


Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, in today's world there is a need for improved social conditions. There is a need for improvement in the quality of life. There is a yearning for the better things in life. However, we find people such as the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) who are quick to criticize governments for trying to improve social and economic conditions, and quick to criticize provinces which attempt to do something for the average person. I will not go into that question in further detail. All I can say is this: if that kind of rhetoric is put into practice, I feel sorry for the average person in this country and, indeed, for the world.
Canada today finds itself at a stage in which the cost of living is affecting every man, woman and child. The price spiral is particularly felt by those on low incomes and by those blessed with one or more children. The decision to bring in an immediate change to the present Family Allowances Act in order to cope with the inflationary spiral in this country reflects the need for such action. It reflects the need to enable families to meet greater financial commitments in feeding and clothing their children. This decision, I am sure, is welcomed by most members who feel that immediate relief is essential in this area and that, coupled with other plans to deal with the cost of living, the burden to low-income Canadians can be reduced and that families can afford to live in a manner befitting a civilized and a rich industrial country such as ours.
As a result of this bill, the main purpose of which is to provide allowances to consumers as soon as possible, the 3lA million families in Canada will benefit from an across the board increase to $12 per month, regardless of the children's age. This will be followed by an increase to $20
Family Allowances
per month starting in January, 1974, and according to the formula determined in each province. Undoubtedly there are many who would criticize a family allowance program and the need for such benefits. First, I must point out that the program came into effect in 1945. It was universal in scope, covering every child under the age of 16 who was born in Canada or who had been resident in Canada for one year. The program has been in effect since then and reflects a commitment to the dignity and worth of the individual and the family. It reflects a need to be humane and fair both in the benefits and in the administration of such a program. It reflects a need to avoid discriminatory provisions. Finally, it reflects a need to provide a level of benefits sufficient to assure every Canadian family the necessary resources to escape poverty.
We are all agreed that the presence of children places a financial burden on low-income families. Wages and salaries do not ordinarily take into account the size of a person's family. Neither do most social insurance measures. The government must see to it that families are given the resources to raise their children in the best way possible because the health and well-being of the children is important in a civilized and concerned society such as we have in Canada.
There are those who claim that giving family allowances will encourage families to raise more children. However, sociological studies do not show that this is so. The Canadian population rate has been going down. The birth rate in the province of Quebec, where large families have been usual, has been the lowest of any Canadian province. According to the tables provided by Statistics Canada, live births per 1,000 population for Canada in 1961 were 26.1. In 1971 the figure was reduced to 16.8. In British Columbia, for the information of my constituents, live births have gone down from 23.7 per 1,000 population in 1961 to 16 per 1,000 population in 1971.
In Quebec, where birth rates have always been high, we find that live births per 1,000 population went down from 26.1 in 1961 to 14.8 in 1971.
These details emphasize the fact that the country's birth rate has decreased dramatically and that family allowances have no effect on the size of the family. There is no need to discuss the inadequacies of the family allowances bill which was debated in the House last year. Suffice it to say that the Liberal majority government of last year intended to create greatly expanded bureaucratic machinery to deal with a scheme which was totally unrealistic and unacceptable to the opposition members of the House. I am therefore glad to see that the principle of universality has not been discarded in the measure before us and that it is not to be discarded in the foreseeable future. The universal aspect of this piece of social insurance legislation is fundamental to an act of non-discrimination. It is not a welfare assistance program and does not stigmatize families by dividing them into income categories.
We find that with the recent introduction in Japan of allowance programs there are now 63 countries which have family allowances schemes in effect-all the industrialized countries with the exception of the United States. Fifteen countries provide allowances in principle to all

September 11, 1973
Family Allowances
families ordinarily resident in the country containing a specified minimum number of children. In 47 countries, entitlement to allowances is ordinarily an incident of employment relations, that is, allowances are limited to employees. In all countries except three-Bulgaria, South Africa and Yugoslavia-basic allowances are paid irrespective of family income. In all, the general trend is toward government financing rather than contributory payments, and greater acceptance of the proposition that child-rearing costs are a community responsibility.
We in Canada are fortunate to live in a rich country. We boast every year about our increasing gross national product, about our increased productivity. We have seen how practically all nations which call themselves civilized have adopted universal family allowance schemes. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the principles underlying this legislation are good. The government recognizes that families with children have special needs. On the basis of this recognition and of the urgency of the matter before us, I hope members of this House will give unanimous assent to the passage of the bill.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated at first to enter into this debate because I was involved in the earlier debate on pensions, related to members of the public service and other servants of the government of Canada who have served their time and who now, I think, need some protection. I was very happy to support that bill. I am glad to say I am prepared to support the bill which is now before the House, if on no other ground than that which was mentioned a few moments ago by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He said there were families in this country who are in need. There are families in need in the communities represented by each of us.
But before we rush into consideration of this bill in its final stages I think it is well for us to consider where the need really lies and, more importantly, how that need arose and what is our responsibility in the face of that need. We have heard several most interesting debates thus far since parliament resumed. We have discussed amendments to the Pension Act, amendments to the social security legislation and, currently, the measure which is before us. All this represents what has been described as another stopgap effort in a somewhat meaningless fight against inflation in response to a crisis situation, blame for which lies to a great extent upon the shoulders of the government.
Mr. Speaker, I propose to quote a paragraph which appeared in the Financial Times edition of September 10, 1973. It is taken from an article dealing with the economy, which I believe offers the best description of the package of legislation placed before us as an anti-inflationary measure. The article, which appears on page three, starts this way:
The government put another finger in the dike in an attempt to stop the rising tide of inflation but the latest anti-inflation package seemed to be just another stopgap attempt until the floodwa-ters subside.
That is what has happened in this country, Mr. Speaker. We have gone from crisis to crisis, from economic calamity to economic calamity, putting a piece of sticky plaster here and a piece of sticky plaster there, stopping the flow of our

economic blood rather than getting down to fight, on its own ground, what has become the cancer of inflation.


Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean):: What do you propose?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, every time I hear the hon. member on the other side open up, I realize that the noise he makes is as the noise from an empty barrel.
There is no doubt that the country cannot continue to afford the laying on of sticky plasters. There is no doubt that there is an end to what a growing nation, a nation which is dependent on other parts of the world, can hope to salvage by continually increasing payments, as worthy as they may be, without at some time or other taking a long, hard look at the causes and asking itself whether or not the time has come for a government, at long last, before the course is run and before economic calamity takes place in the country, to cry halt.
The problem about the government, Mr. Speaker, is that it has not yet decided to cry halt. We are faced with measures which propose just temporary relief for persons in need. I do not want to suggest, and I would not suggest, that such relief is not needed. But neither the government nor anyone else in this country should delude themselves into thinking that the policies which were announced in that empty speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on September 4 will ever do anything to get to the root of our economic troubles.


Walter Bernard Smith: But will you vote for the bill?


Walter David Baker: I think I made my position clear with respect to this bill at the outset. In the name of those people who are suffering because of the inadequacies of the policies of the government, of course I will vote for the measure. At the same time, I want to make it clear that until this country accepts the fact that we cannot fight the problems we face in 1973 with the economic weapons of the 1950s, until we decide to look our problem in the eye, to grasp the nettle firmly, to tackle these difficulties with new economic policies and new economic controls such as have been outlined as the policy of our party, we are fighting an action whilst in retreat.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to note that we are living in a nation where the wholesale price index is galloping upward, where the consumer price index is galloping upward, where farmers are facing an intolerable burden of production cost, where they are asked to produce under this burden, where we have big unions and labour who not only expect inflation but accept it as a way of life. The unions are told by their membership, "Protect us against this expected inflation." There is an economic psychosis present in our country. I think it has been well demonstrated by the lack of progress that the policies of this government have failed to cure it.
We must not look to increased allowances for anything more than temporary relief. We must get down to the root of the problem. We must tell the farmer that we will control his input costs, that we will ensure the eastern farmer a reasonable supply of feed grain at a reasonable price. We must tell the old age pensioner and those in this
September 11, 1973

country who depend on youth allowances-unfortunately, there are many of them-that we have a policy to meet the problem, not just a policy that adds to the inflationary picture. We must tell them that they do not need to look to governments all the time, but that they can become selfsufficient. We must tell the heads of families that there is an end to increasing prices and to the crush of inflation. We must tell members of unions and, more importantly, workers in this country who are not members of unions that they can expect that the dollar they bargained for in 1973 will be worth something in 1974.
This is the challenge that this government had on September 4, 1973, and it is the challenge on which the government turned its back. Instead we have to deal, rather than with a policy of firm foundation, one of lasting worth, with yet another Trudeau band-aid measure.


An hon. Member:: What would you suggest?


Walter David Baker: If the hon. member was not in the House when my leader spoke, then I suggest he read Hansard for that day. I would then ask him to consider my leader's speech in the quiet of his room and to balance it against the speech of his own. If he is an honest man, I think he will come to the proper conclusion.
I do not intend to prolong this debate much longer, I am sure you will be delighted to know, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to say to those who would care to listen, and to listen with their ears rather than their mouths, that there is something that can be done in this country. All the wisdom in this country does not end with the treasury benches. There is an alternative to stopgap measures to fight a problem that the government of the day has decided, with the support of the NDP, cannot be fought. I do not believe that in this land of plenty, this land of such great potential, we should be saddled with a government so devoid of imagination and compassion that the only thing they can offer the people of Canada is a stopgap attempt of the sort described in the Financial Times which I have quoted.
In an effort to bring this matter on, and knowing that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is interested in getting his band-aid plastered on a sickly patient, I shall sit down. In the interests of those who must be protected from the inadequacies of this government, I intend to support this legislation.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill. Like everybody else, I suppose I am in favour of motherhood, too. In fact, I am not sure whether any of us has the intestinal fortitude to vote against the bill. In any event, I listened with astonishment and amazement to the hon. member-I am sorry, but I cannot remember his riding-who suggested that a reasonable alternative would be to raise-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Edmonton-Strathcona.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) - who suggested that we should raise the minimum wage as a solution to the problem of inflation. About 10 per cent of the workers of this country are governed by federal minimum wage legislation, and almost all of them are above
Family Allowances
the minimum wage. So this would be a completely useless step. Talk about band-aid! That is not even a band-aid; that is a piece of scotch tape.
There are a couple of things in the bill about which I am a little concerned and have some reservations. One is the non-taxable aspect of this emergency measure which will last until the January, 1974, provisions, when the family allowance will go up to $20 per child. Frankly, I cannot understand why this could not have been made taxable and put at a higher level on the same principle. I think most hon. members accept the principle of taxability. The concept of universality with taxability seems to me to combine the element of fairness with the avoidance of an unnecessary bureaucracy to manage the system.
The major reason for my support of this bill, and I think for the support of many members of my party, is that it really means a redistribution of income next year of about $800 million. That is a significant figure in terms of social justice and equity in this country and I welcome the bill on that basis.
The other reservation I have is one about which I think we should all ask ourselves, namely, whether increasing family allowances encourages larger families. I think it should be perfectly clear that larger families in this country are no longer a worth-while social goal. In fact, in view of the finite resources of this planet, I think having a large family should be classed as an anti-social act. I am delighted to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) present in the chamber this evening; he can contemplate that particular thought. After all, there is only so much to go around, and the Minister of Justice must be consuming a fairly large section of the resources of his own family at the present time.
The best scientific opinion today tells us that this country and every other country in the world is seriously overpopulated. We can take two basic assumptions which the vast majority of people everywhere will agree with and which will persuade us there is an overwhelming case for reducing world population. The first of these assumptions is that it is desirable for every industrial society, with all its benefits, to continue to exist for more than a few decades. Certainly we will not exist for much longer unless we control world population. The second assumption is that every child born into this world should have the opportunity to obtain enough to eat and to enjoy a decent standard of living. For these goals to be reached it is essential that the total demand on the world's resources be reduced.
Per capita world demand must increase if we are to get anywhere near avoiding poverty in most countries of the world. To some extent this family allowance legislation does allow per capita demand to increase; money will be made available to buy food and clothing in areas of real need. We must remember, however, that the population of the world is doubling in a period of 35 years. There are 3.8 billion people in the world today; there will be seven billion people in the world by the end of this century. The problem of inflation is clearly related to over-population. In fact, you can relate the increase in the crime rate and a great many problems that are dealt with in this chamber to this oppressive, overwhelming problem of overpopulation.
6452

September 11, 1973
Family Allowances
It is important to note that birth rates in Canada have fallen to their lowest level. The average family now has 2.19 children. But even at that, equilibrium between births and deaths in this country will not be achieved for another 67 years at the present rate. Incidentally, the most socially responsible province in this country, in terms of family size, is Quebec, which has the lowest birth rate of 1.9 children per family. The whole province should be congratulated on its responsibility.
There has been a myth in the part of the country I come from that family allowances were somehow a device or method invented by Mackenzie King to retain the Quebec vote. Based on the figures I have given, it would seem that this would apply to the vote in P.E.I. which has the highest birth rate in Canada. In any event, the family allowance was an important piece of legislation to Quebec, just as it has been to all parts of the country. I can find no evidence that it has either increased the desire to have a large family or the desire to have a small family. But we do need a national population policy in this country, one which sets population goals consistent with our responsibilities as world citizens. Thereafter we should take legislative action to achieve those goals.
What we are really doing here is legislating this increase to relieve the effects of a disastrous inflationary cycle. There is no doubt, at least in my mind, that inflation is caused by rising population in a world of finite resources. If by granting this increase we were encouraging larger families in this country, we would be acting irresponsibly and wrongly. However, as I say, I can find no evidence to that effect so I have no hesitation in supporting this piece of legislation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill largely because of the speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) when he introduced the legislation. I think it is one thing for the government to introduce this measure which, judging from the speeches to date, most members of the House intend to support, but it is something entirely different for the government, having introduced the bill, not to admit that their mishandling of the economy has resulted in the country needing the bill.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, because I find it very curious, on a bill which contemplates the raising of the family allowance from the present levels to new levels, that the minister to whom I have referred went out of his way to try to indicate that the inflationary pressures in the country are not due to his government but are somehow due to the world inflation in which his government is caught up. It is time that members of this House stood up and be counted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: They did last night.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is the government's mishandling of the economy that has resulted in inflationary, skyrocketing prices. It is time that members of the House on all sides stood up and refuted the ministers of the Crown who are consistently misrepresenting the facts in the House. Let us

look at the facts. What did the minister say when he introduced this bill?


An hon. Member:: Talk about the Bank of Western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, you always know when you are hitting home. The yahoos start to yelp and holler. Let us look at some of the statements the minister made when he introduced this bill. For example, he said he was introducing it so he could "protect the purchasing power of Canadian consumers." He said that Canadians are now suffering "the first consequences" of inflation, especially in the area of food costs. Mr. Speaker, if we are only suffering the first consequences, I hate to think what the last consequences of such food increases will be.
The minister pointed out that there are 3'/2 million families, who are responsible for 7 lA million children and adolescents, affected by this bill. But I would point out that he attempted to get off the hook as to why we have inflationary pressures in Canada by suggesting it is due to the exceptional increases in food prices which confirm the urgency of passing such provisions. In another section of his speech he said these food prices are due to inflation which Canada, like most other countries of the world, has been recently experiencing.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Surely the minister would not deny his own publication which is put out by the Bank of Canada. In June, 1973, that publication reported that the consumer price index for food for certain industrialized countries indicated clearly that in the 12 months ended last April we in Canada had the worst record of inflation of any of the countries listed in that review. I point to the fact that Canada is listed as having an inflationary rate ending in that period of 12.9 per cent, compared with the United States rate of 11.5 per cent and a low rate, for example, in Germany of 8.1 per cent. That is not the type of thing the government is inclined to admit in this House. Instead, members of the government like to mislead the public into believing that somehow we in Canada are doing even better on the question of inflation than other countries of the world.
As my leader indicated earlier, the IMF has also pointed out that Canada has one of the worst records of any of the industrialized nations with respect to inflation.


Mr. Railton:: That is not true. That is what you said.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In short, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is not so much a world problem that is causing inflation to the degree that exists in Canada but, rather, a Trudeau Liberal government problem that is causing our high inflationary pressures. If you like, Mr. Speaker, one could say that in fact Liberal years of government are inflationary years of government.
Some hen. Members: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: And Tory times are hard times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 11, 1973


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I say that, Mr. Speaker, based on the fact that in the years that my party last governed this country the average inflation per year was 1.7 per cent. In the succeeding years during which we had a Pearson government inflation crept up to 2.6 per cent on average per year. In the first year of the Trudeau government in 1968, inflation got up to 4.2 per cent under the mastermind who now leads the Government of Canada. By 1972 it had reached 6.6 per cent, and currently it is running at the rate of 7.7 per cent per annum. That is Trudeau government in action.
Let me put it another way. The minister to whom I have referred indicated that somehow rising food prices are something of a world nature and that we are caught up in them in Canada.


Samuel Victor Railton: Quite right.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In answer to certain backbenchers opposite, I would like them to explain something with respect to the July cost of living figures. Unfortunately, we do not yet have the August ones. I would like them to explain the July figures which in the United States, on an annualized basis, show that their food prices were rising at the rate of 6 per cent per year, whereas on an annualized basis, food prices in this country were going up at 22.8 per cent per year. That is just July, on an annualized basis.


Samuel Victor Railton: That's no good.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is all very well for the minister to try somehow or other to confuse the issue. It is perhaps natural for the government to attempt to get the spotlight off its own ineptitude. However, I am interested that neither the members of the government nor their socialist companions to my left at any time indicate there is certainly at least one other contributing factor to inflation, and that is runaway government expenditure. I believe it is interesting to note that the year before this government took power in Canada, total government expenditures of all governments in Canada, be they federal, provincial or municipal, were slightly over $21 billion. It now appears that in this year alone this government will spend that amount of money at the federal level. Surely that is a clear indication that this government's runaway spending has to be inflationary in this country.
Certain government members say, "Thank God". I do not know if they refer to their leader, but I would point out that if they are thanking God they may also consult the Bank of Canada Review for August, because there they will find the impact of their spending which indicates that government expenditures, based on 1961 equalling 100, have an index of 189.6, almost 90 per cent higher on an index basis than the same expenditures in 1961. I would point out, also, that most of the increase has taken place since 1967. In 1967 the index was 131.5, whereas today it is some 50 points higher at 189.6. Surely if the minister had been a little more candid with us he might have admitted that one of the causes of inflation has been their aggressive spending program.
If I may, I should like to bring this matter into perspective. It is one thing to talk about rising government expen-
Family Allowances
ditures, but I believe it is also significant to relate it to the gross national product. The fact is that government expenditures in this country have been rising at such a rate that they are now approaching 40 per cent of the total of our gross national product. The leading country in the world with regard to government expenditures in relation to gross national product-at least in the free world-is Sweden. We find that socialist nation has only now touched 42 per cent so far as government expenditures in relation to gross national product are concerned.
For those who are interested in a welfare state such as Sweden, to which this government tends to be leading us, assisted by the socialists to our left, and for those who are interested in the future that lies ahead of us, I recommend they read an article in the United States News and World Report of July 30 in which it is said the Swedish people are very unhappy at the present time and the government faces an election in which it is likely to be voted out of power for its inept handling of the economy, as is the government of this country to be voted out of power for its inept handling of our economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear,' hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: But to put this in a little different frame, when we speak about food prices and hint that somehow our prices are no worse than can be found in other sections of the world, particularly the United States, I think it is only right to be specific. I conducted a survey as to food costs in such cities as Ottawa, Toronto, my own riding of York-Simcoe, New York, Chicago, Cleveland and Buffalo, and I believe it is interesting to find that because of mishandling by this government it is now true that one can buy the items which we included in our shipping list more cheaply in a city such as Buffalo than in Ottawa, or in my riding of York-Simcoe.
In fact, the skyrocketing Canadian food prices have now overtaken the price levels in United States cities, yet average Canadian earnings are still nearly 20 per cent lower than comparable United States earnings. Surely it becomes a little ridiculous to have a minister of this government come into the House after this situation has been created at least partly by the government's mishandling of the economy, and ask us to please pass this bill to give relief to those who are suffering, some 7V4 million children, because of their inflationary problem.
I should like to point out that I also purchased in November, 1970, the same 15 items I mentioned in the last survey, at a time when the Prime Minister of this country said that inflation in Canada had been licked. At that time-November, 1970-those items could be purchased for $9.97. Today, in my riding, they cost $14.70.


An hon. Member:: We know that. That is old stuff.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says, "That is old stuff". I have to agree that it is old stuff under this government. If the hon. member is serious, then he is saying that it is now old stuff to have food prices rising at such a rate, for food prices to rise 47% in 33 months.
Since December, 1970, the Canadian consumer price index has risen 60 per cent faster than the United States consumer price index, and our food index has jumped 25
6454

September 11, 1973
Family Allowances
per cent faster than the United States cost of living in respect of food. These are the hard facts. I believe it is time that one or more ministers in the present government responsible for this situation stood up, acted responsibly in this House and admitted they have made mistakes and that inflation, because of their mishandling of the economy is now out of control and they wish our assistance in righting the matter.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you act responsibly?


James McPhail Gillies: Go back to sleep.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you for the
bill?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The hon. member to my left is very anxious to know whether I am for the bill. That, to me, is very similar to the same hon. member rushing over to my car after the nail that he put on the ground in front of me punctured my tire and asking whether I would like him to put a patch on my tire so that I can blow it up again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I did no such thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I left the chair for a while, and when I returned and listened to the hon. member speak I had difficulty in reconciling his speech with what I thought was the subject matter of the debate this evening, that is, Bill C-223. I hope that an effort will be made by the hon. member, not necessarily to tell us whether he is for or against the bill but to tell us something about the bill itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately you were not here during my earlier remarks-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unfortunately?


An hon. Member:: He is the luckiest guy in the building.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -at which time you would have known why I took the course that I did. I was induced by the minister who, in making his introductory remarks concerning the bill, introduced himself the questions which I am now attempting to refute I wish to at least bring into perspective in the House the matter of inflation. I have been asked whether I support the bill. How can an hon. memeber ask me such a question-
Seme hon. Members: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -after hearing my remarks to date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is precisely why I am asking.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I may, I would like to sum up-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -by simply saying that this bill is necessary and should be passed by the House because of the inflationary economy in which we find ourselves now. But I would add that it is an inflationary economy that we do not need to have in Canada. It would have been far better for the government to have taken steps to ensure that the inflationary effect which they are attempting to relieve in this bill did not get out of control to the extent it did; then in fact this bill would not have been necessary. I say this because, if I may again refer to the minister's speech, he stated:
The bill before us constitutes one aspect of the strategy adopted by the government to fight inflation.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: One lone member on the government benches supported that statement. But I ask in all seriousness: Can you say that this bill is fighting inflation in any
way?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It may relieve the effects of inflation, but surely it is a gross misrepresentation to indicate that this is a measure to fight inflation. If anything, it will probably add to inflation.
I believe that it would serve the House better if the government were to bring in some legislation to help contain inflation. Included in that legislation I would suggest that they should bring in some measures to curb federal spending. I suggest that the least they could do would be to freeze their spending, or at least to bring it into a near-freeze situation. As has been already indicated, it is one thing to pass legislation which they feel would relieve the impact of inflation to which they have contributed. Surely, however, they will do it eventually. Today would be better than later, so why do they not bring in wage and price controls to help curb inflation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A survey is being conducted by an independent source very close to this city which certainly indicates that such wage and price controls are desirable. If they want it in Cornwall, I know they want it throughout the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I also suggest it is time the government considered structural reforms in order to remove certain of the economic abuses in our structural system that result from the monopolistic power of companies and unions. I believe that the government must accept more responsibility for their monetary policies, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) indicated in the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has been known-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
September 11, 1973


Marc Lalonde: The official opposition has been well known over the years for its opposition to any move with regard to family allowances. They are certainly free to talk on this bill as long as they wish; that is their right. But we were regaled by a speech on the Wheat Board a few minutes ago and now we have heard a speech on wage and price controls and on many other subjects. I hope that if we are to continue for another day or two-


Mr. Bell:: Ten o'clock. Filibuster.


Marc Lalonde: -on this particular subject, hon. members will at least obey your instructions, Sir, to speak on the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: I rise on a point of order. The minister talked out his own legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Question.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) concerning the transfer of a veterans hospital from the federal authority to the municipal and provincial authorities in Victoria and I requested the consideration of the views of veterans. At that time, Sir, you were kind enough to suggest that this might be better debated at the time of adjournment, and I certainly agree with you.
My first question is: For whose benefit is the transfer of this hospital? When I was home during the month of August I received 51 phone calls from veterans about this matter, and 51 were opposed to the transfer of the veterans hospital to other than the directorate of veterans affairs. This was an unusual thing and I spoke to several people about it. I spoke to the staff at the hospital, to two of the doctors at the hospital and to many of the patients. Their feelings were all the same-they wanted the situation to remain as it is at the present time.
Victoria is not a usual kind of city. It is a great gathering place for elderly people who come there to enjoy their old age in secure surroundings. People who do not live in British Columbia may not be aware of this, but the cost of domiciliary hospital care for elderly people is staggering for a city of generally low income. While British Columbia
Adjournment Debate
medical plans and hospitalization plans in theory provide for the care of elderly citizens, in fact they do not. A person entitled to this care can never find a bed in a domiciliary hospital and must go into a private hospital where the cost is from $300 to $600 a month.
The possibility of this veterans hospital being transferred to civilian control is causing a great deal of insecurity among aging veterans in Victoria. When one sees as many elderly people as there are in Victoria, one soon learns that their greatest concern is the fear of insecurity as they grow old.
Some of the leaders of the veterans' organizations agree that the information sent out by the Department of Veterans Affairs is only to convince them that this transfer is inevitable and that they might as well relax and enjoy it. It is presented to them that they should try to get the best terms they can. I am not inclined to accept that because it has gone beyond that "in between" stage where something could be done by the people most concerned. A senior administration official went out to visit the minister of health in the provincial government, but I was denied admittance even to take cognizance of the arrangements being made. He then went to speak to the heads of the Legion, and again I was denied admittance. This is manipulation of the representatives of the people. I suggest to you, Sir, that a bureaucratic government of this country at times is manipulated by its senior administration, and this is an example of it.
A year or so ago this was but a rumour, and a few years ago we were promised certain conditions would be met. In a speech in 1964. Mr. Teillet, the then minister of veterans affairs, said there would be three conditions. The first was accommodation for the treatment of service-connected disabilities and the second-the one in which I am particularly interested-was that community institutions of acceptable standards must be available to look after workloads created by other classes of veterans, which means that such veterans will be able to get treatment in their own communities, near their own friends and families.
This is just what they cannot get, Mr. Speaker. If control of the veterans hospital in Victoria is to be transferred to the civilian hospitals, several veterans who are now domiciled in the veterans hospital have no chance whatsoever of being admitted to a general hospital. This is simply because they have been operating for many years under different regulations and different attitudes. The attitude in the general hospital-and it has to be that way while hospital beds are in short supply and cost $100 a day-is to get the person in, do the surgery or whatever is necessary, and get him out.
These are not the kinds of terms that we expected for the veterans hospital. These people did not grow old of their own volition. Nevertheless, they grew old. They cannot help it if they are ailing. They are aged, ailing, and apparently need to suffer from some kind of curable disease which is of interest to the medical profession so that members of that profession will take an interest in them. Most doctors are not too fussy about looking after a group of elderly patients. However, the people of Canada did not build the veterans hospital system for the benefit of the medical profession; nor did they build it for the benefit of

September 11, 1973
Adjournment Debate
the senior administrators of the minister's department. They built it for the benefit of veterans.
I suggest to the minister that before any move is taken such as is envisaged for the hospital in Victoria, he go out there and talk to the patients in the Victoria veterans hospital.


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


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity of clarifying the present position as it affects the Victoria veterans hospital and of removing any fears of uncertainty that may have been caused by recent rumours as to its future.
First let me state clearly that no definite decision has yet been made regarding the future of this hospital. As a matter of policy, however, the government has indicated on many occasions that it hopes to transfer veterans hospitals to provincial or regional jurisdiction provided that satisfactory arrangements for such transfer can be made. I would emphasize that the purpose of these transfers is to ensure that the best possible medical care may continue to be made available to veterans.
On August 16 and 17, Mr. Speaker, officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs met with provincial officials to discuss the terms of a possible transfer agreement affecting the Victoria hospital. Following this meeting, the federal government officials met with the officers of the British Columbia Provincial Command of the Royal Canadian Legion to bring them fully into the picture.
It is an absolute condition of any transfer agreement that a satisfactory number of priority beds must remain available for veteran patients on a continuing basis. I might add that experience of previous transfers has demonstrated that the care of our veterans in the transferred hospitals has never been at a higher level.
It is the intention of the department to continue to explore the possible transfer of this hospital in accordance with determined government policy, but of course only if the required safeguards are fully assured as they relate both to the veterans and to departmental employees. In addition, the officials will keep in touch with veterans' organizations so that they may remain fully conversant with the status of negotiations.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-INQUIRY AS TO INCREASES IN WAR VETERANS' ALLOWANCES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, September 10, as recorded in Hansard at page 6371, I put this question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald):
In view of the fact that there are to be increases in old age pensions and family allowances next month, and in view of the minister's statement that the government will treat veterans with fairness, may I ask if the minister is now in a position to indicate precisely what steps the government will take, having in mind in particular veterans who are on the war veterans allowance?
The rest of the exchange is recorded on page 6372 of Hansard and it reads as follows:


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: As I indicated to the House last week, the government is in the process of taking the necessary steps, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not in a position to state definitely whether it is proposed by order in council to raise the ceiling on permissible income under the War Veterans Allowance Act or whether there will be some other adjustment in the amount being paid to war veterans allowance recipients?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer not to announce government policy until it is government policy.
It is not surprising that at that point Hansard records:


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Hansard goes on as follows:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister make an announcement in time so that any improvements for the war veterans can be effective in October, as they will be for the other groups to which I have already referred?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I hope to be able to make an announcement in sufficient time.
Now that we are in the more quiet and relaxed atmosphere of the "late show" period, although there are not many members present to hear what the minister will say, I hope he will give us a firm and definite answer to my question. I say to the minister that I am really hoping for two things. I am hoping he will tell us what the government is going to do in this particular instance when old age pensions are being increased and the pensions of retired civil servants are being increased so that veterans receiving the war veterans allowance will not go through the experience of getting an increase in one hand only to have it taken away from the other.
I said I am hoping to get two things out of the minister. That is the first. I would like to get the assurance that in October the veterans will get the fair treatment the minister talked about. I would like the assurance they will get the full benefit of any increase they receive in old age security and guaranteed income supplement and that in January those who are retired civil servants will also get the full benefit of any increase they receive at that time.
The second thing I would like to get from the minister is perhaps even more important. I make this appeal because I think the minister will want to respond to it. My appeal is that the minister solve this problem once and for all. As he knows, it has happened both ways in the past. There have been times when the government has acted fairly and raised the permissible income ceiling or taken whatever step was necessary so that the veteran receiving the war veterans allowance kept any increase he got. However, there were other times when it has happened in a most unfair manner, when veterans have not been able to keep increases granted to them.
As a matter of fact, this year under this minister, because the increase in disability pensions was delayed so long and because the war veterans allowance increase was made in April, some veterans who got the disability increase in July discovered that the increase which they got in the allowance in April was nullified because of this further increase. I think that happened because of the upset in the government's plan. The government had planned for both of these increases to come at the same
September 11, 1973

time. Because one came in April and one in July, there was this mix-up.
The point I am making is that sometimes it is handled in a way that is most unfair and sometimes in a way that is fair. Is it not possible for this minister, with the support he has from some of us in this minority government situation, to persuade his colleagues in the cabinet to come up with a device so that it will never happen unfairly again, and that every time there is an increase in old age pensions or any other benefits that get into the pockets of veterans, they will not lose that increase from war veterans allowance?
As far as October is concerned, we are talking about only $9.02 a month, which is the increase in OAS-GIS combined. However, it is pretty raw for a veteran, if he gets that increase on one hand, to lose it on the other. My feeling about this minister is that he simply will not let that happen, but I ask him to tell us for sure that it is not going to happen. I ask him to tell us tonight that he will take the necessary steps so that it will not happen again either now or at any time in the future.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to reply to this question concerning war veterans allowances. When this question was raised previously I assured the House that veterans have not been forgotten. I believe that the record of this government in the field of veterans legislation is very real proof of our concern for our veterans.
With the passage of Bill C-148 in March of this year, we saw a marked improvement in the rates and ceilings of war veterans allowance and civilian war allowances. Since December 31, 1971, we have already increased these rates and ceilings by 24.8 per cent single, 27.8 per cent married and over 24 per cent for orphans. In cases where the husband and wife are both 65 or over, because of the exemptions provided the increase is 32 per cent.
These increases, together with the amendments to the regulations concerning casual earnings which are $1,000 single and $1,500 married, the removal of the penalty for having a home valued at over $10,000, and the provisions for the automatic escalation of the rates and ceilings in accordance with the rise in the consumer price index, represent in all a genuine effort to improve the standard of living for this very worthy group of Canadians.
A unique feature of Bill C-148 was that for the first time in the history of the legislation, limits on personal property were abolished. In June of this year we introduced legislation which, I am proud to say, the House was pleased to pass, increasing disability pensions paid under the Pension Act by 34.2 per cent, or $100 per month, thus raising the new basic rate to $4,704.
I am sure I speak for all members when I say Canada is proud of its veterans legislation. This government has every intention of maintaining our record of dealing fairly with veterans and their dependants. The effect of the old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement increases on war veterans allowance is only one of the matters with which we are concerned. Others of equal importance have also been receiving our attention.
Adjournment Debate
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that at the appropriate time measures will be introduced to further improve the War Veterans Allowance Act. Further, in response to the hon. member may I say I am proposing a device which, I hope, will remove the discrepancy about which we have been talking.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


HEALTH-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO ALLIANCE FOR LIFE
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are concerned about the rising abortion rate and would like to see the number of abortions decreased. Abortions have nearly quadrupled within three years and now amount to approximately 10 per cent of live births in Canada, as will be seen by the following figures: 1970, live births 371,888, abortions 11,152; 1971, live births 362,187, abortions 30,923; 1972, live births 342,050; abortions 40,000.
These figures not only reflect the cheapening of human life but also contain a warning concerning the future health of the nation. Perhaps most striking is the correlation of the number of induced abortions with the prematurity of subsequent children and thus with the presence in subsequent babies of congenital handicaps. There are also striking increases in perinatal mortality and various sorts of morbidity of the mother.
Alliance for Life is the only effective national organization directly attempting to alleviate this situation. As a non-denominational, pro-life movement it co-ordinates the work of a growing number of local organizations, currently numbering 50, with a membership of over 10,000 ranging from Newfoundland to Inuvik. It is pursuing its goal by creating and distributing audio-visual aids, by providing trained speakers for high school classes, university seminars, church and social groups, by staging public exhibits, for example, at the Canadian National Exhibition, by keeping the theme of respect for life before television, radio, magazines and newspapers, and by generating research.
Last May, Alliance for Life officials came to Parliament Hill. A delegation headed by the renowned gynaecologist, Dr. Heather Morris of Toronto, presented an excellent brief to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and several cabinet ministers. Attached was a petition signed by 350,000 Canadians urging that "abortion legislation be amended in order that full and equal recognition and protection be given to all human life before as well as after birth."
Subsequently, Alliance for Life requested a grant from the federal government to help develop its educational program and to enlarge its ability to communicate with the public. The amount requested was $587,000, the major portion of which would be spent on a carefully prepared campaign of visual advertisements in magazines and cards inside public transportation. The request was met with a hostile response from the Department of National Health and Welfare. The department advanced the argument that if federal support were given to an organization which was clearly opposed to any liberalization of the law relating to abortion, the government would expose itself to

September 11, 1973
Adjournment Debate
pressures to do the same for organizations holding contrary views. In fact, the department has not hesitated to fund organizations which both officially endorse and actively work toward the withdrawal of all legal restrictions on abortion.
For example, the Family Planning Federation of Canada, which recently received a grant of $500,000, takes the official position, and publicizes it, that abortion should be removed from the Criminal Code and that all hospitals be forced to provide abortion on request as a condition of receiving public funds. Part of the $500,000 was distributed to the local affiliates of the federation, many of them called Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood of Toronto has stated that this grant is being used to distribute to students literature which says, in part: "We think having an abortion is more moral than bringing an unwanted child into this world".
Planned Parenthood of Toronto stages seminars for 13 to 19-year olds at which the pro-abortion position is clearly advanced. I have in my hand a comic book distributed widely by Planned Parenthood which says:
Some people consider abortion immoral and they have a right to think this way. Most people, as well as the majority of religious groups, believe that women should have the right to make their own decisions about their unintended pregnancies-whether to give birth (keep the child or put it up for adoption) or have an abortion. Where abortion is illegal only the rich can arrange for a safe one.
Planned Parenthood of Guelph summarizes the result of its abortion counselling service in which for the first six months of 1973, of 29 pregnant women counselled, 25 had therapeutic abortions. Further, the department itself is distributing pamphlets, printed in the United States, containing pro-abortion messages.
It is ridiculous to state that this government is not aiding the pro-abortion movement. It is not only hypocritical; it is a national scandal that the government refuses at the same time to give concrete assistance to the pro-life movement in the face of alarming escalation of abortions in Canada.
Canada has the opportunity to lead the world in showing that non-violent solutions may be found for the ills of our society, and this government has a unique opportunity of being in the forefront of this leadership by promoting respect for all human beings, born and yet unborn.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and for the facts he put on record. I have had an opportunity to meet with members of Alliance for Life during the past few months and I have always been impressed by the devotion and the quality of work being
accomplished by this organization. As to their particular request for funds, the matter is still under consideration.
In his speech the hon. member made certain statements that I should like to check, particularly regarding the official position of the Family Planning Federation of Canada. I must confess that this is the first time, to my knowledge, that an official position has been attributed to the Family Planning Federation of Canada and I shall certainly investigate this matter further.
As to the activities of various affiliates, obviously one could always answer, on the other side, that there are other affiliates of the Family Planning Federation of Canada which are opposed to abortion in any way, shape or form. I suspect that within the Family Planning Federation of Canada one would find a wide variety of opinion, so in a way I do not think it would be quite fair to take just one side or one group within the Family Planning Federation and represent it as the view of the federation.
As to the particular document that has been printed in the United States and allegedly distributed by my department, it was brought to my attention a couple of months ago and I immediately gave instructions that such distribution be stopped. I understand there is really very little circulation. It was a kind of compendium of brochures and publications available in the field and distributed through the department. No one had ever noticed this reference to that particular book, as far as I know.
In terms of general policy, the federal government does not regard abortion as an acceptable method of birth control; I should like that point to be made very clear. It does, however, recognize that unwanted conceptions may occur as a result of failure to use an effective method of contraception or any contraception at all. In these cases there may be justification for therapeutic abortion, not because the pregnancy was unplanned but because it may have given rise to conditions which, in the opinion of a therapeutic abortion committee, provide appropriate grounds for termination in accordance with the Criminal Code.
Birth control clinics are often visited by women seeking advice about unwanted pregnancies. To turn them away without help would be inhumane and could be regarded as tantamount to an attempt by the clinic's staff to impose their personal views about a subject on which society has expressed its collective will through the law.
It would seem that much of the difficulty in understanding the federal government's position arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of abortion counselling. In the sense in which it is customarily employed and in which it is defined by this department, it involves the objective presentation of several alternatives within the laws of Canada as defined by parliament, and not the deliberate application of pressure to consider one option only.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Wednesday, September 12, 1973