1978-11-01

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I seek to invoke the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The motion I would put, if leave is granted, is as follows:
In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court as to the application of section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, this House requests the government, and in particular the Solicitor General, not to accept requests to apply that section to deny Walter Rudnicki production of material documents in the civil action brought by Mr. Rudnicki against a former solicitor general in the infamous blacklist matter, where the issues involved are ministerial stupidity and embarrassment rather than defence or security.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity concerning unemployment insurance cheques distributed during the postal strike from temporary distribution centres between October 13 and October 20, and the fact that a high official of the commission has advised me that in excess of 40,000 cheques were not picked up in Ontario alone.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration make an immediate statement concerning a meeting being held at this moment in Toronto of UIC officials, chaired by Mr. David Brown, regarding the fact that a great percentage of these unclaimed cheques are for apparently fraudulent claims; that the minister advise the results of this meeting, including what steps will be taken to deal with possible fraud and, finally, that he reveal the total number of unclaimed cheques in all provinces in this same category which are reported to comprise about 10 per cent of all claims.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
...


REQUEST NATURAL GAS EXPORTS NOT BE INCREASED-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It was reported in the Globe and Mail last week that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) supports the call of the Conservative Premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed, for increased natural gas sales to the United States, a statement which is in direct contradiction to the position of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). I know the minister of industry has changed horses in full flight; despite that, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this House request the Prime Minister to mediate the dispute between his two ministers and announce that the gas will be conserved for Canadian use.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   REQUEST FOR CONDEMNATION OF STATEMENT BY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION RESPECTING SOVEREIGNTY ASSOCIATION WITH QUEBEC-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the shocking statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to the effect that if he were the prime minister of Canada, he would negotiate sovereignty association with the Quebec government if 60 per cent of the Quebec population supported their government in the referendum; since the wording of the referendum question is not known and could be prejudicial to the very existence of this country, and also since a federal-provincial conference is going on at present, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Demers):

November 1, 1978
That the House condemn the irresponsible position taken by the Leader of the Progressive Conservative party who, without any popular or political mandate, is already willing to negotiate the future of my country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the hon, member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It is well known to this House that one, Danylo Shumuk, a political prisoner in the Soviet Union, is in a seriously deteriorated state of health at a harsh labour camp in the Mordovian region of the U.S.S.R. We now learn, through apparently reliable channels, that Mr. Shumuk is dying of terminal stomach cancer.
Members of his family in Canada have repeatedly requested this government to seek the release of Mr. Shumuk so that he might be allowed to immigrate to Canada. I therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs be requested to renew, reinforce and persist in diplomatic initiatives which will bring Mr. Danylo Shumuk to Canada so that he might enjoy the closing days of his life among friends and relatives.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada as recently as October 16 refused to hear an appeal by the Post Office Department concerning a Federal Court decision rendered in June, 1978, allowing 2,700 grievances on the matter of the use of casual labour in the Post Office, and in view of the fact that the Deputy Postmaster

General told the Supreme Court that there an average of ten people were attached to each grievance, which meant that the grievances affected 27,000 employees and would cost the government more than $2 million, and in view of the fact that this waste of $2 million of taxpayers' money, as well as the hard feelings caused by forcing unnecessary grievance procedures could have been avoided if the Post Office had either obeyed the collective agreement in the first place or even accepted the decision at the first level of the grievance procedure, I move, seconded by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That this House call upon the Postmaster General to make a public statement guaranteeing that his department will now follow the terms of the collective agreement in the use of casuals, thus improving labour relations in the Post Office and saving the taxpayers $2 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an urgent and pressing matter.
Considering that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) has announced that he will close the technical laboratories in his department and encourage private businesses to take over and since only the larger companies are likely to be able to afford these functions and that smaller ones will only have a limited access to these developments; considering also that most of the research must be done by the government as is the case in all countries of the world, specially since we have extended our fishing zones, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House urge the government to review its decision so that small and medium sized businesses might benefit from the advantages stemming from scientific research in the field of fisheries.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 1, 1978


REASON FOR DELAY IN FORMING MARITIME ENERGY CORPORATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Maritime Energy Corporation is a concept of vital importance to the development and transmission of electric power in the maritime provinces, and whereas after the initial announcement over a year ago by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) for Canada and the maritime premiers the corporation is still not in existence, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources be directed to make a statement on motions indicating the reasons for delay in formation of the Maritime Energy Corporation and the steps that must be taken to activate it.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion at this time, in conformity with Standing Order 43, would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
Oral Questions
mendations and do what he can in the circumstances. I cannot say more than that. I expect my colleague to be in the House later in the question period.


Mr. Andre:: The Auditor General also points out that the failure of the government to consolidate certain Crown corporations within government accounts creates a distorted picture of government accounts, assets and spending. It has also been the practice of this government not to declare in estimates certain Crown corporation borrowings and then to claim that these are somehow cuts in spending.
In view of the fact that the government has apparently dismissed the Auditor General's recommendation that there be this consolidation of Crown corporations, in the interests of honesty and a completely accurate picture, will the Minister of Finance indicate to the House why this recommendation is dismissed and why we are not being given an accurate picture of government spending, its assets position and its balance-sheet and income statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my question would have been to the President of the Treasury Board, whom we were told was going to be here today. In his absence, I will direct it to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the public accounts tabled yesterday, and the statement by the Auditor General therein that the public accounts again this year overstate assets of the government and understate expenditures. I am sure the Minister of Finance would agree that accurate public accounts are absolutely essential and would recognize that a private company with that kind of qualified audit would, in fact, be called to account by the responsible regulatory authority.
My question to the Minister of Finance, if he is in a position to answer, is: when will the government take action on the recommendations of the Auditor General and ensure that the public accounts are a true and honest statement of government accounts?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, over a period of years we have been receiving good advice from the Auditor General. We have made a lot of corrections. The President of the Treasury Board will look into these recom-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, all Crown corporations report to this House through ministers. When somebody wants to know the exact picture of a Crown corporation, they can obtain that information. On the technical problem raised by the hon. member, I stated that the President of the Treasury Board is looking into that and will certainly reply to the hon. member.


Harvie Andre: I ask the Minister of Finance a specific and simple question. The Auditor General has pointed out that assets and investments in some Crown corporations are listed as assets when in fact they are written off and should be listed as expenditures. They should be put on the expenditure side; they should not be claimed as some sort of investment. The corporations mentioned are the National Harbours Board, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
Can we at least have an assurance that this simple bookkeeping procedure will be followed, so that with respect to at least those three Crown corporations we will have an accurate picture of their financial position and the Crown investment therein?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course, we shall consider very seriously the recommendations of the Auditor General and see what can be done to accommodate him. At the same time we should not disregard the autonomy of Crown corporations which often operate under a law of parliament, and which have very often their own auditors.

November 1, 1978
Oral Questions


IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: My question is for the
Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, as one of those who signed the public accounts which we tabled yesterday. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman this: since the fifth report of the public accounts committee which was tabled in the House in 1976 endorsed the 41 recommendations of the report of the study of the accounts of Canada, why is it that the Auditor General now reports that six of those recommendations, including one requiring parliamentary authority for its implementation, have not been implemented despite the commitment given to the Auditor General last year that this would be done?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the hon. member-and he said so himself-that the number of recommendations which have not yet been implemented by this government are lower than the number of recommendations which were accepted. I am sure we are going on in this direction to satisfy him, while taking into account the administrative requirements of the government.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Considering the 50 per cent increase in the budget of the Auditor General, I would like to ask the minister when the government will start listening and making his proposals known?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think we changed our procedures quite a lot following the recommendations of the Auditor General, and we intend to continue to do so but we may not be able to satisfy him 100 per cent. There are ongoing discussions between the Treasury Board and the Auditor General. We established a new office inside the government at his request, namely the office of Comptroller of Government Expenditures. We followed a very important recommendation of the Auditor General. We increased quite considerably his staff and I think that relations between the Auditor General and the government are very good at the present time.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FOREIGN MINISTER OF TURKEY
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before continuing the question period, may I ask hon. members to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor on an official visit to Canada, His Excellency Gunduz Okcun, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Chr6tien.J


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs: it concerns a decision on the part of the federal government, announced on September 9, 1978, to cut off loans for land banking purposes in accordance with the report submitted by Mr. Greenspan.
Why was this decision to end the land banking loans, particularly as they affect the city of Toronto, made at a time when the Greenspan report dealt only with suburban land banking, not with inner city land banking?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1
am aware of the particular problems surrounding land assembly in the core of the city. It has been suggested that a program should be established to facilitate the infill, and we are looking at the situation at the present time.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the minister is taking these steps, but I would like to know more precisely what he has in mind. As he may be aware, the commissioner for housing of the city of Toronto submitted a report to the Toronto city council. That report was approved on October 10, 1978. It was a scathing indictment of the actions of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for cutting off land banking without any warning and without any advice being given to the city of Toronto. Was the minister aware that this threatens further development of a housing site which is currently being developed for some 700 housing units?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think that the provinces and municipalities will have to acknowledge that they cannot have it both ways. If they resent federal government intervention, particularly in land assembly or any other activities in relation to municipal infrastructures, they cannot claim that the federal government should pull out of some of their activities and then come back and say that they did not receive warning and, therefore, the Government of Canada should not have done so.
I believe that the federal government has taken the decision that we will no longer be part of buying land and we will let provincial and municipal authorities engage in that if they want to.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if municipal authorities had taxing power, it would be possible to take the minister's remarks seriously. But until they do, they cannot.


An hon. Member:: What about property taxes?


Bob Rae: Will the minister at least guarantee that he will look very seriously at the possibility of maintaining the current land banking loans of $30 million and allowing the city to repay those loans into a fund which could then be rolled over and used for future developments? Will the minister at least consider that proposal?
November 1, 1978


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like the city of Toronto to knock first at the door of the provincial government: that is the first thing it should do. In the meantime, the federal government will always be ready to assist municipalities. In the past we have done so quite brilliantly in many respects.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: It has been said by some hon. members of this House, particularly members of the official opposition, that the federal government ought not to infringe upon provincial rights. We have indicated that we are willing to do away with some of the programs which were previously in existence. Now that people realize the federal government is ready to take a less important role in municipal projects, people are thinking twice: they are thinking that the federal government was not so bad in doing what it was doing after all.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, and that because of the absence of the Minister of National Revenue who is sitting in the Senate.
In view of the government program to decentralize administration by setting up regional offices for the various departments with a view to better serving the people, can the minister tell the House when the Revenue Canada office is to be officially opened at Shawinigan South which was mentioned recently in news bulletins over the radio and also in the newspapers?


Mr. Yves Demers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking note of the question of the hon. member and shall advise him as soon as possible.


INQUIRY WHETHER DECENTRALIZATION WILL IMPROVE ADMINISTRATION
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue was kind enough to answer my first question, I shall put a second one to him.
As all the ministers are concerned with better serving the people, will the fact that regional offices are being opened by the Department of National Revenue throughout Canada help to better serve the taxpayers on the one hand, and ensure
Oral Questions
greater income to the government on the other hand, thus helping the Minister of Finance to balance his budget?


Yves Demers: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose is not so much to collect more revenue, because I believe Revenue Canada offices have been very efficient in that regard in the past, as to help the people in all parts of Quebec as well as Canada to get to know the Canadian government better, and to give jobs to the people throughout Quebec.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As a result of the dramatic moves made in the United States today with respect to their economy, putting that nation into a relatively tight money situation with the federal discount rate going up a full point, would the minister indicate what the government plans to do with their excess cash on deposit, the $5.5 billion that they have on deposit at the present time? Do they plan to use that cash in a way to let it run down, as opposed to borrowing on our domestic market; or do they in fact plan to do what the minister has represented to some people, to use it to hold the dollar down roughly to the 85-cent, 86-cent level?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speculate on the movement of the dollar. I think that the announcements made in the United States this morning were quite dramatic. I am following the situation very closely. I do not want to speculate, because everybody is aware of the fact that the stock markets in the United States and Canada fluctuate up so far during the day.
Any move which the United States takes to stabilize their economy has to be welcomed by Canada because our economies are so interrelated. So far, the effect on Canada has been positive. I do not want to add to the situation at this time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that we do know is that there is no speculative nature in the fact that we will have higher interest rates than we have ever experienced.
Two weeks ago I pointed out to the minister that the bankruptcy rate in Canada was now seven in relation to every ten in the United States, whereas ten years ago it was one in relation to ten in the United States. At that time, I asked the minister if any specific measures had been taken to relieve the lot of the small businessman in Canada who must live with these high interest rates to the detriment of his well-being. The minister indicated that he would take the matter up with the governor of the Bank of Canada, who in turn would speak to

November 1, 1978
Oral Questions
the presidents of the chartered banks in order to make the plight of small business a little better.
Would the minister indicate to the House what report he has received, either directly from the presidents of our chartered banks or the governor of the Bank of Canada, as to how they intend to ensure that the small businessman will not have to share the complete ravish caused by high interest rates in the country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said I would talk about this problem with the governor of the Bank of Canada. I have not received a reply as such. The governor of the Bank of Canada meets regularly with the presidents of the chartered banks to discuss problems with which they are faced.
As to the plight of the small businessman, this House of Commons was called upon last spring to vote on some measures that were to improve the fate of small business and they were passed unanimously. Let us hope that those measures are helping the small businessman in these difficult circumstances.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the full point discount rate increase in the United States will likely mean at least a half point further increase in our bank rate, would the minister indicate what effect this will have on the Canada Savings Bond issue that is still being sold? Does the government plan to raise the rate on that issue, or will it try to suck Canadians into buying still more savings bonds in spite of the fact that interest rates are likely to go up still higher in the country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to comment too much on the situation. It is evident that the hon. member is attempting to create confusion, and in doing so he shows a very high degree of irresponsibility in his comments. If there is any movement in the interest rate, it will be announced in due course. I am not going to speculate and engage in the kind of business that the hon. member enjoys.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO CLOSE PLANT IN LAPRADE, QUEBEC
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
On October 19 last, the minister met his provincial counterpart Mr. Joron about the Laprade plant. In view of the fact that the federal government still gives the impression that it will maintain its decision to close the Laprade site and that the Quebec government is restating its intention to take all necessary steps to see that the contract which has been signed is complied with in the interest of Quebeckers, after some ten

days is the minister in a position to tell us today whether the government decision is final or whether he is reconsidering it?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in my discussions with the minister of energy for the province of Quebec, I made quite clear to him the reason the federal government was anxious to mothball the Laprade plant in an expeditious way: it was because there would be significant savings to Quebec consumers. To do otherwise would be irresponsible at this time. He undertook to take my position to his own cabinet colleagues and to get back to me. I have yet to hear from him.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the minister is speaking to Quebeckers from a consumer point of view. I imagine he made an assessment before those spending cuts were announced. I cannot understand today how the minister had not considered the consumer's interests before signing such agreement.
I would also ask the minister, considering that his provincial counterpart has mentioned that the closing down will cost 1,500 jobs and that he has referred to 500 jobs during the first 18 months, whether he can confirm his assessment, and I think it is an important matter, that 1,500 or 500 jobs are involved?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there has been a very substantial change in the marketing situation respecting heavy water and the increased need for nuclear power. Various governments have been scaling down their electrical demand forecasts over a period of years. As perhaps the hon. member knows, as far as the export market is concerned, recently there has been a scaling back of what had been rather ambitious programs in various countries.
Given that information and the further information by the Quebec government in its own white paper, when it indicated clearly that it did not expect to require nuclear power over and above what it was committed to during the 1990s and before the year 2000-which position was different from the one we understood at the time the agreement was signed in January of this year-and given that it would cost the consumers of Quebec millions of additional dollars to proceed with the plant at this time, we decided the correct course of action was to renegotiate the agreement with Quebec with a view to mothballing that facility. There are approximately 500 people on that site at the present time. If the mothballing goes forward in the interests of the consumers of Quebec, then there will not be any significant reduction for a year's time of the number on the site at the present time.
November 1, 1978


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs: it concerns the extended leave of absence given to Mr. Bill Teron, the deputy head of his department. Can the minister indicate to the House when we can expect the return of Mr. Teron? Also, can he explain the conditions under which this unusual extension of leave of absence was granted by the government?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to report that, in fact, Mr. Teron is back at work. I had a meeting with him this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. First of all, I would like to know what progress has been made in the study conducted by his department concerning a second zinc smelter in northeast New Brunswick; second, has Noranda Mines Limited announced a decision in this matter; and finally, can he ensure the House of his department's full co-operation and of the federal government's financial support in this project should the company give the go ahead and, of course, ask the government for help?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to reassure the hon. member as to my department's continuing interest in this project. As he is aware, we had started negotiating with Noranda Mines and New Brunswick Mining and Smelting about two years ago. However, market conditions have deteriorated since then with the result that the company is far from a final decision. Nevertheless, in the meantime we have agreed to look into the possibility of conducting a feasibility study of the whole project. In the last few months we have received a proposal from a firm in that regard. Both levels of government are now considering this proposal and trying to establish what part of the cost they should bear, as this study would involve substantial sums of money. I can therefore confirm to the hon. member our continuing keen interest in this project, and our hope that international conditions will improve in the next few months so that we may go ahead, if the company so agrees as that time.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration: it arises out of information which I received from a high Unemployment Insurance Commission official, indicating that over 40,000 UIC cheques remained unclaimed at temporary distribution centres in Ontario alone at the end of the postal strike.
Will the minister confirm that high-level consideration has been, and is, taking place in Toronto under the chairmanship of Mr. David Brown to determine whether to investigate many such claims that appear fraudulent? Will he confirm that he will order such an investigation and prosecution in all fraudulent cases?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the hon. member would jump to the conclusion that the large majority of working persons in Canada would not pick up their cheques for some fraudulent purpose.


An hon. Member:: Who said they were working? They were on UIC.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: If they are working, that is the best fraud.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The fact of the matter is that we were able to advertise that there would be some pick-up points. I would expect that a lot of these people did not pick up their cheques because they did not see the ad. In many cases they were back at work and could not leave the employment they had recently secured. So I think we should await the outcome of the examination to see whether there was fraud, as the hon. member said. If there was, I suggest it would be in a very small minority of cases.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I am glad, at least, that the minister admits an investigation is going on. Also, I am aware that there are almost 2,000 cheques in the Ottawa area alone. Will the minister advise the House of the total number of unclaimed cheques across the country, including Ontario? I mentioned just Ontario in my previous question. Are investigations taking place regarding all provinces? Will all fraudulent claims be prosecuted? If he can, I think the minister should acknowledge to the House that someone out of work who needs a UIC cheque will not leave it unclaimed, if it is on the level?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I would think, first and foremost, my officials have a responsibility to see that people who did not receive their cheques will now receive them. They will endeavour to find out where they are and why the cheques have not been picked up. They would be remiss in their duty if they did not check out the reasons for it. But I think they will find, in the vast majority of cases, that it was because people were either at work or were not aware of the fact that it was possible to pick up the cheques at the outlets.

November 1, 1978
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, since no government should be blamed for the weather, particularly today's, in addition to all the things they should be blamed for, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State (Environment).
In view of the fact that one grain crop in Saskatchewan is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the Canadian economy, that more improved farmland is in Saskatchewan than Manitoba and Alberta combined, and that 40 per cent of occupied farmland is in Saskatchewan, can the minister tell us the results of the meeting between himself or his officials and the government of Saskatchewan regarding their offer to put up $200,000 in order to maintain full weather forecasting and reporting services in Regina?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting was a very fruitful one. My assistant deputy minister explained to the officials of the government of Saskatchewan that there will be no diminution in the weather forecasting services available to the province of Saskatchewan. The moving of weather forecasters from the Regina office to Winnipeg had been in the planning stages for some time; it was not a recent move. But since the spending cuts came about, the move was speeded up.
Another outcome of that meeting was that the Saskatchewan government offered us $200,000 in order to keep the Regina office open. We are considering that proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Len Marchand: I will take their money.


An hon. Member:: Saskatchewan has lots of money.


Len Marchand: Saskatchewan has lots of money, and they would have even more if-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We would, if you guys would leave us alone.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, someone says they are getting snow in Regina. We are getting snowed here. In view of the fact that there are as many square miles in Saskatchewan as there are in either Alberta or Manitoba, and since the minister was able to reverse the decision in the case of Newfoundland when a by-election was on-and there are 100,000 fewer square miles in Newfoundland about which to report the weather-will the minister advise his cabinet colleagues that this decision must be reversed and that full weather forecasting and reporting services in Saskatchewan will have to be

maintained and, in fact, that they need to be enlarged compared with what they used to be?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there were two different situations. In respect of Newfoundland, representations on the basis of safety were made to me, not only by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but by a large number of the public there who felt that if the weather office in Gander was closed, it would endanger the lives of a great many people, especially the fishermen. Professionals involved in weather services said there may be some truth in those representations and that there may be situations where a safety factor would be involved.
However, in the case of Saskatchewan this advice was not given to me. I am absolutely assured that the people in Saskatchewan will get full and complete weather service, just as they had before. As a matter of fact, it is only the forecasters who are being moved from Regina to Winnipeg: we will still maintain at least nine people in the Regina office to give the people of Saskatchewan full weather forecasting services.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Transport. I gather that, unfortunately, it is not the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as I was hoping it would be.
My question refers to the activities of CN Marine and CN generally which, by their actions, are drastically reducing the opportunities for employment for stevedores and others at North Sydney, the port from which the shipment of goods destined for Newfoundland is made. I was hoping that the acting minister would be the Secretary of State for External Affairs, since he is from Newfoundland. However, will the acting minister discuss this matter with his colleagues to ascertain whether an inquiry could take place in respect of this drastic cutback in employment and with regard to the government's provision of subsidy through the CTC to private shipping operators competing against the government's Crown corporation for the shipment of goods to Newfoundland?
[ Translation]


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, whether in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or any other Atlantic province-I think in this case Newfoundland is the province concerned-we have reviewed and are still reviewing the situation in relation to the CN railways and ferry services, and that is why we have set up the Snavely commission; as for the other provinces we also have received representations, for example from the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, to review the transport situation in those areas. That question is constantly under
November 1, 1978

review, and we are trying to find ways to provide the best service to the population, and also the best ways to create as many jobs as possible in the railways or ferry services.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his reply. Eiowever, he still has not advised me whether it is the policy of this government to provide subsidies to private shipping firms which acquire old ships with funds, in many cases, from the treasury and go into business in competition with Crown corporations which were set up to ship goods from the mainland, North Sydney-the port from which goods are to be shipped-to Newfoundland. Why is the government doing that and destroying the opportunities for CN Marine and CN generally to use their own ships, which on many occasions are lying idle?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the government subsidy policy, as far as I know, does not necessarily apply to help private companies make profits, but rather to provide the best service to any population. As for the specific point raised by the hon. member, I will be glad to try and get more information for him.


FISHERIES
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: 
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, speaking of the need to be responsible, perhaps I should compliment the minister on his letter to the editor the other day regarding a much more serious matter, and I do so. I know in his responses he is trying to be responsible. However, I come from a maritime province where fisheries are of great importance to the economy of the area- specifically, British Columbia. There is a great deal of confusion now as to just who is going to control the rivers in which salmon return annually to spawn and from which the harvest is taken. The confusion that seems to exist between the minister and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put his question.


John Allen Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for being so extensive. Could the minister tell the House if there is now a debate going on between his ministry and another ministry as to whether the Government of Canada has final authority over the fisheries in anadromous fish streams; or are we, in fact, faced with a dilemma in the law of the country regarding whether that authority is to be shared with Indian bands or given away to them?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, when I made reference to people who are not responsible, I was not referring to the hon. member. He has been extremely responsible in his questions on this issue, because he recognizes the problem. There is no debate about the authority of the Government of Canada over fisheries' management in respect of fish returning to spawning grounds, etc. The only question is in respect of access to fish which might be affected by Indian band bylaws under the Indian Act. In that case, we are looking for what will possibly not be a legalistic approach but an intelligent approach which recognizes that the Indian food fishery has had a very high priority, not only in the department of my colleague but in my department as well.
The other matter, of course, relates to good conservation and fair distribution of fish to all users of the resource. I might say that responsible leaders in Indian communities do not disagree with this approach.


CONSTRUCTION OF WHARF ON TUSKET ISLAND, N.S.
Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and concerns the proposed fisheries' industrial park on Tusket Island.
The minister had agreed to go ahead with the joint construction of a wharf on Tusket Island with the previous government of Nova Scotia. Has this proposed joint wharf construction been ratified by the new government of Nova Scotia and, if so, how soon can construction of a wharf in this area be started? If not, will the minister press to seek approval from the new

November 1, 1978
the federal government has a good program: they would like the federal government to give them the money to carry out these good programs.
I understand that it is the position of the Conservative party to support the provinces in this endeavour, to take the federal money and do things provincially, giving credit to the provincial authorities. We feel there should be a strong federal government, having its own responsibility and doing its own program. We are not going to have ten separate states in Canada; we still want to have one strong federal government.


POST OFFICE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General? Now that the inside postal workers are back to work-although from the complaints I am getting, the service is not much better-I have just received a letter from Canada Post. I assume it is meant for me, although it is addressed to an MPP. It gives me some concern because it asks me to put the postal code on envelopes going out of my office.
I wonder if the Postmaster General has spoken to the Minister of Supply and Services and other ministers to make sure that the envelopes going out of my office, which are the same as those going out of every other office, marked only "House of Commons, Canada" will also have the postal code on them?
Oral Questions
government of Nova Scotia to proceed immediately with construction of this needed wharf?


Mr. McGrath:: What about my wharf?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will come to the hon. member for St. John's East, and his wharf, next time. I will be meeting the new minister of fisheries for Nova Scotia next Monday afternoon, when I will raise this matter with him. It is obvious that the offer I made to the previous government still stands.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The federal government's $2.5 billion budget cut includes a $110 million reduction for the Canadian Home Insulation Program.
My question to the minister is prompted by a statement from the CMHC news and information director that " ... original funding levels were set in a relatively arbitrary manner." Could the minister explain, in light of a cumulative report of the program statistics which shows only 11 per cent accounted for in grants issued, what are the administrative costs of this program and what will be the disposition of the remaining approximately 80 per cent of the budget during the remaining half of this fiscal year?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the question of the hon. member should be put on the order paper because it would require a long explanation with a series of figures to be presented. In short, if I am allowed, I could answer the hon. member by saying that the case had to be arbitrary in the sense that we felt the federal government had to be restrained in its expenditures. We did it in a fashion that would not hurt those on lower incomes, more particularly the clientele of the Department of Urban Affairs, they being low income families and senior citizens.
We had, therefore, more naturally to cut in the case of my department in relation to other programs that were not directly involving or affecting low income families and senior citizens.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister confirm that it will be the intention of the government, as outlined by CHIP director Noel Guilbeault "to go directly to the population rather than through TV, and the message will be more direct to come and get the grant and do the insulating." Would the minister indicate how the provinces have reacted to this direct intervention?


André Ouellet: The provinces have indicated that they would like to take the federal money and do the program themselves. That has been the general posture of the provinces every time


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the reason is that we are trying to get people to use the postal code because it helps mail to be dealt with more rapidly.
As for the first part of the question, I think the hon. member should understand that even if he does not get his mail regularly at this moment, it is because there is obviously a backlog of mail. We are trying, by way of overtime and the use of casuals, to get it moved as soon as possible. I presume the hon. member will get his mail on time in the next few days.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell the House how great is the number of Canada Savings Bonds on which the interest rate is below the present 9.5 per cent and on which it may well have to be raised?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are having an active campaign on Canada Savings Bonds at this time and the market is responding very well. I do not want
November 1, 1978

to speculate about what could happen in the next week or the next month.
Order Paper Questions
Canadians are being charged some $388 more per vehicle than the same car going to the United States?


William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the Eiouse that the treasury can handle the large sums of money for redemptions that could occur if the Canada Savings Bonds were presented, bearing in mind that some investment houses are advising clients to avoid Canadian bonds?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, Canada Savings Bonds were easy to market in the past, and they are easy to market at this time.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. The prairie regional director for the Canadian Penitentiary Service, Mr. Jim Phelps, stated recently that the government is considering three options for the proposed new federal prison at Selkirk, Manitoba: first, no penitentiary at all; second, an even bigger prison; third, a medium-sized prison, but not for some years yet.
In view of these stated contradictory options, which have only served to create more confusion and uncertainty for the people of Selkirk and for the employees of the present institution at Stony Mountain, I would like to ask the Solicitor General if he could give a clear statement of the government's plans for the proposed new federal penitentiary at Selkirk, Manitoba.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that problem, but since I have responsibility for labelling, I will check into this matter and make sure that they follow the rules.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, considering that the issue at stake is not simply dishonesty in suggesting where the car is being produced but also concerns equity for Canadian consumers, and considering that if you add the differene in price that comes from additional extras, the additional mark-ups that come from a whole variety of other items that are not included in this basic price difference, will the minister take steps to commit the government to a policy that will mean Canadians do not pay one cent more for cars produced in Canada than do Americans?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly check the allegations of the hon. member to see if what he says is correct; and having done that, I will follow it up.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member describes the options as being contradictory, but they are options and they are being considered. An announcement relative to the Selkirk penitentiary and the option we may select of the three the hon. member has advanced will be made in due course-I hope soon-in order to remove the uncertainty the hon. member has described.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, a proclamation declaring November as "Canadian Fish and Seafood Month."


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister knows that Ford of Canada recently received a $68 million hand-out from the government of Ontario and the federal government. Considering that its profits are more than twice as high in Canada than they are in the United States, I ask the minister if he is aware that at the Oakville plant in Ontario, Ford is producing vehicles dishonestly labelled as coming from Buffalo, New York, and that for the identical vehicle coming off the assembly line at Oakville,


QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: 139.


MULTICULTURALISM-MINISTER'S TRAVELS
Mr. Mitges: 1.	In his capacity as Minister responsible for Multiculturalism, how many trips did the honourable Member for Hamilton East make outside his Constit-

November 1, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty
uency to urban centres in Canada, not including Ottawa, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977 and, in each case (a) to what centres and on what dates (b) by what means did he travel and at what cost to the government (c) how many persons accompanied him and what are their names and job designations?
2.	In his capacity as Minister responsible for Multiculturalism, how many trips did the Minister make outside Canada and, in each case, (a) to what places (i.e. city and country) and on what dates (b) at what cost to the government?
3,	In his capacity as Minister responsible for Multiculturalism, how many speaking engagements did the Minister fulfil during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977 and, in each case (a) what group or organization did he address and on what dates (b) at what locations (i.e. city and province)?


Yvon Pinard: See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, citation 171(11).

[ Translation]


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 139 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


MULTICULTURALISM-MINISTER'S TRAVELS
Mr. Mitges: 1.	Since his appointment as Minister of State for Multiculturalism, how many trips did the honourable Member for Ontario make outside his Constituency to urban centres in Canada, not including Ottawa and, in each case (a) to what cities or towns and on what dates (b) by what means did he travel and at what cost to the government (c) how many persons accompanied him and what are their names and job designations?
2.	Since his appointment as Minister of State for Multiculturalism, how many trips did the Minister make outside Canada and, in each case, to what places (i.e. city and country) and at what cost to the government?
3.	In his capacity as Minister of State for Multiculturalism, how many speaking engagements did the Minister fulfil and, in each case (a) what group or organization did he address and on what dates (b) at what locations (i.e. city or town and province)?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that question No. 138 be made an order for return?


Mr. Paproski:: Agreed.
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the parliamentary secretary again that many of us have had questions on the order paper extending back many months, and in some cases a matter of years. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary might do the House the courtesy of saying if he does not intend to answer questions that have sat on the order paper for several months. Perhaps he could table in the House a list of those questions which the government has no intention of answering, so we could have some idea of what they are, and certainly if there is some justification for presenting such a list then I am sure those of us who are affected would be pleased to withdraw the questions. If that were done, at least we would have some indication of what the intentions of the government were, and we could pursue the government as to the reasons why it felt it was necessary to leave the questions on the order paper for a protracted period without giving any adequate explanation.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I find these remarks unfair. On numerous occasions, following interventions made by the hon. member or by others, I have shown the government's goodwill and efficiency in dealing with questions on the order paper. I repeat once more that during the last two sessions we answered more than 90 per cent of the questions on the order paper. We are at the beginning of a new session and all the required personnel of the 40 departments or agencies are doing research to find the best complete answers to the very numerous questions already on the order paper and I can assure the hon. member that everything is being done to answer the greatest possible number of questions in the most complete and exact way possible. I can assure him that in the next days we will be able to list more questions which have been answered and I simply ask him to show here the most elementary patience.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.
Motions stood.
November 1, 1978


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
October 30-The Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council- The following proposed motion: -That the document entitled Proposed Standing Orders of the House and Rules of the Senate tabled Monday, October 30, 1978 (Sessional Paper No. 304-7/2), be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I believe I overlooked, under government notices of motion this afternoon, that pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 the notice of motion standing in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the Elouse.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: It is the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen).


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. Is it in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-10, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide for a child tax credit and to amend the Family Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Mr. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank you once again for the opportunity to speak on this matter. For those members who are unaware of it, I had the opportunity for four minutes last night to begin my speech. I took that opportunity to pass on my thanks and my compliments to those who have assisted me in the past. I also indicated that I was very happy to be able to speak today with respect to Bill C-10, particularly within the context of the guaranteed income supplement debated last week and the forthcoming discussions with respect to Bill C-2. As I indicated last night it allows me to talk about two nations. I recognize that this caused some difficulty because some people felt I might engage in a constitutional debate. Of course my purpose is otherwise.
I wish to talk about two other kinds of nations. In fact I steal the phrase from a book by a former prime minister of Great Britain in the nineteenth century, Benjamin Disraeli, who was not only a politician, as you recall, but was also a
Family Allowances
novelist. He used the novel in the way many people in the nineteenth century did, and that is to say, to make social comment. He wrote a novel called "Sybil." In that novel he described the England of his boyhood. He described two nations. They were two nations that had almost no intercourse one with the other, and had very little sympathy one with each other. Indeed, they were two nations that were ignorant of each other's habits, ignorant of each other's thoughts, and ignorant of each other's feelings. It is as though they were dwelling in two different time warps and on two different planets.
In fact the two nations were formed by different breeding, different upbringing. They were fed by different food. They were ordered by different manners and different mores and they were governed by different laws and different regulations. They were, indeed as he called them, the nation of the rich and the nation of the poor. They had very little connection except in two ways, one in the work-place where they met basically on the staircase, one coming from upstairs and one coming from downstairs. They also met socially through the institution of charity because, in the nineteenth century, at least in England, the institution of charity was the basic way in which they followed biblical injunction to look after the poor, the lame, the halt, and the blind.
Today, in this country, as the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) indicated happily, Canadians need not starve or beg in the streets for food, for shelter or for clothing. Our old people do not die because they are deprived of proper medical attention. Medical care and sickness are not the catastrophe they once were in terms of wiping out a family's lifesavings. So we have come a great distance. We have gone far in developing not only a social conscience, but also in realizing the importance of social security. But, like any long journey, it is wise to pause to see what we have built and to reflect on what it means to the people for whom the benefits are supposed to be forthcoming. I think now is a good time to do that, particularly in light of the comments made by both ministers yesterday.
I believe the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) indicated that this was a bill involving major social reform, a major restructuring. I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare called it a revolutionary bill. So perhaps now is a good time to talk about where we have been and where we might want to go.
My own view is that we have two nations still with us. That is an oversimplification, and indeed it is not helpful to call them the nation of the rich and the nation of the poor. But it is helpful to understand them as the nation of the haves and the nation of the have-nots. When I say that, in order to appreciate the point as I do, it is necessary to understand that being a have or a have-not in Canada is not only an economic condition, it is in fact a condition which is moral, psychological, emotional, and indeed spiritual.

November 1, 1978
Family Allowances
Indeed, if you look at the ethical criteria for any of the social welfare programs in the history of this country, and I look to the old Bruce commission of 1934 for the quote, the state has the right and the obligation to intervene in the economy in order "to assist individuals to realize their personal goals, their dignity and their self-esteem". That is the justification of social welfare in this country. Indeed, that is the crucial difference between charity and social security. That is the test.
To the extent that social welfare programs in this country contribute to the individual's personal goals, dignity and selfesteem, that is the extent to which we succeed. To the extent we do not, we fail the test. We talk about the principles of self esteem, dignity, and personal goals. That is the talk not only here but anywhere one wants to discuss it in this country.
I remember a line from Eldridge Cleaver who wrote the book "Soul on Ice," "If you are going to talk to talk you're going to have to walk to walk." I thought it might be helpful, it is certainly helpful to me, to take a short walk through the nation of the have-nots. Who do you find there? You find the same people. You find some old people sitting there with a lifetime of skills, a storehouse of knowledge, talent, and ways of doing things, unused, blunted by an artificial barrier. You find them sitting there so lonely.
If I could interrupt my own comment, I recall being in Peking in 1975. I had the opportunity to talk to a number of people dealing with urban affairs in that country. The first question was what were the two or three most important problems for a large urban area. We agreed that they were not transportation and housing. In fact the largest single social problem in large urban areas is loneliness. The price of that, in both economic and non-economic terms, is incalculable.
We also find in the nation of the have-nots our old friends, the lame, the halt, and the blind. They are not called that today. They are called the disabled. This country, the federal government, provincial governments, municipal governments, private corporations, and people, continue to handicap the disabled at every turn.
If you have never been disabled in an ambulatory way, think about the enormous physical effort in terms of strategy and in terms of logistics for the simple act of going to the bathroom if you are in a wheelchair.
There are about two million people in this country who are regarded as being disabled. They are often ignored and forgotten. I might add that those who are most often forgotten are the adult handicapped. The media, our institutions of learning, and most of our social voluntary organizations tend, and with good reason I am sure, to focus only on young disabled persons.
Do you know what happens to people who are paraplegics, people with ambulatory difficulties, and people with perception difficulties, who are no longer taken care of in the range of institutions which we have for young people? They do not do anything. That is what happens to them.
[Mr. Crombie.l
In December of this year there will be the first, if not in North America, certainly in Canada, paraplegic disco. A man by the name of Ben Graf is organizing that. He knows there is no place for these people to go. The incidence among these people is something we do not often hear about because it is not part of the numerology of statisticians.
A little further along the walk we find women. It is not necessary for me to deal with this in any lengthy fashion because it was dealt with so well yesterday by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). However, I think it is worth-while to point out that the constant debate about the rights of women is a kind of smoke screen that does not assist us.
Surely the liberation of the ability of women to proceed to a life of self-esteem, dignity, and pursuing personal goals, should not be at odds with their traditional role of being a mother and a wife.
I have two daughters. They are every bit as bright as my son. I see nothing wrong with them having the ability to be doctors, lawyers, plumbers, MPs or anything they choose, and, as well, enjoy the sorrows and pleasures of being wives and mothers. There is nothing wrong with them being twice blessed, as it were. Men, of course, have enjoyed being twice blessed since their inception.
Finally, there are the poor. In many years the poor are the other three as well. It is one thing to be old. It is another to be old and poor. It is one thing to be handicapped. It is unbelievable to be handicapped and poor. It is one thing to be a woman and deal with that role of confusion in our time, and another thing to be poor as well.
Those are the people I found in my walk through the nation of the have-nots. I am sure hon. members would add people whom they know. Most of those people have become conscript clients in a multi-million dollar social welfare system. I wish to speak about that system for a moment.
It is a system that has "growed up like Topy", put together piece by piece, in some ways brick by brick, but a bit lumpy. It is a system that has become huge, often wasteful, and increasingly incomprehensible to the people for whom the benefits are to flow. It is a system which too often offers not self-esteem but humiliation. It is a system which does not eradicate but often perpetuates the loss of individuality. Talk to your constituents and you will know it has become too often a source of a constant reminder of an assault on their sense of dignity. To put a face on it, it is a system of waiting lists.
One thing I discovered in the short time I have been in this city is that when going to the airport in order to fly back to wherever you happen to come from, you get wait-listed. I am sure all hon. members have been wait-listed. It is frustrating to want to go somewhere and do something, and not be able to get there because of forces beyond your control.
We have a system of social welfare in this country which wait-lists us. It wait-lists all of those people. It does not just wait-list them for an airplane ride home. How would hon. members feel if they were wait-listed for a home? How would
November 1, 1978

we feel if we were told "put in an application and come back three years from now"? Wait-listed for a home; wait-listed for a wheelchair; wait-listed for a brace for your stump; wait-listed for opportunity-that is what it means to a great number of people in this country.
I do not have any words of wisdom or easy solutions, but I do suggest that there are some things we might wish to think about again. Perhaps we should remember that it is sometimes wise to have a renewal not only of a program but, indeed, of the philosophy and the purpose behind it. Perhaps we should, therefore, think about a couple of things. This society places great value on three things-independence, usefulness, and making a contribution to society. Those are precisely the goals and desires of the people who dwell in the world of the have-nots. They want independence; they want to be useful; and they want to make a contribution to their society.
Maybe we need to look at other ways in which to approach the social security system. Perhaps we should be looking at new self-help programs. Should we not be looking at the merits of a self-development corporation so that these people can engage in free enterprise? Perhaps we should also find a way to rationalize the programs at the federal level, the provincial level and, as in the city from which I come, at two other levels. Maybe the simple act of just putting them under one roof so that people only have to go to one building would be useful. It would not have to be a government building, Mr. Speaker.
In the city of Toronto local 183 of the Labourers' Union-well known I believe to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-has an excellent set-up. By and large the members in that union are Portuguese and Italian. There used to be a lot of Irishmen on the executive but they have managed to overcome "that difficulty"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Edward Crombie: -so the head of the union is basically Mr. Stepinnini. If you go to Dupont Street and see local 183 in action, what you will find on four floors, other than a computer, which is interesting to note, is the opportunity for every member of that union to learn driver training; they can get information on local welfare programs; at the next door they can get information about citizenship. Indeed, I have attended a citizenship meeting there where I am sure that the people felt that their citizenship came from the Queen, the Governor-General, and Johnny Stepinnini!
What is important about my point, Mr. Speaker, is that these people can go to this one place and find two things. First, the services we try to offer are gathered together in one spot. Second, the person they deal with has the range of understanding of what those programs mean and what is available to them. They are treated as a whole person. Nobody goes to a doctor's office and is met by 39 people who all want to take over a part of his body. That comes later!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Family Allowances


David Edward Crombie: People go to a doctor and say; "Look at the whole of me." That is what these people need, too.
While I was preparing my thoughts to make my contribution I thought of my experiences over the past years in government. I am well aware of the difficulties which are met in the administration of programs. Perhaps it is wise to remember there is a vast difference between a good idea and a good idea well administered. There is all the world of difference. It is the good idea well administered which touches the people we intend to help.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: I also wish to say that no one has a monopoly on wanting to help; no individual and no group.
I remember a line from W. B. Yeats which I learned for a different purpose. I think he spoke for all the poor, all the people who would be considered the have-nots, when he wrote:
But I, being poor, have only my dreams; 1 have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
Maybe if we begin by remembering these words, we will serve our people better, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the bill before us today which would make some fundamental changes to the family allowances program. When the economy is buoyant it is fairly easy to use our prosperity to develop creative social programs, but in times of restraint it needs great thought and care to come up with some imaginative changes which will put more disposable income in the hands of people who use it most and who need it most, without breaching restraint. The minister is to be congratulated for a set of proposals which increase moneys available to families with young children in low and middle income brackets without increasing the over-all burden on the taxpayer.
If we look at what is available to families with children at the present time by way of state help, apart from the nondirect financial assistance such as medicare, free education and so on, the government moneys available to families with children are, first, the family allowance which has been in place since 1945 and has been indexed since 1974, and which at the present time is $25.68 a month, or $308 a year for each child under the age of 18. Second, through the tax system there is the dependant's exemption of $460 for each dependent child under the age of 16, and $840 for each dependent child over the age of 16. Then in 1977 there was an additional measure of a reduction in federal tax of $50 for each child. Both family allowance and the dependant's exemption are indexed to the cost of living.
Faced with the high cost of child rearing and the need which many low income and middle income families were expressing for assistance in this regard, the question was how to reorder the distribution of existing moneys so as to place more into the
702

November 1, 1978
Family Allowances
hands of those who needed income supplementation in order to create a healthy lifestyle for children in these groups and give them the same opportunity to develop physically, intellectually, and emotionally as children in more fortunate families.
The minister's solution which is before us now is to eliminate the $50 tax credit and to replace it with a refundable $200 child tax credit for families earning less than $18,000 a year, if there is only one child. This is scaled progressively upwards for each child in a family. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said when introducing this bill, this is the first federal refundable tax credit. I quote from the minister's speech as follows:
Many have criticized tax cuts that failed to help those in need. This government has progressively eliminated taxes on lower-income Canadians through measures such as tax indexing and the federal tax reduction. Now we are using the tax system in order to go further; to actually supplement the incomes of such families directly.
Last night there were two speeches from the Tory benches which were long on invective but short on reason. Near panic was expressed because this measure opens the door to negative income tax. I do not know where some hon. members opposite have been for the last few years, because this is not a new idea. In 1973 there was a federal-provincial social security review which involved provinces and citizens generally in an extensive review of the whole structure of our social security. These ideas were discussed then. This measure is a beginning which really does not terrify most people, particularly the poor who stand to gain from it.
Another absurdity we heard from the Tory benches last night, and which I could hardly believe, was that increasing the family allowance for low income families was a plot to force women to stay home instead of working. As evidence of this alleged plot we were treated to some 30-year old figures and statements. Apparently the Tories think that women are in the happy position that the promise of a $200 child tax credit once a year will be a sufficient bribe for them to quit their jobs and go home. The figures I have show that most women, like most men, work because of economic need. About 43 per cent of Canada's working women, or about 1.5 million, are single, separated or divorced, and in some cases they support dependants. I suggest that they really do not have the luxury of choosing whether to work outside the home. They probably would need more than $200 to make them choose to stay home.
Last night we also heard some reference from the Tory benches to the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. It is very nice that the Tories have discovered it at last. It is only what, seven years old? Perhaps their reading of that report was not as careful as it might have been because they missed the whole emphasis of that report regarding women having a choice.
Women whose family situations are such that the best plan is for them to work outside the home should, according to the commission report, have access to affordable day care, but women who think that the best choice for them and their

families is to stay home with young children should also have access to supportive services from their communities, be they libraries, nursery schools, educational services for their children, or financial assistance such as family allowances. I think that this emphasis by the royal commission on choice is something which most of us support.
In a civilized society, whether we are parents or not, most of us think it quite appropriate that we use our taxes to contribute to medical care and education of the next generation, and also that we contribute to family allowances in a meaningful way. Children are everybody's business. This bill attempts to provide additional assistance to offset the heavy costs of child rearing. It is designed to assist parents whether they work or not.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a number of important questions which should be addressed at the committee stage. They have very practical implications. One of them had to do with whether people on provincial welfare who receive the tax credit will have their provincial assistance cut.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope not.


Aideen Nicholson: I think the hon. member might have added to that parents who are assessed for day care, because we often find that parents who receive small raises in salary, small increases in benefits, or reductions in their rent for subsidized housing, promptly have their day care fees raised, so that the benefits are cancelled out. I think this is a very important concern. If this tax credit is to be useful and meaningful, it must be something from which parents can really benefit.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) tells me she has written to all her provincial counterparts asking them to try to leave this tax credit in the hands of parents. She has met with five of them to pursue the discussion. I am sure that all hon. members on all sides of the House wish her well in this endeavour, and want to assist in any way they can.
The other matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had to do with whether this credit, which I gather he supports in principle, might nevertheless press too hard on middle-income families. This is a sound question because increasingly middle-income earners carry the brunt of most of our taxation programs. According to the figures put before us in the charts yesterday, this measure does not seem to work that way. It does seem that families earning up to $23,000 a year will not lose on this, but since the computation is fairly technical, I think it is good that we be alerted to this. The figures should probably be examined and reviewed very carefully to ensure that the assistance to lower income families does not come at the expense of the middle-income group.
Mr. Speaker, I will stop at this point and let someone else have the floor.
November 1, 1978


William Gordon Ritchie: The introduction of this bill, Mr. Speaker, gives scope for discussion on the effectiveness of allowances such as these, and an opportunity to debate the whole question of the redistribution of income from one group in the community to another, regardless of ability to pay, and in the process hoping to achieve a desirable result.
The previous speaker mentioned that she hoped that the middle income group would not have to bear the brunt of these proposed changes in the family allowance. Who else is there? It is only the middle income group that can afford to pay because they make up the vast bulk of the taxpayers. Even if you took all the assets of the very wealthy it would still not achieve the amount of money necessary to allow this income redistribution. We must look at it on the basis that the middle income earner will be the one to pay.
I have always thought that children's allowances differed from old age pensions in the sense that most families in receipt of the family allowance were also the producers and taxpayers in the community. Of course a few recipients of the old age pension will point out, quite proudly sometimes, that they are in receipt of the family allowance, but these people are usually a minority and looked upon with some awe in the community.
The main change proposed in the family allowance is that it is to be reduced from $25.68 for each child under 18 to, I believe, $20 as of January 1. However, it is to remain indexed on a yearly basis, and for this present year the rate of indexation rate was 7.5 per cent. The cost estimated for the fiscal year 1978-79 is $2 billion, some 4 per cent of the gross federal budget for the country. The mere fact that 7.2 million children were encompassed in half as many families indicates it is a program that has a wide application.
The proposed tax changes will differ in a significant way when the redemption is reduced as of January 1, 1978, from $840 to $460 for those children who are 16 to 17 years of age. This, to me, is a negative proposal, as is the tax credit of $50 per child that will be eliminated on the federal tax payable. It is an attempt to reduce the effect of the allowances payable on those who pay higher income tax. The most significant fact is the proposed refundable child tax credit which is to reduce taxes on a means test basis by up to $200 per child. In cases where there are no taxes payable, a refund will be given.
These things raise a host of questions about which way this program is going, particularly whether or not this form of negative income tax, the $200 direct payout, is a good departure from the accepted norm. I have worked with welfare people and low income people during much of my professional life, and while I am not greatly in favour of universal programs, I deplore this departure from the standard practice of universality. It seems to me that the payments should be made across the board to all families, regardless of their financial situation. Of course the family allowance is considered as income and is taxed at a marginal rate. This way there is not the feeling of alienation by middle class families who feel that for their hard work and efforts they are being unnecessarily penalized. Certainly it is not a good thing to have citizens in
Family Allowances
the community feeling that the tax system treats them unfairly.
While in England some years ago, I noticed that there were a lot of letters to the newspapers from young women with children born at home, who had been unable to get into the hospitals. These women were complaining that they had to give birth at home while people on welfare were able to use the facilities of the hospital, due largely to the fact that midwives refused to work for welfare recipients in poor housing conditions.
The negative income tax to which I have referred will mean an exemption of $200 per child, and many families will receive upwards of $2,000 or more in one lump sum. Most people who deal with social welfare programs feel that one of the underlying problems with families on social welfare is their failure to budget properly for food, clothing, and other essentials. People who operate small grocery stores in isolated areas and deal with welfare recipients will tell you that the best thing that could be done for these people is to give them a course in how to shop for such things as, for example, foodstuffs, and fruit in season rather than in the off season. To hand out between $200 and $2,000 in one lump sum to these people is not a very good move because much of the money will not benefit the family greatly. The payout should be made in instalments, for example, on a monthly basis, and there should not be a massive outflow of cheques from the federal treasury on April 1, 1979. Perhaps the government is thinking of votes in the June election.
There are a couple of problems that I see with this negative income tax. One is obviously the expense involved in the administration of the program. People are always complaining about the vastness of the bureaucracy and how it is tying up good, productive people who could be better involved in other efforts which do not show up on tax forms. To set up the program will require an investigation of people's income tax files in order to ascertain the extent of the family need through last year's income. Presumably it will be based on the total family income, but with many wives working, and submitting separate income tax returns, the problem is doubled. There is also the fact that the government will be digging into people's personal income tax returns, a further intrusion into the financial affairs of families, not of corporations or the wealthy, but of the ordinary person.
Another factor to be considered is that the income tax return of an individual may bear little relation to a family's financial position. For example, they may have a low income but a large amount of assets, a situation which often occurs when the individual is self-employed. Where one lives is also important. A person living in a rural area may show a much lower cash requirement, but in fact they make a substantial living through their own efforts, what they raise on the farm, etc.
There is also what I call the underground economy. Some people have suggested that it amounts to 15 per cent of the total economy in the United States. In Canada it is probably higher because our income tax is greater. When I say under-
80045 -4 sy2

November 1, 1978
Family Allowances
ground economy 1 am referring to people who circumvent the normal commercial system. It is not necessarily tax evasion, but tax avoidance. Everyone is familiar with the problems of high taxation. Indeed, it is said that in Sweden, where the tax rate is very high, the only people of real worth are the plumbers and carpenters who are able to work for cash as opposed to working for receipts. The problem is assessing the actual cash income of families.
How does one assess a person who raises a vegetable garden and reduces the amount of money spent on food out of the family budget? I understand in Denmark the government is attempting to tax garden produce on the basis that families should show a reduction in the amount of money spent out of their budgets for food. It is felt that they should be taxed so that everyone is equal. Apparently a person who raises a large garden should be taxed on his efforts, as opposed to someone who does not raise garden vegetables and has to pay the market price.
These are some problems administering such a program on a reasonable basis. This growing problem is peculiar to high tax regimes which now prevail in the western world. 1 do not like the $200 per child direct payment. If it is to be made, surely it should be on a monthly basis. I do not dispute certain families in lower income groups would benefit by extra income, but blanket payouts to every child is not the way to approach the problem.
Over the years I have become quite familiar with how Canada assistance plans function. Careful assessment by experienced workers is necessary to arrive at the best method of assisting low income families with their financial problems. Many low income families need considerable counselling and suggestion. The voucher system is very much in effect on the Indian reserves in my riding. A more careful control is kept over the well-being of families by administrators of bands through the voucher system. The results may be debatable, but considering the vast amount of money spent, negative income tax payouts are not a good idea. This brings up the entire question of government spending.
Perhaps it is fortunate for politicians, but it is unfortunate the public does not have at its disposal a method of informing politicians about how they feel. Such a method is in existence in the United States. Proposition 13 in California startled and shook the foundations of government policy in the United States. That slopped over into Canada. It has become much more honourable to talk about fiscal economy.
In the United States a debate took place concerning its 1979 budget. Representative Marjorie Holt of Maryland rose to introduce a brief but explosive amendment to reduce the president's deficit of $61 billion by $13 billion. The amount of $61 billion is considered large in the United States. What about our approximate deficit of $10 billion or $11 billion, and some even suggest upwards of $15 billion? Our economy is approximately one-tenth the size of the United States. If the American deficit were as large as ours, it would amount to
$100 billion or $150 billion. Furthermore, American government expenditures for the benefit of the states are much less than those in Canada for the benefit of the provinces. Provincial deficits account for approximately one-half of the federal deficit. We are in a much worse position, as far as finance is concerned, than the United States.
Today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) indicated that dramatic happenings occurred in Washington because of the raise in interest rates. Representative Holt said:
What we must do is to reduce the growth rate of federal spending. We must reduce the government sector's burden on the economy and the excessive strain on the capital markets. The remedy for inflation is production.
Her resolution was defeated, but the substance of it was included in American politics with the Republicans submitting an updated and dramatic five-year plan to produce a balanced budget in 1982. Of course politicians are happy to embrace what is popular and likely to gain votes, even if the idea can be dismissed as empty rhetoric. But we are witnessing a turning away from economic policies which place emphasis on pumping up aggregate demand for goods and services.
We are moving toward policies which encourage production and increase supply. Of course that is the true source of the health and welfare of a nation. Some people say that this common sense objective was lost during the depression in the intricacies of Keynesian theories. It was felt the market system was not self-sustaining due to leakages between people's propensity to save and real investment opportunities. Thus, there was a tendency for demand to fall short of potential output, and the government increased spending to make up the deficit. Of course it was argued that this could be done without inflationary consequences until full employment was attained.
This thought or attitude was embraced by all politicians, but one must remember that it was based on conditions which existed a long time ago. Today there is inflation, unemployment, and a universal agreement that we suffer from an acute shortage of capital investment. Thus the emphasis on pumping up demand through increased consumption and transfer of income from rich to poor looks less and less attractive. It is a fact that there must be balance oriented to growth and capital formation. Without capital it will not be possible to solve production and inflation problems.
It would be nice to reduce taxation without reducing outlays. Government spending has risen at fantastic rates. The present budget deficit of the Canadian federal government is greater than the total budget in 1968 when the Trudeau government came into power. These enormous deficits sop up capital and savings which should be invested in capital markets. If the Bank of Canada is required to monetize the debt, or even a substantial portion of it, there will be the added factor of dangerous inflation. Therefore there is every reason to welcome a determination to retain fiscal control.
We can look at what happened with a minority government during the period 1972 to 1974. At that time the deficit was less than $3 billion. Largely it was monetized. The Bank of Canada printed money rather than distribute a bond issue in the marketplace. This added to the severe inflation which we

November 1, 1978

experience today, and I suggest inflation will increase in the immediate future.
It is important to examine the direction of government spending. Perhaps military outlays should be increased, but we must look at welfare spending which largely consists of transfer payments from one group to another. No matter how unpleasant it may be, this is the area we should look at if we are to curtail government outlays. In the past, transfer payments put a floor under purchasing power as well as caring for human needs. If transfers are made from savers to spenders on a vast scale, savings, investments, and capital formation will be destroyed. If transfers are wide-ranging, incentive to work is undermined and/or destroyed, because the people who work finally realize that their rewards are not greater than those who do not. As workers find their net take home pay reduced, their incentive to keep their jobs is reduced. In extreme cases, transfers encourage idleness.
Perhaps this is a difficult index to measure, but recent statistics of the Unemployment Insurance Commission indicate that UIC benefits have increased unemployment by approximately 1 per cent or 2 per cent. I am sure many hon. members know that a large number of people have used UIC as income maintenance rather than a true insurance feature. They were entitled to do so under Unemployment Insurance Commission regulations.
It is reassuring that we are now aware of the dangers of discouraging healthy growth of productive enterprise, on the one hand, and indiscriminate expansion of the welfare state on the other. One must remember that there are inflationary consequences: increased payroll taxes, minimum wage costs, and rising business costs. Surely these are issues which justify the control of inflation.
In 1919 Keynes wrote the following:
There is no surer way of destroying capitalism than by debauching the currency, The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
This bill contains a provision to transfer wealth from one group to another. Apparently the so-called refundable child tax credit proposition is to be socially beneficial, but in my opinion it is not as useful as it might be. Therefore I have considerable reservation that in the future we will find this refundable tax credit being the best method we had hoped for in respect of child support.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by agreeing with my colleague in the class of '78, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), that the introduction of this bill allows us the opportunity to review some of the problems and philosophies underlying legislation regarding social welfare and economic maintenance. I think it is important for us to do so. It seems to me we are frequently in the position of adding on a piece of legislation, or changing a piece of legislation, from time to time without fully realizing the
Family Allowances
implications of what we are doing, or what precisely are the problems we are trying to solve.
I was interested last night to hear the hon. member say he was going to be speaking today about two nations. Because I knew he was referring to Disraeli and not Mr. Daniel Johnson or someone else when referring to that subject, I took the opportunity this morning to go to the library and look up Disraeli's biography by Sir Robert Blake. According to that book, Disraeli was asked at the end of his life which of the two nations he belonged to, and his answer was that he was not of either nation; he was on the side of the angels. I might say that the hon. member for Rosedale demonstrated in his speech today that he too is on the side of the angels, because in his very eloquent remarks, and I take nothing away from them, concerning the condition of many of our fellow Canadians, he was a little short, if I may say, on hard measures that will have to be taken to deal with the problems these people face, but was very long on description.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He didn't say anything about your maiden speech.


Bob Rae: He was a little short on remedies. In reply to the hon. member who interjected, let me say that he did.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I did not comment on your speech, but I will now.


Bob Rae: I might also add that it seems to me it is important to realize that the position of our party in respect of welfare, problems of poverty, and income distribution, is significantly different from those of the other two parties. It seems to me that our differences stem from the very simple fact that what we are looking at here is an economic system which creates poverty, which creates deprivation, and which creates inequality, and haphazard attempts by the government in response to social pressures over the past 40 years to alleviate some of the harshest inequalities that our economic system creates.
It was the minister last night who said as the minister who is responsible for bringing an end to poverty in Canada, she was delighted to bring in this measure. The difference between our party and the other two parties, realizing as we do that it is the economic policy which is at the heart of solving the problem of income distribution, and not welfare policy, is that we realize it is not economic measures that will have to solve the problems of income distribution. These problems will not be solved by a simple band-aid approach to those people who are suffering as the result of the inequities and injustices of our economic system.
It seems to me it is very important and necessary for members to realize, and in the speeches we have heard from both sides of the House this has been forgotten, that poverty is not something that strikes out of mid-air; it is not a haphazard event, but something that strikes at the people who are unable to compete in the economic market place which puts a premium on power, which puts a premium on ability, and which puts a premium on productivity and one's ability as an individual to be a good economic commodity. That is the hard, ruthless

November 1, 1978
Family Allowances
truth about our economic system. The kind words that many members have spoken about the importance of doing good for those people who are less fortunate than ourselves should not blind us to the very harsh facts which lie behind an economic system that benefits systematically certain people, and does not benefit others.
There have been arguments I have heard, and I am sure many members have heard, as to whether poverty is declining or growing in Canada. The facts recited by my House leader yesterday, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), gave the clearest demonstration of the facts that we know, and that is that, relatively speaking, the share of the national economy going to those who need it has not changed significantly since 1951. The relative share has not changed significantly since 1951.
In her remarks yesterday the minister said that up until 1975 the number of people below the poverty line had gone down. Be that as it may, that ignores the fact that the economic measures which have been taken by this government that have created unemployment, that kept down wages as a result of the Anti-Inflation Board, and the freezing of wages that took place after 1975, all have resulted in an increase in the number of families who are below the poverty line of some 67,000 in 1977.
When we look at what it is-and perhaps it is appropriate that it was a minister of finance who introduced this bill-in our economic system which creates inequality, it is completely artificial for us to focus all our attention narrowly on certain very minor changes, important though they may be in their own way. It is artificial that we focus our attention very simply on the question of welfare and certain benefits going from one group to another.
I think it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Miss Nicholson), the hon. member for Trinity, who best described the completely limited vision and the totally restricted view which the government, and I can only say that I assume it is shared by members on the other side since they have said nothing to criticize it, has taken in the presentation of this bill. That myopic and limited view is that the government is concerned with how to re-order existing moneys. I wrote down what the minister said, and I think that is a pretty fair quotation. The government's problem, which it set itself, was how to re-order the moneys which currently are being spent on family allowances, and to distribute them in a better way.
Perhaps I could refer to the bill specifically and say, speaking for myself, my main reservation and concern about this bill are that what it does, quite simply is to take money away in terms of the reduction in family benefits-immediate benefits of $6, and it will be $8 in December-and attempt to redistribute that money.
We are not talking about the wealth of Canada. We are not talking about the bounteous wealth of Imperial Oil or the advantages that go to the corporate executives of this world. We are not talking about that wealth. That wealth has never been touched by the Liberal government, and it never will be.
[Mr. Rae.l
What we are talking about when we talk about distribution of wealth is a much narrower subject, and that is distributing the part of the family allowance that has been cut back to another group of people. Let us not have any fuss or bother from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), or any fine words about redistributing income in this country, because that is not what they intend to do. What they intend to do is redistribute family allowances. Let us be quite clear about that.
If they were serious about redistributing income, or if they were serious about inequities in the income tax system, they would have a massive job to do, and that is not a job they intend to do, and remember, they had the opportunity to do it after the Carter commission report. I think they then showed the muscle of which they are made by their decisions in respect of that report.
The number of loopholes that exist in the act, and indexation in the income tax system, give far greater benefit to those who are well off than those who are not. The whole system of deduction and exemptions rather than the principle of giving tax credits gives a tremendous advantage to those people with more money compared to those with none. There are the advantages that are given to those people who are allowed to incorporate themselves, the advantages given to those people who are allowed to be self-employed rather than wage earners. These are all examples, Mr. Speaker. Anybody who has been in the market place and knows what people who call themselves self-employed can do, know what a joke our tax system is if regarded as an equitable way of distributing wealth and opportunities.
Since 1968 the share of income tax revenues coming from corporations has dropped dramatically, and the share of income tax revenues paid by individuals has increased dramatically. We know that every time the corporations of this country come to the government with a problem, the government is ready to roll over like a spaniel. The list of depreciation allowances and benefits which have only created an atmosphere of mistrust and division within the country, give a tremendous advantage to those who have and do nothing for those who have not.
I know it is not fashionable on this side to be critical of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but I could not help but be critical when I heard she was reported to have said a couple of months ago that she could not hear the voice of the poor. Then yesterday she said that the trouble with the poor is that they are disappearing and that it is not as fashionable as it used to be to speak up on behalf of the poor. All I can say is that the minister is in the wrong party. If she were in our party she would be well aware of the fact that the poor are speaking up all the time. She is welcome in my constituency on any Saturday morning to listen to the complaints, the worries, and concerns of people who cannot live a decent life on the benefits provided by the federal government and the provincial govern-

ment. I think it is disgraceful that the minister should say that poor people are not speaking loudly enough.
In 1968 this government put forward programs providing grants to old peoples' groups and to the Company of Young Canadians to speak up for old people, to organize them so that they could speak up. Then the same government took those grants away. When the voices were loud they cut the mikes. As one who had his mike cut today, I appreciate the difficulties that can cause. The mikes have been taken away from the old people of this country and now the minister is saying, "Speak up, I cannot hear you." All she has to do is put the mike in again and she will hear them loud and clear.
Apart from the general concerns we have about the legislation, I suggest if this government were serious about redistributing income and opportunities there would be a number of things it could do not only to the tax system but also in terms of its economic policy. If it were serious about the distribution of income it would not propose to cut back on unemployment benefits the way it has done. Cutting back on unemployment benefits means cutting back on the incomes of those working people who are temporarily out of the labour market, and has the direct effect of reducing incomes. It has a negative effect on the distribution of income.
If the government was serious about creating greater equality between men and women there would have been serious affirmative action programs in the federal market place where something could be done for the disadvantaged. Nothing has been forthcoming, however. The legislation is there that would enable the government to do something, and we are waiting for action, but nothing has been put forward as yet. The government could have put forward economic policies with respect to the really powerful people in our community to see that their actions would create employment rather than unemployment. It could have acted on the Inco cutbacks a year ago. It could have been serious about the number of plant closures in Ontario in this past year. It could have done something about the fact that ours is a branch plant economy, and it could have done something about research and development and an industrial strategy. None of these things have been done.
It is the highest form of hypocrisy for the government members to come to us and say they have discovered the idea of redistribution of income. They are not interested in that; they are only interested in saving money on certain kinds of benefits such as family allowances, and then producing this tax credit scheme. Why stop with the family benefits? Why not move ahead on all the other tax credit suggestions that have been forthcoming from this side of the House?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are two problems that I want to raise with respect to the legislation, which I think are important. The first matter has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and has been partially answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The problem is that any attempt by the federal government to redistribute income may be sabotaged by provincial welfare legislation. This is what makes the principle of redistribution so difficult to attain in this country.
Family Allowances
From her work in her own constituency I am sure the minister is aware that with the plethora of programs we have-the disability pension, workmen's compensation, family assistance plans, provincial disability legislation-what frequently happens to people on welfare is that they get bogged down with regulations. If they apply for a disability pension under the Canada disability plan they have to ask themselves if it is worth all the problems and difficulties involved when the net result will be no increase in their income.
Before the minister can come to us and claim that this bill will have a redistributive effect, we must know which provincial legislatures will go along with it. Without that assurance it will be difficult to convince anyone that this is anything more than an accounting scheme which gives money to the provincial governments and nothing to the people involved.
Last year this government passed Bill C-46 which deals with those marvellous individuals in the private market who make a living from providing loans to people about to receive income tax refunds. I find it extraordinary that a bill provides for a 60 per cent rate of interest over a year for people who rely on income tax refunds and need the money on a short-term basis.
I think this is extraordinary. It is a tribute to the usurious members of our community, and I put it to the minister that this bill was passed before this new legislation was contemplated. I suggest that in this way we create an entirely new market for income tax discounters which was not contemplated at the time the legislation was passed. This new market of some 700,000 individuals means that all the income tax discounters will be able to prey on people receiving a large lump sum payment in March, April or May next year. That will take place at a time when there is no clear indication from the government which department will enforce the provisions of Bill C-46. In view of the cutbacks announced by the government, it is clear that there will not be enough bureaucrats to enforce the regulations under Bill C-46.
The fact that the payment is being made in a lump sum is an invitation to the income tax discounters to take advantage of the women and men who are living at the bottom end of our economic system. I am concerned about the effect this will have on the people in my riding. 1 am sure the minister, too, is concerned about people in her riding, and I know that my fellow members on this side of the House are concerned as well. I would much prefer to see in place a system which would allow payment to be made over a period in such a way that people would not be reliant on the income tax discounters for their bread and butter or refrigerator. In our opinion, these discounters should not exist.
I say frankly that it will be with considerable reluctance that I will vote in principle for this bill. The reasons are simple. First, I do not particularly like to see a reduction in the universal payment of the family allowance, and the fact is it will be reduced by some $6 or $8 depending on the cut-off. Second, in terms of general principle, I am concerned that this is not a significant redistribution of income but is a redistribu-

November 1, 1978
Family Allowances
tion of existing moneys, a reordering of existing moneys according to the phrase used by the hon. member for Trinity.
Agreement with the provincial government is necessary before we can even talk about income maintenance. As I say, I am concerned about the discounters-this may not be a matter of principle, but it is, nevertheless, one of real concern.
In closing I want to say that the government has put forward this measure as if it were a revolutionary time in terms of income tax legislation and of social welfare legislation. I am afraid that one does not have to be a Marxist to differ from the views of the government on that score. I do not see this as a revolutionary change.


Miss Begin:: Nobody said it was. It is only a reform. Do not get excited.


Bob Rae: I can assure the minister I am not getting excited about this legislation at all. I would only point out that if it is to have the effects that the minister wants it to have, there is a lot of hard work to be done convincing provincial governments to go along with this scheme and not to penalize those who receive benefits. I am not entirely optimistic on that score. In addition, there are very real administrative difficulties in this legislation which I hope we shall be able to discuss further in committee because they are of great concern to members on this side.


Mr. Claudc-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was greatly interested in the flowery rhetoric of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae). It must recognize that for a newcomer, he knows how to handle sophistry masterfully. He seems to irradiate an intimate coalescence with the poor of this country. His only problem is that he is cheeky. He accused the minister of being insensitive to the pleadings of the poor. What does he know about poverty, Mr. Speaker? I leave it to the Canadian people to answer. He will no doubt readily realize that Proudhon, Rousseau or Marx may be very fine in books but that reality sometimes requires some adjustments, which has been well understood by his colleagues of the New Democratic Party who, when promoting quite legitimate interests and endorsing social objectives to which I suscribe in principle, have generally shown more restraint than he did.
Mr. Speaker, in a very lengthy and wordy tirade, the hon. member took to task both our society and the ruling party. It is very easy for someone who will probably not have the opportunity to run the country, and in this regard, I merely remind him that he would be well-advised in the future-if he really believes in the principle he endorsed earlier-to support the efforts made by this government or any future government to better meet the needs of those Canadians who experience hardships and to try to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. I must remind him, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal party has always sought, since we are the ones-history proves it-who introduced most of the social measures we now have.
Without necessarily being a cure-all they still helped put this country at the forefront of all those which have enacted elaborate social measures. In that respect, he tried to see in Bill C-10 a new philosophy based on providing encouragement for the rich when in fact it is only a readjustment. I will come back later to the objectives the minister wanted to promote when last August, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), she announced amendments to the family allowance program and an upward revision of the guaranteed income supplement.
I would just like to point out in passing a few mistakes that probably crept surreptitiously in the text of the hon. member for Broadview, mistakes having to do with the interpretation he placed on the provisions of Bill C-10 and the effect on the administration of the family allowance program. He insinuated that with those amendments a new corruptive element was being introduced in the system, namely that the Income Tax Act was now going to have an effect on the family allowance program when the department will mail out the annual cheques. He insinuated that this would allow other agencies to take with one hand what has been given with the other. I just want to remind him that it has been provided, whether through the War Veterans Allowances Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act or even public assistance plans, that those programs will not affect the new credit which will not be considered as income, and I think that is fundamental, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand-


Mr. Orlikow:: How will you make the provinces live up to that?


Claude-André Lachance: If he wants to speak I would ask the hon. member to do so later. I did not interrupt the hon. member for Broadview so I would ask him to let me speak.
I would like to point out something which may not be a mistake on the part of the hon. member but at least an innuende that could be misleading for Canadians and especially those who will benefit from these measures, concerns what is commonly called tax discounters. Let me remind you that this system allows potential recipients of any government assistance to get in advance from private agencies the money they expect to collect shortly for a certain percentage. The hon. member mentioned earlier usurious rates-he may correct me if I am wrong-of 40 or 45 per cent, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to stress that point.


David Orlikow: Sixty per cent, Mr. Speaker.


Claude-André Lachance: The hon. member says 60 per cent, Mr. Speaker. I must remind him that the interest rate stipulated in Bill C-56 is 15 per cent or less. Therefore, in that case they are not usurious rates, Mr. Speaker. One could say that 15 per cent is too high and that this measure should be completely

November 1, 1978

abolished. The matter is debatable, but let no one say nor suggest what is not true.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as far as monthly payments are concerned, the hon. member says that the yearly lump sum should be spread in equal payments over a full year. I simply want to emphasize that if he listened to or read the speech of the minister he should know that she clearly stated that in future, if the beneficiaries so wish, we are prepared to consider giving this single payment provided in Bill C-10 in several instalments.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not try to attribute bad intentions-which I cannot indeed clearly identify since he took care not to substantiate his charges-to the minister, the government and its members, but he should try rather to make constructive suggestions and recommendations, to which we would listen with interest at the committee stage or elsewhere, so as to improve the technical aspects of this bill.
In this regard, beyond the technical aspects of this bill, which only applies the technical principle of redistribution, the hon. member asked quite appropriately whether we are not taking new sums within the budget of the federal government to give relatively higher amounts under this program than in the past. I think he is right.
However, he is quite wrong to jump to conclusions and say that we do not want to do more, Mr. Speaker. History has shown us, and again quite recently-and when I say recently I go back perhaps two or three years-that this government has taken very serious steps in co-operation with the provinces to try to implement a guaranteed annual income program on a new basis, by trying to rationalize the multiplicity of existing programs and to replace the disgrace that some people still associate with social assistance by a fairer system which can help all those Canadians who, for one reason or another, must at a certain time in their life ask the government to help them out.
Mr. Speaker, the word "request", I think, is important. Some have seen in the amendments proposed by the minister an unhealthy shift from the previous universal system without a means test to a system under which those recipients who are entitled to a lump sum payment will have to make a formal request in January when they receive their monthly cheque. I think that point should be seriously considered beyond the scope of Bill C-10.
As I said earlier, Bill C-10 is an attempt at redistribution and should not be considered as a new philosophy in social security. I want to be quite clear about that. It is not because we do something, perhaps not very much, for groups of have-nots that we should not seek ways of doing better. In that respect, I feel the House and our governments generally must by all means bring their efforts to bear on a rationalization of social services in Canada and, particularly, income support.
Family Allowances
I would like to encourage the minister to continue that effort with her provincial counterparts in order to try and revive what was, for some time, an almost tangible hope to implement at last a universal guaranteed income support system in Canada. That would make it at last possible to get rid of that "odiousness" I was referring to earlier and which is attached to some of our social measures and some of our current social programs. It would also make it possible, in cooperation with other government levels, to allocate most of the funds to those who really need them and thus avoid wastage in complex administrations.
In that respect, I believe the system which had then been proposed, the negative income tax, was a step in the right direction. Had there been agreement, it would surely have made it possible to set up swiftly such a system and thus enable us to steer clear of complicated processes to achieve what we are trying to do with Bill C-10, namely redistribution. In this context, this redistribution is made through a central system, the Department of National Revenue. Unfortunately, again, circumstances beyond our will to social reform prevented us from reaching an agreement on the new program, and obviously we are still trying to use the tools at our disposal to redistribute the money to those who need it most. Such is the purpose of Bill C-10. This bill is based on such a redistribution purpose. It is not a new social policy, or at least I do not consider it as such. It is an attempt, a commendable attempt, as several hon. members put it, in a difficult economic context.
When I refer to a difficult economic context it is not in the same spirit as the hon. member for Broadview did earlier when he rejected the whole society and our economic system. That is not my own view, Mr. Speaker. The fact is, and you just need to look at the situation on the global level, that so-called western societies are presently facing serious economic problems. In such a context, there is always a danger that social programs will be affected by the inhibitive reflex in our political leaders that such a situation will necessarily cause.
I should commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) for having stood her ground, and particularly for having convinced her colleagues to resist the temptation that was probably very strong to cut our social programs for which the Liberal party has been fighting for the last 20 or 25 years. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am proud of those social programs and that will to help shown by the Liberal party and successive Liberal governments. Here again, it should be kept in mind that most assistance measures we now have were introduced by this party, by these governments.
As I said, Bill C-10, in the context of fiscal restraints announced in August, includes what might be called a necessary evil, a reduction in the traditional category of monthly payments under the universal system of family allowances. Although that reduction may understandably create significant hardships for certain families and beneficiaries who have
710

November 1, 1978
Family Allowances
trouble making ends meet, it is relatively small, and the $20 average reduction per child is counterbalanced on the income redistribution level by a non-refundable income tax credit of $50 per child, while special exemptions for children 17 and 18 years old are abolished.
With these savings we proposed firstly-a provision we could develop last week-a $20 increase in the guaranteed income supplement for senior citizens, which was most urgent in my view since nearly 58 per cent or 60 per cent of our senior citizens, according to evaluations, live below the poverty line, and secondly to reallocate to the most needy, through an annual lump sum payment of a maximum $200 per child part of the savings obtained through that relatively small reduction in monthly allowances.
That redistribution proposal is very much in line with the philosophy of the then minister of national health and welfare when he discussed with the provinces an in-depth reform of our Canadian social security system because, as I explained earlier, payments will be made through the Department of National Revenue, through income tax as commonly referred to by Canadians. Therefore, the income tax will for the first time be playing an opposite role to its traditional one of taking from the taxpayer dollars generally earned the hard way.
In order to make payments earlier to those who apply and meet the test, relatively large sums of money will go out around April or May. It has been suggested it is dangerous to give out such amounts in one single payment. A mother of three or four could eventually find herself with a $700 or $800 cheque from National Revenue, and there was a danger she could spend it before she could have considered the truly best way of using it. My feeling is this is an insult to the poor in our society, to the most needy, implying they are less apt to plan their purchases than the fortunate affluent.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that when a person or family must manage with a small budget, each dollar counts. And I am convinced those relatively large amounts they will be getting in April-May will enable them to make purchases that might have been waiting for two, three or four years, as changing the refrigerator, buying a new range, a bicycle for the boy or the girl, things they could not do because of an exceedingly restricted budget, and also because it is difficult, Mr. Speaker, to make monthly savings within a very restricted budget.
This amount, I was going to use the word "manna" but that may have a negative connotation, this considerable amount will allow them to incur necessary expenses which they might not have been able to afford had the present system continued to exist, even if, for example, an increase in family allowances of $35, $40 or $50 a month had been proposed. Ten or fifteen dollars is so quickly spent when you are living on a budget. So we must not only consider the negative aspects of a yearly

payment but also, of course, the opportunities that such a payment offers to those receiving it.
I can understand, from a theoretical if not philosophical point of view, that some may be opposed to a decrease in family allowances which, I repeat, is relatively small, to allow for a larger amount, when applicable, a few months later. I can understand and, in this regard, I think we must let the beneficiary decide which formula he prefers. That is indeed what the minister stated and I wholeheartedly agree. Who are we to prejudge of what the beneficiaries of this system will decide, in due time, when the system is implemented? Let us give the system a chance to prove it can work. It is a new system and as in the case of any new system perhaps there will be some readjustments to be made during implementation. But regarding these adjustments, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Broadview does not seem to be confident in the ability of the poor to get organized and make themselves heard on the hill, yet I can tell him, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to their interests, they do organize and they do let us really know what they want. So I am confident once again that they will let us know whether the system being put in place, the newly instituted system when Bill C-10 will have received royal assent, is satisfactory or not. If it is less satisfactory than before, perhaps they will suggest two, three or four yearly payments or perhaps urge us to return to the old system of monthly allowances.
In any events, let us not prejudge of the reaction of the beneficiaries and let us give the system a chance to prove it can work. Once again, one must not see in Bill C-10 a new social philosophy on the part of the present government. Personally I only regard it as an important and praiseworthy effort to take from available funds, from out present tax basis those funds which are being distributed coast to coast to all who need them, thereby taking a little away from the rich and the well-to-do in order to give more to the less fortunate. Of course, these amendments to the family allowances program will not solve the problem of poverty.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is not through the family allowances program that we are going to build a new society in Canada. Such is not the purpose. The purpose is simply to give a little more to those who need it most and I do not see, Mr. Speaker, how one can have reservations about such an objective. The more we debate the social policy in Canada, Mr. Speaker, the greater our chances of arriving sooner at a more equitable system, at a better redistribution of wealth within our society. Let us debate, I am all for it, but let us not use Bill C-10-a relatively minor and technical measure in light of our overall social policy-as a pretext to conduct the trial of the Canadian society. I think that is a misrepresentation and also a great disservice to those that are to derive benefit from the proposed measures.
Mr. Speaker, some observers may have seen in the proposed program very spiteful intentions on the part of the government
November 1, 1978

as they presumed that by relating in this way family allowances to the tax system we intended to strip-what spite-the most underprivileged of whatever small amounts they manage to scrape here and there by forcing them to report their income. Is our society so sick that any time any government tries to rationalize its administration or help the community and those who need help the most, that government should be taken to task and charged with having spiteful intentions? I was disappointed to read, for example, an article by Michel Pelletier in Le Devoir of Thursday, October 25, 1978, and the previous one on Wednesday, October 25. I think it is a great disservice to be charging the Advisory Council on Social Welfare with being biased, if not blind. I think it is a great disservice to mothers to have them believe that they are going to lose something when facts show that they are going to gain, at least up to a family income of $25,000. I think it is dishonest to presume that with an income of $25,000 a family does not have enough for the purposes of this bill and that in any event the only solution is to just open up the system and provide for everybody.
I think it is a very serious matter when a government is being accused by reporters, in this case an economist, of playing the game of nineteenth century capitalism, and I think that perhaps the hon. member for Broadview wanted a little while ago to insinuate something along those lines when we all know-and once again the evidence is there-that, on the contrary, the House-and I even include for the purposes of my demonstration the opposition parties and especially the official opposition-has as its objective the promotion of the interest of all Canadians and not only insuring the survival of multinational corporations.
Reference was made earlier, I believe, to Imperial Oil, for example. It is so easy to accuse the multinational companies. They do not have a forum like the hon. member has to dismiss the charges that are made against them. Of course, it is easy to blame the multinationals, to blame our society, to blame capitalism, to blame everyone, to blame the government. But people should stop doing this whenever a piece of legislation is good, when it offers possibilities for the future and is aimed at the redistribution of wealth, when it would allow less fortunate Canadians to partake a little more of the national wealth. Whenever a government tries to help the poor, people should stop seeing spiteful intentions and asking for more and charging that it is not doing enough when it is precisely trying to do more and expresses the will to go on doing more.
Let us encourage those who fight to protect the weak and help the poor instead of attacking them and blaming them for everything. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has introduced a bill which is frankly progressive in the circumstances since it would have been quite easy when a majority of Canadians would want us to cut back, to justify, for instance, at least in the eyes of the public, the elimination of family allowance indexation without taking any other cor-
Family Allowances rective action. This would have been the easiest solution. The government did not choose to do so. The minister did not choose to do so. The minister decided, within the very narrow restrictions that she had to apply, to find a formula which, we admit it, may seem a rather lame one to some people, but which will at least help those whom we all want to help, that is the underprivileged Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage the House to discuss social policies. I am always happy to do so. The more discussions on this subject, the more chances we will have of establishing equality. However, when a bill seems at first glance and even after study to favour those in need, we should support it. And in this regard, I make a special appeal to the New Democratic Party. They should be the first, Mr. Speaker, to rise to applaud the efforts of the government and the minister to help the poor. They do rise, but only to denounce capitalism, multinational companies, and so on, and to pass judgement on society, the minister, the government, and members on this side of the House. In short, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand that in discussing a bill which will certainly help tens of thousands of Canadians, some choose to attack capitalism and denounce a society which, we must admit, has served Canadians well to a large extent and remains one of the few societies in this world where life is good.


Roch La Salle: I am very eager to make a few remarks, as briefly as possible, on Bill C-10. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that, after hearing two very different but still very interesting speeches, I must congratulate those speakers who preceded me for taking part in the debate on a bill whose purpose is to redistribute wealth. We recognize the principle of that redistribution, we approve of it and will have no difficulty in supporting the bill. We believe that additional help to low-income families is a must, and we are conscious of their needs.
Figures were quoted and I note that the minister herself said that families whose income is less than $18,000 will benefit from it fully while, over that amount, the credit will be reduced by 5 per cent of the amount by which the family income exceeds $18,000, that is, by $50 for every $1,000 of additional income.
A family with two dependent children and an income of less than $18,000 will receive $400. The tax credit will be $300 for a family with an income of about $20,000 and $200 if the income falls within the $22,000 bracket. But if a family with two dependent children earns $26,000 or over, there will be no tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the government has made a few changes. We are not contesting this legislation to which we are going to give our approval but I think it is equally important to clarify a few things and to make some comments. Many members of parliament have addressed themselves to this question and had a lot to say about it.
80065-46(4

November 1, 1978
Family Allowances
Earlier 1 was listening to the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) who delivered an excellent speech, there is no doubt about it. But I would like to ask a few questions. For example, how do you explain that a government which was so attached to the principle of universality decided to put it aside? Not that I blame them for that but I would like to make sure that this change which seems to me necessary in the present context is a real change of attitude in the government, as we can see it in many other areas.
I regret also that the government has not though it necessary to discuss those proposals officially with the provinces. I do not think that the government of Canada would have lost anything in doing so and we know of two provinces which have their own family allowance systems, Alberta and Quebec. Of course these allowances are far less generous than those of the federal government. But nevertheless 1 think it would have been good, particularly in the present context, to submit those proposals to the provinces, and expose those ideas and those changes in an attempt to get the support of the provinces on a matter which affects a fundamental institution of our society, the family itself.
This decision has probably been taken as rapidly as all the others which dealt with budgetary reductions. In recent weeks we have observed with interest but with a certain amount of discouragement that most of the decisions have been taken without any serious analysis. Of course this has prompted us to make certain comments which were often negative and which the government so far has failed to answer. I cannot help thinking of the true motives of such measures. We might wonder why they waited so long. I remember that, all of a sudden last summer the Prime Minister felt it necessary to delay the general election to tell us how important it was to bring in economic measures because he had just realized, when he came back from Bonn, that the country was in a difficult situation and that he had to propose job creation measures. Those bills, the increase in income supplement and in family allowances are important, of course.
This does not quite jibe with the statements made by the Prime Minister that he would create jobs in the country. It is not quite with such pieces of legislation-nor with the bill asking for authority to borrow $17 billion, which we finally gave for an amount of about $7 billion-that we shall create jobs in the short term. Canadians probably think in the present context that-when we examine the political context the government thought perhaps it was profitable to play the trick with the $20 after the trick of the $85 they played last summer, and after the increase in family allowances before an election campaign. Other governments did so before, and I am forced to recognize that it may be a tactic I know, which is still used today, which disappoints me. I remember very well the principles which motivated the responsible minister at the very beginning of a political career, and I am convinced that this minister would have rejected any such argument or insinuation

that it might be well to introduce a measure which could be fascinating for the so-called poorer people, to try to gain their support in an election campaign. Again, strangely enough, that will happen a month and a half or two before the next election.
I suggest that we should warn the Canadian people not to fall in such traps. I repeat that we support this bill and that we shall vote for it. We would have done so a year ago because I feel the needs at that time were as pressing as they are today.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont who very skillfully tried to convince us of this government's concern for social legislation designed to help the have-nots and low income groups. He said that the Liberal policy was charity-oriented and one of concern for those deprived Canadians.
I would like to know why this government feels compelled to devise new social legislation and why, in order to enable Canadians to make ends meet, it has to be so generous, spending millions on unemployment insurance benefits, family allowances, old age pensions. Maybe we should remind them that if they had devised an industrial strategy well-adjusted to modern times, these so-called social measures would not be necessary today. Because of the economic mess, this government now has to turn to piecemeal solutions, giving away small amounts, $10, $85, $20, and this, just before the election. We will not say that it is dishonest because it cannot be proved.
The minister could have introduced this legislation 12 or 15 months ago because the situation has been deteriorating in Canada for a few years now. For the past five years, members on this side have been warning the government of the dangers looming ahead, but unfortunately, we were laughed at. But now the government realizes that we were right. They have come up with social measures that I really approve of. I must say that the government has to show some imagination to allow people to collect unemployment benefits without having to work, but they may have broken the record in this area. But with regard to showing imagination in relation to an industrial strategy and the recovery of the Canadian economy, I think this could be dealt with at length and I think that the evidence is there that it is a failure. This is why today I do not wish to dwell on this issue but I think I had to underline it. First it is rather strange to see how the introduction of this legislation was timed. Is it that the government did not understand a couple of years ago that this was an urgent matter then? By taking action then they could have dismissed any allegations that they are trying to buy off votes by introducing this measure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roch La Salle: Of course the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) has not thought about that but he may still use this legislation as an argument come the next election. Perhaps he will say to his voters: You know we handed out a little cheque for the children and the elderly now get an extra $20. Yet
November 1, 1978

there are also elderly people in my riding who are experiencing a lot of difficulties in pulling through financially. We want to hear about the need to increase the pensions of our elderly people who have now left their jobs after having made such an enormous contribution to this country.
The government was somehow caught at their own act when they announced these measures last summer and everybody thought that the election was to be held in October. Now the election will have to be held next spring and it is still something which raises some questions regarding this government and I must mention it.
I would also like when dealing with social measures, since this is a bill which concerns the family, to invite the minister to ponder seriously over the situation of the handicapped and the blind. The minister knows quite well that this segment of our society has derived benefit from the Canada Works program. But as this program is planned differently from year to year other and as this class of people cannot get a second grant under the Canada Works program, they find themselves now cut from the benefits they derived from this organization which has served them well for some six to 12 months.
With regard to senior citizens, let us take, for example, the New Horizons program. I wonder if the minister would give serious consideration to this excellent program which we endorsed. We even supported additional funds to provide these people with facilities and necessary and justified recreational activities. I think we could also seriously consider permanent funding for the disabled and the blind. The minister is fully aware of the great needs of these people. Some will say that we would have to negotiate with some provinces. 1 urge the minister, of course, to negotiate with the provinces special programs that could meet their needs.
I am convinced the minister will keep these remarks in mind and I am confident that when the budget will be brought down in a few days, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) will introduce a job-creating program, because people are needed to look after the disabled and the blind. Such a program could, while creating jobs, meet the expectations of these people and give them a fresh interest in life. I trust the minister will look upon my remarks in a very positive light, and upon the people, the categories I mentioned, with considerable humanity.
Mr. Speaker, of course we will support this bill. But I thought it my duty to remind the government that those measures should have been introduced long before today. Politically, they will be exploited as they must. But, in any event we are very happy to support them and trust that this government, with regard to industry, will find the means, take the steps and implement programs to create jobs and thus, I imagine, spare us the need to think only in terms of social measures. But there again, we have to consider those proposals which have been put before the House as essential, in view of the complete economic fiasco we have seen.
Family Allowances
I doubt that a prosperous Canada can be built through social measures. There will always be groups that will have to be looked upon as human responsibilities; I mean senior citizens and similar groups. In a better economic climate than that we know today, we would not be forced to introduce measures which, to my mind, bring nothing positive to the economic sector. Over all, it remains that some of the people now in need will benefit from those proposals. We shall support them in the hope that the minister will take good note of the remarks I have made, at least the ones she may consider positive.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome Bill C-10 for several reasons. It would be fair to say that many of us in the House of Commons have felt a disparity in various pieces of legislation where tax credits were given either for family allowance or other income tax policies. We are all aware that tax benefits do not assist families with the greatest need for federal, provincial or municipal assistance.
The first proposal contained in Bill C-10 is to reduce the amount of family allowance to $20 per month. Although the family allowance will be reduced to $20 on January 1, 1979, for families with incomes below $18,000 there will be a benefit. Each family will receive $200 per year for each child in the family.
I welcome Bill C-10 because it contains measures for redistribution. This is the first time since I have been here that a piece of legislation has been brought in which appears to be a negative income tax, due to the fact that one does not have to have high income in order to benefit from the tax policy change. Lower income families, regardless of whether they pay income tax, will receive a $200 allowance. For that reason I believe we on this side of the House, as well as those on the other side, welcome this proposal.
The $50 child adjustment will be eliminated. Also I understand there will be a change in the amount of moneys which can be deducted for income tax purposes in the 16 and 17-year old bracket. The present child benefit system consists of family allowance of $25.68 per month per child, with a child tax exemption of $460 a year for children under the age of 16 years, and over the age of 16, in the 16 to 17-year bracket, a tax exemption of $840, as well as the $50 per child adjustment to the general tax deduction.
For example, in order to benefit from the $840 exemption for 16 and 17-year old children, one must have an income to tax. In other words, those with the highest incomes receive the greatest benefits from the tax exemption system. Those on the lower end of the economic scale received proportionately less until they reached a cut-off point where the family could not take advantage of any of the tax exemptions.

November 1, 1978
Family Allowances
If we can say anything regarding Bill C-10, surely it is that this legislation involves a fair distribution and a re-addressing of benefits to people with lower incomes and those who financially require more assistance from programs of this type. Under this legislation, I understand that families with incomes of $18,000 or less, with one child, will receive a $200 rebate, and families with the same income and two children will receive a $400 rebate. This will progressively decrease as the family income increases. For example, a family with an income of $22,000 and with one child will receive $20 per month in family allowance, but no tax credit. I understand, as well, that a family with an income of $26,000 and two children will not receive tax credit benefits.
The theory is that the higher the income of a family the less the need for assistance from the federal government. I agree with that philosophy, and in a time of financial restraint when we know there are low income earners in Canada who require assistance, this is a mandate to which we must address ourselves. We must apportion those funds we have available for programs such as family allowance to ensure that they go to those people who require them the most and where the need is the greatest.
I compliment the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) for taking a bold initiative, taking moneys payable to the federal government and directing them to those areas where there is the greatest need. I am sure it would be fair to say that all hon. members of parliament have been approached in the last several years by constituents asking members if there is not a better way of reallocating family allowance funds. Obviously a family with an income of $100,000 a year does not require assistance, and the assistance provided through this allowance would not make any difference to their well-being.
Although this was supposed to be a universal plan, it has always seemed to me that we made one error. It was that, a family in the $8,000 to $10,000 income bracket had to follow the same rules as those followed by a family with an income of $50,000 or $60,000. One group could take advantage of our income tax legislation in order to derive benefits, yet the other group, those families with incomes of $8,000 to $10,000, could not obtain those benefits. They ended up in a negative position because they could not claim the income tax benefits the Parliament of Canada had provided in the legislation. In other words, it was an unfair situation. Those at the higher income level could take advantage of the tax deductions for children, but obviously those at the lower end of the income scale could not take advantage of those deductions and, therefore, they derived no benefit from them.
It is my understanding that approximately 2.4 million families of the 3.6 million families who receive family allowances will benefit from the new system to the extent of $200 per child per year. In other words, two thirds of the families with children will be the recipients of the benefits of this program. Putting this another way, one third of the families with children, up until the present time have been at a distinct

advantage. When looking strictly at numbers it is obvious that Canadians with higher incomes were given higher priority by previous parliaments.
I do not wish to be lengthy, because obviously this legislation has received the approval of members of the opposition. I want to say that I hope this is a beginning and not an ending. We have brought in innovative legislation which will be applauded by most Canadians. I hope the move does not stop there. If this theory applies well in respect of family allowances, and apparently we have concurrence from other parties in the House, perhaps we should address ourselves to the equally grave injustices or problems that exist in respect of old age pensions. Surely we have the same situation there where old age pensions amount to approximately $155 a month, indexed to the cost of living. These pensions increase as the cost of living increases every three months, whether the recipient requires the money or not. We are reducing family allowances by approximately $6 to $8 per child per month, on the understanding that we will redistribute the money saved to those at the lower end of the income scale.
I have calculated a few figures in order to compare what we could do in respect of old age pensions if we followed the same scheme. By eliminating the age exemption we could save the government about $ 150 million per annum. By de-indexing the OAS we would save approximately $350 million per annum. However, if we did that, GIS recipients would also suffer. Thus the only responsible initiative we could take of this kind would be to de-index OAS for those who receive only OAS, ensuring that pensions including both OAS and GIS continued fully indexed.
In other words, what we would be doing is redirecting approximately $350 million by removing the indexing of OAS and redirecting that money to GIS rather than putting it into government coffers. In this way the people who need assistance would receive greater benefits. Those people with higher incomes would receive less. I suspect this is not revolutionary since we have accepted this principle in respect of family allowances. Is there something different between family allowances and old age security, or should we apply the same principles, providing the greatest amount of money to those with the greatest need?


An hon. Member:: Are you trying to get them to vote against you too?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not know that the allowance is still indexed?


Hugh Alan Anderson: There would be a total saving of $350 million with which to increase the GIS, at about the same magnitude as proposed in Bill C-5. We must be careful that the gains for the elderly poor are not at the expense of the near poor. Obviously we would not wish to rob the near poor to pay the poor. I suggest that this House and those people who have an interest in assisting people who require help should look at a plan on the lines of the one I have suggested, or in some other form.
November 1, 1978

I realize that over the years some members of the Elouse have complained about the OAS and claim there should be a higher limit, but I do not agree. Certainly it would be appreciated by senior citizens, but I suspect that an amount added to the basic pension would go to people who do not require it. I am using the same principle as that in the legislation before the House now to ask if there is not something we can do in that area. Perhaps there is no concern about it, however. I believe there is, and I believe the principle could be transferred to the old age pensioner in order that those who have the greatest need derive the greatest benefit, and those who have the least need derive the minimum benefit.
I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is present, will see if some such plan can be introduced. Hon. members will know that there is no extra money for programs of this type; all we are doing in this legislation is redistributing some money. If my premise is correct and we do not have additional funds for social programs, then I suggest we look at redistribution so that money will go to the people with the greatest need, not only in family allowances but also to people receiving the old age pension.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by correcting something the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) said. He said he wanted to apply the same principle to the old age pension legislation by making sure the OAS was not indexed. He said that would be the same principle as that in the family allowance bill. If he looks at the bill, however, he will see that we are not going to end indexing of the basic family allowance. Indexing will continue.
The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), who is not in the House at the moment, was sensitive to the very just criticisms of the government made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae) who spoke of the inequities in our economy and in our society. I think he misunderstood the position of the hon. member for Broadview who said we would support the bill, and that the position outlined by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is the position of the party. The hon. member for Broadview pointed out that this legislation is only one small step toward remedying some of the inequities in our society.
I want to take a few minutes to talk about five or six different things this evening. This bill could be a major reform if a few things are cleared up. I agree with the minister that it could be a watershed in social policy in this country, but that will only happen if several points are clarified.
Like the hon. member for Broadview and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I believe we have to be concerned about the redistribution of income and, indeed, I believe the minister is genuinely concerned about that, although I am not sure she was last night, judging from the speech she made. We have to realize, despite the statistics used by the hon. member
Family Allowances
for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) in the House the other day, that in the last 20 years the gap between rich and poor has not narrowed. The figures used in the House yesterday can be obtained from Statistics Canada. Perhaps some hon. members do not think that Statistics Canada, the little organization of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), is accurate, but I think it is.
The figures show that in 1951 the richest 20 per cent of our population received some 42.8 per cent of the national income, while in 1975 the wealthiest 20 per cent of our population received 43 per cent of the national income.


Herb Breau: What about other income?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: All right; let us take the bottom 20 per cent of the population. In 1951 they received 4.4 per cent of the national income, while in 1975 they received 4 per cent of the national income. The hon. member, who comes from New Brunswick, wili probably say that everybody's income went up and, of course, it did. We are living in a country with immense resources, and all kinds of technology, and we hope, all kinds of intelligent people. Naturally the wealth of the country went up, but the gap between the rich and the poor is not narrowing as the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Buchanan) would have us believe. It has remained the same for 25 years.
Canadians are not out on the streets without any food, but there have been reports that a lot of Canadians are ill nourished and cannot afford to buy nutritious food. The problem of poverty in this country is well documented, so we have to be concerned about the redistribution of wealth. This is the point the hon. member for Broadview was making, and I want to put that on the record.


Herb Breau: Be careful; we will read it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am being very careful about what I say.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, if we clarify two or three things this will be watershed legislation and a major change in the government's thinking on social programs. If that happens, I would join the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in thanking the minister for introducing the bill.
I should like to deal with some positive parts of the bill, and then raise my questions, Mr. Speaker. On the question of redistribution of income, the bill does not only redistribute the money in the family allowance plan, but the pie is bigger. More money is being put in, and there is a genuine attempt to redistribute it. For example, there is the tax credit of $200 per child. People earning under $18,000 per year get the full benefit of that. People earning over $26,000 do not get the benefit, as it is phased out between $18,000 and $26,000. That is the way it should be. Members of parliament earn more than $26,000, for instance. I have a four-year old child and I do not think I deserve the tax credit. On the income I make I think I can afford to look after the child, and other people need it more than I do.

Family Allowances
The second positive thing I see in the bill is the introduction of demogrant for the first time, and that is something that this party has wanted for a long time. Exemptions in our tax system tend to help people in the upper income bracket and not the low income people. The tax credit system will help the low income people more than the wealthy, however, and that is a good thing.
I am trying to be constructive and positive. We have a demogrant and that will be paid to people whether or not they file their income tax returns. I see the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) and the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) in the House. In their ridings and mine people tend to have large families and do not file income tax returns because they are very poor. Often the poor have large families, as any sociologist would know. I think particularly of the Indian and Metis people in my riding. For example, if there are six children in a family the amount is $200 per child, or $1,200 in tax credit. I think that is good and a step in the right direction.
We always argue in this party that to stimulate the economy it must be stimulated from the bottom up. Money should be put into the hands of the low income people because they will spend that money buying consumer goods, which in turn stimulates the economy and produces jobs. That, too, is going in the right direction.
Fourth, this bill protects the concept of universality. Everyone will still get part of the family allowance. The amount is $20 a month, which I think is good to keep, but I will comment on this later.
Fifth, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary was saying, the basic family allowance will continue to be indexed and, even though it will be reduced from $26 per month to $20 per month, it will go up according to the increase in the cost of living in 1980. These are what I see as the six positive things in the bill before us.
I now come to the questions I have about the bill. At this point I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) will take me as seriously and responsibly as she did when I was talking about the positive aspects of the bill before us.
I am concerned over whether or not she has an agreement from the provinces that they will not use the extra money the welfare recipients will receive as an excuse to cut the welfare payments to the low income people. She mentions Saskatchewan. I have the right to believe that in Saskatchewan that probably will not happen. Our party has already talked to members of the Saskatchewan cabinet-


An hon. Member:: Did you make a phone call?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -to at least two very influential ministers. I am optimistic that they will not do that. At least I hope they will not do it, and believe they will not.

November 1, 1978


An hon. Member:: You made the phone call.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It was not a phone call. We happen to see people personally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Talk to the one
provincial Liberal government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We have nine other provincial governments in this country. Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare attempting to get any commitment from the provinces to the effect that when those on welfare get the extra $200 per child, that this amount will not be taken as normal income and deducted from their welfare payments? If it is deducted, Mr. Speaker, it nullifies the whole impact of this bill before us today. It nullifies it for the people who are the most needy. As a result it does not become a redistribution of income nor does it become a redistribution of wealth. The answer to that question, I think, is fundamentally important in terms of how we, as parliamentarians, judge the progressiveness of this bill.


Monique Bégin: The answer is yes.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister says she has taken the matter up with the provinces, and I commend her for that. But I want to make sure that she has a commitment from the provinces because the federal government, after all, does pay 50 per cent of the welfare costs.
Under the Canada Assistance Plan I think the minister has a big enough club to hold over the provinces to say to them, "Look, we want to change fundamentally one part of the social welfare system in our country, and we damn well demand you go along with us and that the welfare payments to the poor people not be reduced by $200 per child."
As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said, we in this House have a right to get the answer to that question from the minister, who in turn has a right to get it from the provinces, before the bill passes.
As I have already mentioned, I think this House has a clout and can say to the provinces, "This is what we want. We want to put more money into the hands of the poor people of this country, and we insist on your co-operation".
As the member for Broadview has already pointed out, we are concerned about the discounters, the usurers, the rip-off artists who may go to a mother and say, "You have four children. That amounts to $800 that you will be getting in terms of a tax credit. We will lend you the money, but we will charge you an excessively high interest rate." If that happens it nullifies-


Monique Bégin: It is limited to 15 per cent now.


An hon. Member:: Per quarter.
November 1, 1978


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is limited to 15 per cent per quarter, and that is still 60 per cent interest per year. It is per quarter, Mr. Speaker, and the minister will check this out. If that is not usury, then I am not sure what is. I do not see any reason why, and I know the minister means well, the government cannot talk to the people in the Department of Justice and bring to this House a companion bill that will make it illegal for people to charge this type of interest, by making it illegal for the discounters to participate and practise their so-called profession, or perhaps to make it illegal to use these cheques that come from the federal government in the form of family allowance, as security.
One of two things can be done to protect the innocent woman who needs the money now to buy things for her family. She might think that the only way she can get it is to listen to a discounter, and pay the 15 per cent interest per quarter. I would commend the minister if she could do something along this line to protect the woman from a usurer and as well for doing what is necessary to protect a bill that could be very progressive.
I have two more questions. I understand the payment to be made to the woman will come in a lump sum. Would the minister consider having the payment spread out quarterly so that a person with five children under the age of 18 who gets $1,000, would not receive a lump sum payment when the tax credits come out, but instead would get four payments three months apart for $250 each? This too would be some protection against discounters or against people who want to be fast rip-off artists. In addition, it would help the mother and the family because there would be money available on a quarterly basis to buy things for her children, for example, food, clothing or other things they might need to make their life better.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already mentioned that we in this party object to the basic family allowance being reduced from $26 a month to $20. In reply to that the government says it is putting more into the pie. I know that. But if some of the tax loopholes were plugged, as has been suggested by some other members of my party, more money than would be necessary would be collected to keep up the payments of $26 per month. There are several loopholes that could be plugged. I am thinking particularly of the depreciation allowances to oil companies, and the capital gains benefits to people who play the stock mar ket, etc. If loopholes such as those were plugged and made part of our taxation law which would be as progressive as this part , then there would be more than enough money to leave the family allowances at $26 per child per month, instead of reducing the amount to $20.
I hope the minister can answer some of my questions. The first question has to do with the provinces not taking advantage of this bill to recoup more of the money they pay out in welfare. Second, can the minister assure us she will do something to protect the innocent women of this country, who get this money, from rip-off artists? Third, as I said before, consider the possibility of that payment on a quarterly basis. It
Family Allowances
could be two or three times a year, but preferably four, instead of a lump sum. If this were done this could indeed be a major reform. This bill could be a milestone or a watershed, doing something real for our country in terms of social legislation, and reforming the taxation system.
I want to make a final point. If we can introduce a tax credit in family allowances that has a bias built into the plan in favour of poor and low income people, why can it not be done throughout our entire taxation system? Why not the same philosophy running throughout our society? We could have a planned economy, using all of the resources, technology and wealth we have to create a country that would in a genuine way redistribute the wealth among the poor and low income people, the have-nots whom the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) spoke about today, instead of the system we have had for over 100 years.
Under our present system the only real judges that we have are the profit margin and the so-called competitiveness, the merits of the philosophies of the corporations which guide us. If this can be done with family allowances, let us use it as a model. It can be extended throughout our taxation system. This would make Canada truly a great place for everyone regardless of their social and economic background or where they happen to live. If we do that, a lot of people now living below the poverty line would have a decent break in life. They would have an opportunity to do something. They could provide their children with the goods they need in order to explore the roads and avenues of life. They would be a happier and healthier people living in a more harmonious society. Plug all the possible loopholes in this bill well, and use this philosophy to guide us down the road in the years ahead.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly not take more than four minutes of the time of the House because that is all what is left today. I wish to express my views after reading time and again this bill which is not very long but which is very important for all Canadians. If we want to summarize the the general principles of that bill, I think we could say that we are going to take a chunk of all family allowances and give back a negligible part of it to a very small group and probably channel the rest towards other sectors of the economy. This is why I would not fulfil my responsibilities today if I did not draw that famous Bill C-10 to everyone's attention. I wish to expose before all Canadians the purposes, the hidden purposes of this amendment to the Income Tax Act. The bill is entitled: an Act to amend the Income Tax Act to provide for a child tax credit and to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973. After reading this title I said to myself: Here we go again with family allowances!
I remember that the last time I spoke on this subject I urged that family allowances be paid for all children without discrimination, regardless of their parents' income, in other words I consider children as real Canadian citizens. And I advocated again the principle of universality as an essential condition for

November 1, 1978
Family Allowances
all social legislation here at the federal level. This way we would not play political games at the expense of children by considering the income level of their parents. In fact everything rationalized through income tax-the rich gives back all his family allowances when he files his income tax return, but at least the child as a citizen gets justice. A serious question comes to my mind when reading this bill. I ask myself who stands to gain most from this bill, the child or the state? How much money will children get and what profits will the state, in other words the government receive from this? In his statement, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has tried to sugar the pill by attempting to show the good effects of the bill on children, even in the folder sent by the Department of National Health and Welfare to all families which begins as follows:
Dear parents:
Most families receiving family allowances will be pleased to learn about the new child tax credit announced by the federal government.
It will be a disappointment, Mr. Speaker, for perhaps 90 per cent of the families. At first sight, they will all think that poor children and families with average earnings will get more money, what with all that publicity.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 2, 1978