1978-11-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the unilateral and untimely decision by the government to remove the subsidy to the milling industry, which will cause not only instability within the processing industry but also dramatic price increases to Canadian consumers, especially those who can least afford these increases at this time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of Transport revise this policy and implement a program to include a three-year phase-out plan and, secondly, establish a price quotation system by the Canadian Wheat Board for two or three-month periods to reduce market fluctuations, to add stability to the industry and to minimize price increases to Canadian consumers.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart):
That the Prime Minister make a statement to the House confirming or denying statements made last night by Marjorie Nichols, Washington correspondent for the Vancouver Sun, on the CBC radio program "As it Happens" that the government is recalling Gerard Pelletier, the Canadian Ambassador to France, for purposes of advising the Prime Minister as to whether he should or should not leave office by the middle of January, and whether it is present government policy to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae).


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the problems of women and youth in finding employment are very severe, and in view of the apparent determination of this government to lower the participation rate of these groups in the economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That women and youth remain target groups for the Outreach program of the Department of Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Richard Janelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, 1 request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion.
I present this motion to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister on his decision to abolish a department he himself created, namely urban affairs, and I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That he continue his clean sweep and abolish all the departments which intervene in fields of provincial jurisdiction.


FORESTRY
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The minister of the environment has been saying to the House that privatization of the government's forest products laboratories is being wel-

November 30, 1978
corned by industry and that the nature and independence of these laboratories will not be jeopardized.
In view of the fact that there is a lack of hard evidence that industry is prepared to support the laboratories financially, as witnessed by the recommendation of the Council of Forest Industries in British Columbia not to extend industrial support, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the minister abandon his plans to privatize these important forest laboratories.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

We have received no government subsidies from the public treasury, nor have we requested taxpayer assistance.
Since CP Air uses airports and other air services subsidized $355 million annually by the taxpayer, has deferred income taxes of $9 million, and since the Air Transport Association- of which CP Air is a member-pressed the government to introduce the recent 7 per cent tax investment credit on transport equipment which will benefit CP Air by another $14 million, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Minister of Transport send a bill to CP Air for $90 million to cover their share of the air service deficit, and that CP Air immediately pay taxes owing.


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


NARCOTICS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that 60 per cent of property crime in British Columbia is drug-related, that property crime in Vancouver has risen 36 per cent over the last year, that the number of heroin addicts has increased 256 per cent over the last decade, that 60 per cent of drug-related crime happens in B.C.-which has only 25 per cent of the RCMP drug forces-and that half the cost of the $111 million justice system in B.C. is directly related to heroin abuse, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That the federal government partially fund the B.C. government's health entry plan for heroin users.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a most urgent matter.
Because of the impending increase in the cost of bread, by its very nature this increase will considerably affect the budget of large families with a low income, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval:
* *
*


AIR SERVICE DEFICIT OF CORPORATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43 which will help the government increase its revenues. It is urgent and pressing, in view of the fact that Canadian Pacific Air placed a false and misleading advertisement in the November 29 Globe and Mail stating as follows:

That this House recommend to the government that it order a serious inquiry into the operations of the large mills to establish whether this increase is really justified.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 30, 1978



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue who is also Minister of State for Small Business: it involves both his portfolios. My question refers to the manufacturing sales tax and the fact that it now appears the implementation of this sales tax will have serious consequences for the general economy of Canada.
Would the minister indicate whether any consideration has been given to rebating the sales tax which has already been paid in the case of inventories held by various retailers and wholesalers in Canada?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware of the difficult task this presents, because it is impossible in many cases to disgorge the tax which might have been paid at the manufacturing level on inventories in stock. 1 recognize that it has sometimes imposed on retailers a feeling of moral obligation to pass on the discount immediately because of the reduction of the tax. However, I think most reasonable purchasers understand that if the tax has already been paid on the inventory, the price cannot be reduced to take advantage of a tax reduction at the manufacturing level.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When the minister says it is a difficult matter to deal with, surely he is aware of the fact that section 17 of the Financial Administration Act covers the point: it allows for the remission of taxation. Surely he is aware of the fact that the previous minister of finance, in the 1974 and earlier budgets, set remissions with respect to reductions of sales tax at that time.
In view of the fact that a hiatus is developing and people are delaying their purchases until January or February, in the earnest hope they will get the benefit of this manufacturing sales tax reduction, will the minister not instruct his officials to get on with it and work out a proper remission plan under section 17 of the Financial Administration Act?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member will allow me a little time to consult my officials on the point he raised and on the advice he has given. I will do so and perhaps be more fulsome in my answer at a later date.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I admit that my question may be one which the minister will want to take up with his superior minister, the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers.
Does he acknowledge that a hiatus is developing in the current period, in that the provincial sales tax had the effect of
Oral Questions
moving sales back into that six-month period, especially in provinces such as Ontario? Now that the manufacturing sales tax encourages people to delay their purchases until early next year, there will be a very difficult three months at the very time we need production and jobs created in the country.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, by his emotional, alarmist tones, the hon. member is attempting to raise a spectre which does not exist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I acknowledge that there are some difficulties and some expectations, but I deny that consumers are withholding purchases on this ground.


An hon. Member:: Of course they are.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Purchasers are quite aware that the system eventually will show the savings which will result from the reduction in the sales tax. I do not want to appear arbitrary on the point raised earlier, because I am less familiar than I should be with these aspects. I will consult my officials and perhaps be able to offer a more fulsome answer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: And consult your superior.


STEPS TO ENSURE CONSUMERS BENEFIT FROM TAX REDUCTION
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. In his budget, the Minister of Finance indicated that the reduction of the federal excise tax was for stimulation of the economy. He also said, "I want this cut passed on to consumers". Without tax refund or relief, it is now evident the reduction will not be passed on by retailers to consumers. What provision does the government have in mind to ensure that the excise tax reduction will be passed on to consumers?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is as aware as I am that the manufacturers' sales tax has been reduced and that the savings achieved by that tax reduction at the manufacturing level will be passed on to consumers when they reach either the retailing or the wholesaler level. Ultimately, consumers will benefit very rapidly.
Also, I think he is as aware as I am that if an inventory is in stock, it may have been in stock for many months and the tax has been paid on it at the manufacturing level and not by the retailer. The task of disgorging the amount, in my judgment, is a very difficult one. The hon. member for York-Simcoe said that there was no difficulty at all and that there were adequate provisions to do it. I disagreed with him, but I reserved on the point.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. We have contacted many retailers and automobile dealers who have told us that their sales have dried up since the budget.

November 30, 1978
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Name them.


William James Kempling: I will name them for the minister, Mr. Speaker. I understand the Canadian Retailers Association told the minister and officials of the Department of National Revenue privately that the cost of repricing inventory would be more than the 3 per cent. In other words, the tax reduction will not be passed along. Many retailers of large dollar items such as automobiles want to pass on the excise tax reduction-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would ask his question.


An hon. Member:: Question.


William James Kempling: If the hon. member wants to ask a question, he can get on his feet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William James Kempling: Will the minister recommend a rebate system on items in inventory over $1,000 in value at cost on which the 12 per cent excise tax has been paid? Will he go at least that far?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, first let me correct the hon. member. I have not had any discussions of the type he mentioned with the retailers' association. I would reiterate that in my judgment the task of remitting in respect of any dollar volume or dollar item over a certain amount, as has been referred to, would be a difficult, if not impossible, task. The consumer will benefit through the path that will result in reduction of the tax at the manufacturing level. I certainly do not want to appear to be indifferent to the problem; that is why I assured the hon. member for York-Simcoe that I want an opportunity to discuss the matter with my officials.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On Tuesday, October 31, I put to the minister certain questions about the funding under Outreach of programs which specifically help women. On that occasion the minister said that this matter was being looked at and that there would be a review during the month of November. Now that we are at the end of November, can the minister tell us whether that review has taken place, and whether the Outreach programs which specifically help women with employment and other problems will be continued?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, under the criteria women are not shut out from the Outreach program and they do participate in it along with men. We have indicated that where an Outreach program, in our view, is specifically directed at women only, we will be taking a hard look at it to determine if it meets the criteria of the program. That was the reason for the evaluation. This was also expanded on at some length in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. As the hon. member has said, the review was to take place during the month of November. However, I have not personally received the evaluation reports.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the House, if that review is still proceeding, whether there will be any consultation with women who are working in some of the projects under Outreach that deal specifically with women? While he is answering that question will he comment on the situation that certainly has arisen in our society, that women are having such a difficult time obtaining employment that there is need not just for them to be grouped in other programs but also for affirmative action programs to help them with their problems?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there are affirmative action programs in place and many of them have been advanced by my own department. I do not think we have to take second place to anyone in respect of that particular concern.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my final supplementary question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as the minister responsible for the status of women. In view of the fact that any real help for women with regard to their employment and other problems is, in effect, being phased out by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, will the minister responsible for the status of women interest himself in this matter and try to persuade his colleague to do the right thing by the women of this country?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have interested myself very thoroughly in this particular subject over the past few months, especially in relation to the question raised by the hon. member respecting the Outreach program. I disagree with his interpretation and his allegation that my colleague has not been doing his very best in this respect and has not been doing a great deal. I have had an opportunity to examine the programs in Employment and Immigration. There has been a reallocation of resources and a reassignment of functions. There are many projects dealing specifically with women in that particular department at the present time, independently of the Outreach program.
I want to assure the hon. member that the Minister of Employment and Immigration and myself are working closely on this subject and have this matter very much at heart. We would like to be doing even more than has been done, but we
November 30, 1978

must consider all the people who are unemployed and not just one particular category at a time.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. Since last November 17, the day after the budget speech by the Minister of Finance, the manufacturers' sales tax has been reduced by 3 per cent. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether consumers buying cars which were in a dealer's parking lot will have to pay the full tax since the latter had to pay it before, or whether a measure has been taken to make the customers buying cars since November 17, 1978 benefit from the reduction?


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has stated in his budget speech that there would be no special arrangement with regard to the dealer's inventory at that time.

1 think this question is much along the lines of the one raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. It is important to note that this tax measure is passing through to the consumer, which I think the Leader of the Opposition and other members opposite felt probably would not happen. I think it is important to note that it is happening, and that is why problems are arising. The minister made it clear that for this normal tax reduction no special provision would be made for inventories on hand as of November 16.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT RECEIVED REPRESENTATIONS FROM AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask a supplementary. I understand that the minister's answer has been categorical in that regard, but it sometimes happens that positions change as a result of logical representations. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether official representations have been made to the Minister of Finance by the automobile retailers association and whether they have received the same answer the parliamentary secretary just gave to the House?


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, a number of people are raising concerns about this particular matter. I think the point has to be
Oral Questions
made that whenever there have been past reductions or increases of a general nature in sales tax, it is not the normal thing for particular adjustments to be made for various inventories of commercial organizations across the country. It does not apply strictly to automobiles, but to furniture and every other commodity on which sales tax is imposed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to check whether a precedent has not been created already, so that we can give an unequivocal answer to those who contact us and pretend that such a situation has occurred before and that special legislation had been passed by parliament to solve the problem.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, there have been exceptions to this general rule when a special reduction had been granted. [English]
There was a special reduction in 1974 and an even earlier reduction for that purpose was aimed at specific industries. At that time an exception was made, but no exceptions have been made in the normal course of sales tax changes. Most reductions or increases have been of a very general nature and have applied across the board, as is the case with this 25 per cent decrease in the rate of tax.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said there had been no involvement of any kind, and I think he said there had been no information of any kind, by his department or any officials of the Government of Canada in relation to the return to Canada of two members of the FLQ who were exiled from this country in 1970. That was the statement made yesterday.
In light of the events of yesterday, I wonder if that is still the position, or if there has been some involvement by some agency of the Government of Canada; and, if so, what is the nature of that involvement?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I am
informed, Mr. Speaker, that is still the situation as of today: there is no involvement of any agency of the Government of Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are some questions that arise about the exact status of these two individuals. My supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. I would assume that at the time of granting safe conduct out of Canada to these two members of the FLQ, the Government of Canada would have established some conditions regarding their future relationship to Canada.

November 30, 1978
Oral Questions
I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell the House exactly what conditions were established in 1970 and whether any of those conditions would be breached by the return to Canada of these two members of the FLQ.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The only conditions of which I am aware, Mr. Speaker, were stated publicly at the time. They were to the effect that if ever they returned, they would be prosecuted with the full force of the law.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I assume that determination to prosecute will continue. So that I am clear, the Prime Minister is telling us now there was no attempt by his government in 1970, when these two members of the FLQ were required to leave the country, to impose upon them any condition of any kind that would affect their citizenship or their power to return to this country, other than the threat that they would be subject to the normal processes of law, no matter what length of time had passed between their leaving this country and their return. There were no other conditions attached by this government to those members of the FLQ at that time; is that correct?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a repetition of the same question.


An hon. Member:: Poor old Joe.


POLICY RESPECTING CRUDE OIL PRICES
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is there any change of intention or government policy respecting crude oil price increases and, in particular, the package proposal which was rejected by the majority of premiers at the recent meeting? I am specifically referring to the deferral of the crude oil price increase from January 1, 1979, for six months and the newly required increase of $1 a barrel on January 1, 1980. Has there been any change in the government's intention or policy with respect to that package deal?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no package deal put together in those terms. Let me make it quite clear that the government believes it would not be desirable for an oil price increase to take place on January 1. We believe there are very good reasons for this-


Mr. McGrath:: What about bread?


Alastair William Gillespie: -in terms of the competitiveness of the Canadian economy relative to the United States economy, for reasons of growth and for reasons of the inflation index and the cost of living index. Accordingly, the position we took in

August of this year, that there should be no increase, is still the position of the government.
I will be entering into discussions with the government of Alberta and the government of Saskatchewan with a view to replacing the existing agreement whereby an oil price increase would take place on January 1 and entering into a new agreement that would defer that increase.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the minister should be so hesitant about the second part of the package proposal. I am asking if there has been any change in the avowed, determined, announced policy of the government. It is a two-pronged one; the deferral of one for six months and a newly required increase on January 1, 1980. Is that still the minister's intention? Is it still the government's policy? A "Yes" or "No" reply would be sufficient.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, let me go over some of the same ground again for the hon. member. I do do not think he understood the situation.


An hon. Member:: He did.


Alastair William Gillespie: He does not seem to understand that we now have an arrangement, a written agreement between the federal government and the government of Alberta and an exchange of letters between myself and Mr. Getty. That covers an existing arrangement which would require an oil price increase on January 1, subject to an important condition or two. Before we can get agreement on the deferral, we have to get a new agreement. That is what I will be seeking from the premier, from the government of Alberta and, 1 hope, with the concurrence of the government of Saskatchewan. But let me make it quite clear that we are not talking about any other automatic increases after that date.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The minister has stated at the federal-provincial conference that the oil price adjustments had saved $2,400 to every Quebec citizen. In view of the different position assumed by the province of Quebec, which has opted for an immediate oil price increase, will this decision cause the residents of the province of Quebec a loss in saving?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that the Quebec premier did not see fit to support the proposal and the agreement reached by the federal and Alberta governments. Quebeckers so far have certainly greatly benefited from the
November 30, 1978

equalization formula which has maintained the price for oil at a reasonable level both in Quebec and the maritime provinces; in fact everywhere in Canada. We had thought that the Quebec premier would support the proposal in question, whereby Quebec consumers could have saved some $200 million over a six month period, specifically from January 1 to July 1, 1979. He has decided to opt instead for the maintenance of the previous agreement calling for a price increase effective January I, which will make his province eligible for a somewhat higher transfer payment, thereby increasing the amount available for the government's budget at the expense of Quebec consumers. He wants to get a few million dollars more in equalization payments on the back of Quebec consumers who will be stuck with a bill of over $200 million.


SOCIAL INSURANCE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration: it has to do with social insurance numbers. I have made a study of this matter during the last several days in order to find out the comprehensiveness and the degree to which the rights of Canadians can be interfered with as a result of this action.
I have found out that if computers are linked in a network, they can reveal the date of your birth, the name of your parents and your record at school, that is, whether you passed or failed. Indeed, everything that happened in one's life would be available to public knowledge. I ask, why is the government not desirous of restricting this social insurance plan to taxation and to social security. I simply ask that to begin with, and a supplementary question will cover the rest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly wait for the supplementary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The very form of the right hon. gentleman's question is hypothetical. He started his question-I think Hansard will bear me out in this-by saying computers in banks were all grouped together, then this information would be available-


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, come on.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I listened very carefully, sir. It is my turn. Okay?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The fact is that there are three areas where the federal parliament has indicated, by statute, that social insur-
Oral Questions
ance numbers are necessary and people have to use them where they are appropriate: the Canada Pension Plan, obviously, social insurance, and one other area. There has been an extension of this use by banks and by police forces, and in practically every instance they say, "There is no requirement to give a social insurance number, but we would like to have it". Some of them are doing it in that particular way.
I would share the concern of the hon. gentleman if, as he said hypothetically, the data banks were linked; but they are not. There is also the human rights legislation which has just been passed by this parliament, which also affords protection in that the social insurance number and access to that information is not available without the consent or permission of the individual.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would have to tell the minister that there is nothing to prevent these computers joining together: there is no law against it.
I come back to this one simple question: why permit what has all the appearances of bureaucratic tyranny? Why permit this to continue? Parliament is the place where freedom must be determined. This legislation passed, but it passed in the dying moments of a session. I suggest to the minister that this passport to tyranny should be removed, if freedom is to be preserved in our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I said that I could hardly wait for the supplementary. I thought it might be that kind of diatribe-


John George Diefenbaker: It is not diatribe; it is fact.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is not fact. There is no particular tyranny here. The best way to limit the extended use of social insurance numbers would be to pass legislation that they can only be used for certain purposes-A, B and C. But if we were to do that, many people would find themselves at a disadvantage because a lot of people want to use these numbers; they want to volunteer them; they want to make sure that a cheque due to them goes to them and not to a neighbour down the street.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. It has direct reference to a press release issued today-it was not delivered to my office; I guess I had to ask for it at her office-regarding the setting up of an independent committee to make recommendations on the future of telecommunications in Canada.

November 30, 1978
Oral Questions
My question refers particularly to the first part of this press release which states that this committee of distinguished Canadians from coast to coast will not have to engage in formal hearings in the discussion of this very large and complex subject. Does this mean there will be no public hearings and, if that is to be the case, does the minister not think the way to stimulate public debate in this area, as she said she is interested in doing, would be to hold public hearings rather than to make decisions behind closed doors?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: That committee is set up for a very restricted purpose. It has been created in order to help me consolidate a number of studies made within the department on what might be the new architecture of telecommunications in Canada. The idea is that before we get into discussions at the federal-provincial level or start making policies for the future of telecommunications, it is important for me and for everyone concerned to get a picture of what the future architecture of the industry is likely to be.
As I say, this is a restricted committee and there will be no public hearings. But the report will be made public when it is completed and, of course, it will then be available for public debate.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: 1 must say I gathered from the press release and from the appendix to the press release that that would be the minister's answer. I find it totally incredible that this course should be taken in a field which is so perplexing to Canadians. The only documentation with reference to this distinguished group of Canadians is the press release and the appendix to it, which says in the first line:
The Canadian communications system is in the midst of a crisis more profound than any which has affected it since 1920.
Does the minister really believe it is possible for Canadians, however distinguished, to come up with solutions in the two months available to them, according to this press release? Was the committee advised beforehand that there would be no public hearings and that they had to meet a "guillotine" at the end of two months?


Jeanne Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they were advised in advance that the report would have to be finished by February. This is because it is important for me to have this report in my possession when I discuss telecommunications with provincial ministers and when I have to decide certain important questions concerning, among other things, the introduction of new technologies which are likely to come on stream.
That report is a necessity to me, for it is a means by which I will be able to accelerate a process which has been going on in the department for the past year and a half. Since we are on the verge of discussing these matters with the provinces, it is important for me to consolidate the studies which have been made. That is what the committee is going to do.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Read the press release. I shall be raising this at ten o'clock.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH ALBERTA ON CRUDE OIL PRICES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham that he was about to enter into negotiations with Alberta regarding the wellhead price of oil on January 1, 1979.
I ask the minister whether the proposition he intends to put before Alberta is the same as the one he has been propounding lately, a policy which might be called "Save now and pay later", by which the consumers of this country would save $1 a barrel before the election and pay $2 a barrel more after the election. Is that the proposition the minister will be placing before the government of Alberta?


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member knows better than most members of this House the policy of the Canadian government with respect to the pricing of oil. Our policy has been, and still is, to move crude oil prices at the wellhead toward world levels and to do so in measured steps in a way which will not put the Canadian price ahead of the United States price; to do so at a pace which will not have a serious impact on the economy. We all recognize the fragile nature of the economic resurgence and the importance of timing in this regard.
1 indicated in my reply to the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham that there would be no automatic increase. It is on that basis I would be prepared to enter into negotiations with Alberta and Saskatchewan toward reaching a new agreement to replace the existing one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not
sure whether the minister is confused or whether he is trying to confuse the House. As he knows, the proposed increase on July 1, 1979, was to be the fourth and final step in a four-step increase.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: January.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The proposition the minister has been making recently is that in return for forgoing the increase on July 1, 1979-


Some hon. Members:: January.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -on January 1, 1979, Alberta would be prepared to accept an increase on July 1, 1979, and on January 1, 1980. What possible excuse could there be for suggesting a proposition under which the consumer would save $825 million a year by cancelling out one increase and then allowing two increases which would cost consumers $1,650 million?
I am therefore asking the minister point blank: will he assure the House that if there is any increase at all, it will be for one period only, namely, January 1, 1979, and that there would be no subsequent increase later on?

November 30, 1978


Alastair William Gillespie: I have made it clear that the policy with respect to our oil pricing is to move to world levels in a series of steps so that over a period of time I do not know how many years we would expect the Canadian price to be close to the international price. But we would not move toward that international price unless certain conditions were accepted such as, for example, the competitiveness of the Canadian economy; the Canadian price relative to the United States price. We would never exceed the U.S. price, depriving our industry of its competitive edge, or advance prices at a pace which would have a negative impact on our economy.
The hon. member talks about two future increases of $1 and that sort of thing. He is speaking with a degree of precision which the facts do not merit. I have indicated to him that I am not entering into discussions on the basis of automatic increases.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Quebec minister of economic development announced yesterday, at the first ministers' conference on the economy, that the Quebec government intended to buy a regional carrier such as Nordair or Quebecair.
Had the Quebec government made an offer of purchase to Nordair before the conditional purchase of that airline by Air Canada, in line with the intentions expressed by Mr. Landry, without mentioning the terms of financing? What would then be the position of the Canadian government?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there was no indication from the province of Quebec-certainly none conveyed to me-of an interest in relation to the purchase of Nordair.
I think the broad policy of the government with regard to provincial ownership of airlines was stated fairly clearly during the debate on amendments to the Aeronautics Act when, among other things, I made the point that there are always serious difficulties regarding possible political argument instead of simple examination of the public interest if a provincially-owned creature is before a federal regulatory tribunal, and that could create long-term difficulties in the administration of the field in question.
Oral Questions SMALL BUSINESS


ESTABLISHMENT OF EXPORT CONSORTIA
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State (Small Business). In view of the fact that the deficit on manufactured end products-and most of this is in relation to the small business sector-has grown from $3.3 billion in 1968 to $11.1 billion in 1977 and is presently growing at an even faster rate, and keeping in mind that Canadian small and medium-sized firms could in fact compete more effectively in the international marketplace in this area if only an export consortia vehicle were made available, can the minister advise this House if and when he intends to accept our long-standing proposal to help establish and promote the formation of such export consortia in Canada in order to establish our small and medium-sized businesses in the international marketplace?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member has been using as a source of his research the recent speech of the Leader of the Opposition in Toronto, which is quite an unreliable source at best.


Charles Joseph Clark: We will test it in Mississauga.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Under our combines legislation there is now no prohibition against organizing consortia among small and medium-sized enterprises for export sales, so it would be well within the law for this to take place. Indeed, examples exist: Bill C-13 gives ample provision for this kind of consortia. So I reiterate my suggestion that instead of consulting the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, larded as it was with verbose excesses and attempts to convince the small business community that we are not doing our job, I urge the hon. member to research the law. He will see that what he is suggesting is well provided for in the present law.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, 1 have seen many people skate around in circles in my time, but this is ridiculous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: The source of my research is international small business symposia-


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


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the source of my research is the international small business symposium which I attend on a yearly basis. 1 ask the minister to stop skating around in circles and to be more specific. For example, can he tell us what specific measures his government has taken to introduce these consortia and to make them functional, and when can the small business community begin to take advantage of such export consortia? I advise the minister that that community will be able to do so after the next federal election.
8006 7-33

November 30, 1978
Oral Questions


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I attended the same international small business symposium. As we both know, it was held at Disneyland. Unfortunately, 1 think the hon. member spent too much time in Fantasyland instead of doing his homework. I am telling him it is now provided in the law that businesses can form export consortia. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and my own secretariat will be glad to help small businesses if they want to do this, and I encourage them to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who coached the Minister of State (Small Business) in his answer regarding his trip to Disneyland.
Recently, the minister signed an agreement with the government of Barbados to provide $10 million in cash to help that country rebuild its airports. The government pretends to encourage the private sector to export products and expertise. Why is the Department of Transport providing expertise rather than the private sector through consulting firms and construction engineering firms which would be willing and able to provide that kind of expertise?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the country involved was Trinidad. There were two airports. Our Department of Transport was chosen to act as a key contractor. It will seek out and sublet contracts to Canadian engineering firms in order to complete the work.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, to what extent did the minister urge the government of Trinidad to use our private sector in rebuilding those airports?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I was assured by the Prime Minister of Trinidad that there would be as much Canadian content as possible in the rebuilding of the two airports. I think the project will be very beneficial. It is estimated that there will be between $150 million and $200 million worth of Canadian work and Canadian material.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REMOVAL OF SUBSIDY ON DOMESTICALLY CONSUMED WHEAT-REQUEST POLICY BE RECONSIDERED
John Wise: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It relates to the government's change in policy with respect to the removal of the subsidy to millers on domestically consumed wheat. The minister was made aware yesterday of the impact such a move will have on consumer prices which, incidentally, the minister described as insignificant.
Is the minister prepared today to reconsider his position and to give serious consideration to a phasing-out period? I suggest a phasing-out period of two or three years.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we obviously considered the question of the extent of continued government financial support in this area at the time we took the decision, and decided that the saving of $100 million to the treasury was important and should be accomplished as quickly as possible.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider a policy of having the Canadian Wheat Board quote domestic wheat prices, as recommended by the bakery industry, for two or three-month periods? This certainly would reduce market fluctuations to a very large extent, provide greater stability in the industry and, no doubt, would be beneficial to Canadian consumers as well.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take whatever steps can be taken to try to encourage a relationship between the Wheat Board and its pricing and millers, so that the price rise is as slow as possible.


MEASURES TO IMPROVE MOVEMENT OF RAPESEED
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Approximately $1 billion of rapeseed sales are in jeopardy at the present time because of the transportation mess in which we in this country find ourselves. That is illustrated by the fact that the Alberta Wheat Pool is now moving rapeseed by truck to Vancouver, which is unheard of. What action, if any, will the Wheat Board or the railways be taking to move this very valuable crop which is now at a very good price?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was putting that question either to the Wheat Board or to the railways, they would explain that they are attempting to move grain as required to the Vancouver area and to other destinations. The hon. member knows that I have not been satisfied with the way in which action by the various participants, including those to whom I referred, as well as terminal and elevator companies, has worked. As a result, I have appointed a special consultant to examine, from
November 30, 1978

a business management point of view, such improvements as can be made.
I would prefer to receive the conclusions of that source and then have discussions with the individual participants, rather than to attempt to lay blame without a complete foundation in terms of concrete recommendations as to what can be done better.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, surely to goodness we cannot continue to consult and to study problems forever while the transportation system in this country suffers and, consequently, one particular region suffers.
I would ask the minister, in terms of barley which is a very important crop and is not moving, what barley producers can expect in the next two or three months, in terms of movement, because movement of the barley crop out of western Canada is virtually non-existent.


Otto Emil Lang: The Wheat Board could tell the hon. member that the expected sales of barley will be significantly higher this year than they were last year. The export market is excellent, so over the full crop year the sales will be good.
Of course, the Wheat Board had had to time its sales according to the needs of its buyers. If that means that in its judgment more wheat must move at one time of the year and more barley at another, I for one will not try to second-guess the Wheat Board in its judgment in that regard. The hon. member asks whether we will keep on consulting. I say to the hon. member that in a complicated transportation and handling system you need every week, every month and every year to re-examine whether you can handle the system better and make it work more efficiently.
The fact is that in 1974 and 1977, concrete steps which we took produced an additional 3.3 turnarounds on all the cars in use, effectively allowing us in 1977 to carry 34 per cent more grain than we could have done on the basis of our techniques in 1974.


PRIVILEGE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In accordance with our rules I gave you notice of my question of privilege, and also I notified the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) that I would be raising a very short question of privilege. I appreciate the fact of the parliamentary limitation on most questions of privilege raised on the point that I will try to advance. The essence of a question of privilege is whether the duties and work of members of parliament are affected, and I do believe that on that basis my question of privilege carries just as much credibility
Privilege-Mr. Nowlan
as do many others, but whether or not it finds favour in your eyes, only the next two or three minutes will tell.
My question of privilege arises out of a question which I put to the Minister of Communications on November 14. It appears on page 1095 of Hansard. I asked the minister:
I wonder if the Minister of Communications is prepared to communicate today. Perhaps she could confirm the reports across Canada indicating that officials in her department are requesting very distinguished Canadians to sit on a royal commission on communications.
The minister answered:
No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that: there are no officials of my department crossing Canada to set up a royal commission.
Then I asked a supplementary question regarding the communications bill. It might appear at first blush that there might have been a semantic problem. In my question I referred to reports across Canada, and the minister answered that no one was crossing Canada. But if I really and honestly believed that, then I would have to accept that the brain power of the minister is of such a low quotient that she should not hold her seat. She knew what I was getting at, and other questions had been put to her.
On June 20 I asked the minister, in view of the recommendation and suggestion of Mr. de Grandpre, president of the Bell Telephone Company, if she thought there was some merit in setting up a royal commission, and she gave me an answer then. On numerous occasions, in press releases and in speeches, the question of a royal commission on broadcasting or on telecommunications has been mentioned. Thus, when I received the answer from the minister which to me sounded categorical, that, "no, she cannot confirm that any officials of hers are crossing Canada to set up a royal commission," I interpreted that, in the widest, most generous sense, that no officials of her department were thinking about setting up a royal commission.
You can imagine my surprise when yesterday I was advised by a friend-not through the minister's office-of a speech which the minister gave in Montreal, Tuesday, November 28, to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, nine tenths of which dealt with the Quebec problem and Mr. Levesque, on several points of which I was prepared to question the minister yesterday if I had caught your eye, Mr. Speaker. The reason I was trying to catch your eye was that tucked away at page 8 of that speech there were two paragraphs headed "Creation of Committee." Under that heading the minister stated:
The pace of technological change in this area is so swift and the convergence of telecommunication technologies so imminent that it is time for us to rethink the entire structure of our telecommunications system . . . There could be no better time to restructure our system. To this end, I intend to set up a small committee and to give it the task of consolidating all the studies we have undertaken thus far.
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lot of hubbub over there, although I know the minister hears me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan).
80067-33Vz

November 30, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Nowlan


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the end of what I would like to say.


Mr. Cafik:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Cafik) can make his speech later. I will take him on any time he wants, but I am trying to direct my question of privilege to the Minister of Communications in a most serious way.
Yesterday I did not know the extent of what she meant by "the small committee to consolidate." Quite frankly, I thought it was a departmental committee to consolidate the many studies on communications and then perhaps suggest advice or make recommendations to the minister. I had a few questions to put to her to find out what she meant.
Thus my surprise increased this morning when, over the wire service, I was advised of the following:
Communications minister Jeanne Sauve announced Wednesday night-
Not in her Tuesday speech, and none of this came to me as the opposition critic on communications, which is a very real disappointment to me. The minister disappointed me, quite frankly. I do not know what has happened. If two colleagues who have the same interest at heart in terms of parliament cannot communicate, no wonder we have problems in communications. This wire really started to shed light. It goes on to read:
-that she has asked a nine member committee to make recommendations on the future of the Canadian Telecommunications System. The committee, under chairman John V. Clyne-
I happen to know him. He is an eminent ex-chief justice of British Columbia.
The wire goes on to read:
-chancellor of the university of British Columbia, will not hold public meetings and has been asked to complete its work by the end of next February. It will be known as the consultative committee on the implications of telecommunications for Canadian sovereignty.
Madam Sauve said in a news release that telecommunications is at a crossroads. There was growing concern about the extent to which it might be falling short of expectations and opportunities.
The wire goes on to read:
-as well as the role of broadcasting to contribute to the preservation of Canadian sovereignty.
Other considerations include: Use of communications satellites . .. foreign program imports; the status of cable companies . .. the framework and timing for the introduction of pay television nationally.
I do not care what you call this committee, consultative committee or any other committee-a rose by any other name-and the same applies to a thorn. This is obviously not an in-house study. It is a fundamental study undertaken by admittedly distinguished Canadians on fundamental problems affecting the communications industry in Canada.
This morning I asked officials in her office if she had a press release, and someone from the PC research office went to her office at about eleven o'clock and was given a press release of her speech made two days previously. After twelve o'clock, my secretary, following another phone call, finally received the

minister's press release dated November 30, which gives in more detail the subject of the wire story which was brought to my attention this morning.
The press release refers to distinguished Canadians across the country, which was exactly the subject matter of my question. It sets out the qualifications of those distinguished Canadians. These are distinguished Canadians from coast to coast, from British Columbia to Nova Scotia and many great places in between. I do not question the character and intelligence of the people named to this consultative committee, which was given terms of reference to study the issue, and I believe they might produce a very interesting report. After all, there was the Fowler report in 1957, and 20 years before that there was the Massey report. That is why I and my party suggested more than two years ago that this whole tangled web of communications deserves another over-all objective look from someone outside of the interested parties and of the Department of Communications.
I should like to say, in conclusion, that the press release refers to distinguished Canadians and to a strategy to restructure the telecommunications system. It states the areas of study which involve new technologies, such as fibre optics, satellites, interactive television, and computer technology.
Some of the questions asked on the floor of the House today may very well have been within the terms of reference of this study, but I do not have the terms of reference in my hand; all I have is the press release.
The horrifying thing is: how can there be a study on communications with no formal hearings? The minister confirmed today that there is no intention of conducting public hearings. I agree with her that this matter has been studied ad infinitum, that there have been many substantive studies.
The fact that there have been studies on a topic does not preclude it from being aired and generated before distinguished Canadians, so that they can make up their own minds with the interplay of examination and cross-examination on many of these studies, some of which have been done by vested interests who have their own points of view to project.
Communications should be the most open field, yet a two-month study will be conducted behind closed doors. In coming to the conclusion of my question of privilege, I should like to indicate that either the minister knew her officials were asking distinguished Canadians to serve on a commission or a committee, or she did not.
I do not have to educate Mr. Speaker regarding the definitions of the word "commission", since they are used very freely, and the minister understands what 1 mean. Among other things, the Oxford Dictionary, taken from the table, defines "commission" in terms of royal as follows:
Commission of inquiry or committee appointed by the Crown at the instance of the government.
These eight distinguished Canadians did not come from the sky. They were not the creation of someone's imagination.
November 30, 1978

They were appointed by this minister of the Crown in the name of the government, and 1 presume they are being paid by the government.
I do not know whether the minister wants to play tricks with semantics. I gave her notice of my question of privilege so that she could stand in her place and indicate that she made a mistake on November 14. Either she knew that was going on almost two weeks ago and thus misled me, which affects how I discharge my duties as a member, or if she did not know something so fundamental was going on within her department, there is no use in a member on either side putting any questions to the hon. minister in this field. Perhaps she can admit her status today, that she did not know what was going on within her department, or that she misled me on November 14.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) did not receive the relevant press communique. It is a habit within my department that these are circulated, in the first place, to the hon. member who is the critic on communications on the other side of the House. I apologize profusely if he did not receive the communique. Indeed I am very surprised if he has not received it. As for my speeches, I suppose he is on my mailing list, but it takes a little more time for copies to be distributed to the different offices. However, I am grateful the hon. member goes to the trouble of reading my speeches.
I should like to comment very briefly on this matter. I fail to see that there is a question of privilege in the hon. member's intervention, since it is quite obvious that I did not mislead the House. On November 14 the hon. member asked me if I was aware that some of my officials were travelling across the country in order to invite prominent people to participate in a royal commission. My answer was, no, they were not inviting people to participate in a royal commission. I stand by that answer because, of course, there is no question of a royal commission in this particular case.
Today I announced the creation of an independent group of distinguished Canadians whom I have asked to produce specific recommendations on the strategy to restructure the Canadian telecommunications system and to contribute more effectively to the safeguarding of Canada's sovereignty. As I said during oral questions, this is a very small committee which was set up more in the nature of a task force in order to assist me in what is a very important and urgent task.
I do not want to imply that the hon. member does not know what a royal commission is, but he must be aware that a royal commission is established under the Great Seal of Canada and is constituted under the Inquiries Act. This committee has not been constituted in that fashion. As Minister of Communications I made nominations and asked seven or eight people to come and work with me on the objectives which I have just stated.
I repeat that there will be no public hearings and the committee will not be receiving evidence in the usual way. It is
Privilege-Mr. Nowlan
not a royal commission at all. These people will help me to consolidate several studies which have been conducted within my department and in other instances as well.
The studies on the recent and not so recent evolution of technology in the field of telecommunications are numerous. Somebody must sit down, read them over, and attempt to make a new synthesis of all innovations which will take place in the near or not so near future.
We are on the threshold of complete and great changes in this area. We are on the threshold of an information society. New services will come in at one time or another, but we do not know how soon. They all have to fit into what is already a very good system of telecommunications. A new architecture obviously will emerge from the gradual introduction of all of these new technologies and the new services which accompany them. That is why I asked these people to work in very close contact with the department and to use the studies which I commissioned within the department, so that I will be assisted in a task which has become more urgent because of the new proposed services a lot of people in the country are interested in introducing.
I must devise policies so that these new services will be introduced in a gradual fashion and in a manner which will not confuse or disrupt the entire system. The hon. member mentioned pay television, which is only one of the new services that will be available. Therefore it is my responsibility to foresee the appearance of these new services, and to perceive the changes which will take place in the entire structure of telecommunications. I need to accelerate my consolidation of all of these new innovations, so that I will be in a better position to implement these policies.
I feel there is no question of privilege. The only thing which is correct is what the hon. member has read from this communique, that the people who have accepted to participate in this committee, and to whom 1 am very grateful, indeed are very prominent and very well posted on the questions I will put to them. I suggest I should have a question of privilege rather than the hon. member, because he is attempting to lead the House into believing that I have indeed set up a royal commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In his initial remarks the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) very accurately anticipated the disposition which would be made by the Chair in the circumstances, and very kindly did not attach to his question of privilege a motion which would require any action by the Chair. In addition, the member indicated that the minister might stand by her answer. In some terms, the minister has done that.
Wherever an answer of this sort is put into question by any kind of question of privilege, once the minister stands by the answer and indicates that in her interpretation the answer was perfectly correct in the circumstances-whatever other results or disagreements that may bring into play-from a procedural point of view it takes the Chair out of the matter. That ends

November 30, 1978
Business of the House
any question of misleading the House, either intentionally or accidentally, because the Minister stands by the answer and indicates that on reflection the answer was correct. On those two grounds there is no procedural basis for the Chair to take any further action at this time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the government House leader could I ask the parliamentary secretary the usual House business question?


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and St. Andrew are very good friends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: The minister is in his riding in the beautiful province of Nova Scotia, celebrating St. Andrew's Day.
The business for the next days is as follows: tomorrow, next Tuesday and next Thursday will be allotted days. This afternoon we will resume debate in committee of the whole on Bill C-10, followed by the public service pensions bill, C-12. As soon as they return from committee, priority will be given to Bill C-14, the unemployment insurance bill, and Bill C-2, the health resources fund.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary. I hope that his leader comes back to us restored and in good health after the celebration of St. Andrew's Day.
Would the parliamentary secretary consider raising with the government House leader the problem and importance of a discussion between House leaders with respect to the establishment of guidelines on lock-ups? The problem arose out of the lock-up prior to the Auditor General's report. The purpose of discussions would be to establish rules so that all parties and all members would be aware of the procedure, in the hope that there would be no misunderstanding in the future. The problem did cause some difficulty at the time and perhaps it could be settled in the usual way.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of the problems to which the hon. member alluded. I will check the matter and if necessary I will report to him.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs- Mr. Railton.
[Editor's note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act, I table copies of ten references from the Anti-Inflation Board to the Administrator.


CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: the first reading of Bill S-5 (from the Senate) to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 175, 190 and 380.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,945 of the Third Session of the Thirtieth Parliament which showed the name of P. Ansell as a member of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group of the Department of the Solicitor General and listed him as being in charge of physical policy, what is a complete definition of the term "physical policy" as used in this regard?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: The term "physical policy", relates to physical security and means, for the purposes of the job title referred to, policies relating to the effectiveness of preventive physical security measures used in the Government of Canada to protect information, material and personnel.
November 30, 1978


Mr. Howie: As of October 1, 1978, how many PMQ units at CFB Gagetown were (a) unoccupied (b) occupied by non-military personnel or their dependents?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: (a)
The number of unoccupied permanent married quarters (PMQs), as of October 1, 1978 was 435. However, of these, 356 PMQs were held by the engineers at Gagetown for renovating projects and/or requiring major repairs, (b) One hundred twenty-five.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Is the Department of National Defence ordering $63,081 worth of tools and gauges for the M61A1 cannon and, if so, for how many cannons are such tools and gauges being ordered?
2.	What units are, or will be, issued with the M61A1 cannon?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Yes, 82 cannons.
2. 1 Canadian Air Group, Europe.
417 Squadron, Cold Lake, Alberta.
10 Field Technical Training Unit, Cold Lake, Alberta.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, could the parliamentary secretary tell me when he will be answering my questions Nos. 50 to 66? These questions were placed on the order paper in the last session, were reinstated this session and have sat for several months. If there is some impediment causing the delay would the parliamentary secretary indicate what it is?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: The hon. member knows the answer quite well. I had the opportunity to give it to him two or three times in recent weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Family Allowances



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 29, consideration in committee of Bill C-10, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide for a child tax credit and to amend the Family Allowances Act-Mr. Chretien-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose yesterday clause 1 had been carried. The committee will now proceed to the consideration of clause 2.
On clause 2-


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Chairman, this is a rather surprising proposal at this particular time in that the government is faced with a general program of expenditure cuts. The government has proposed on the one hand that it would contribute to this cut by cutting back to the amount of $20 per child in the family allowance program, and on the other hand, to balance what it saw as a serious reduction in income for families in the low income bracket, it has proposed a tax credit of $200. This is payable even though there will not be any tax payable by the parent in the particular case.
Has the minister considered what the effect will be in four or five years of indexing both the $20 payment, plus the $18,000 income ceiling, plus the $200 tax credit? How does this fit in with the government's concept of establishing a control on expenditures? This control is not just on spending money-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member is aware that we are on clause 2? Yesterday at the end of our proceedings, as is reported at page 1642 of Hansard, the hon. member for St. John's East indicated to the committee a consensus on the adoption of clause 1 so that the committee today could proceed to the more specific clause by clause consideration of the bill. The hon. member seems to be touching the more general debate which is normally permitted on clause 1 only. Would he please restrict his remarks to clause 2?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I invite you to read clause 2. I am asking a question precisely as to the indexing and being able to forecast the effect of that indexing on the annual government spending programs.
The first marginal note is "Annual adjustment", which is the legal way of saying annual indexing of the $200 payment and of the $18,000 ceiling on income.
With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not know how I could be more in order than I am. I am strictly talking about indexing and its effect. I think it is a legitimate question. The minister may be able to tell us what she told the Minister

November 30, 1978
Family Allowances
of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board will be the effect of indexing the $200 a month and indexing the $18,000. That is within the program of real control of expenditures as recommended by the Auditor General last year and this year, of which we are very conscious at the present time.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, the indexing factor really has no effect on the over-all self-financing of the plan. As the hon. member pointed out, we will continue to index the family allowance but will start at a lower base of $20 rather than the base that would otherwise be applicable. We will be indexing the base amount of the maximum payment. In effect the net cost over the years will vary slightly. I think a document has already been tabled during the course of these discussions, and the minister has spoken about this before. The document indicates the net difference in 1979 to 1980 as roughly $35 million. Our estimate is that the net difference in subsequent years will not vary a great deal.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, could the parliamentary secretary indicate when the document to which he refers was tabled? This is undoubtedly an estimate from the Department of National Health and Welfare of how much this particular part of the program would cost. I am sure the minister was not able to convince her colleagues of the efficacy of this plan without detailed figures. I have been involved with some other committees during the time this bill has been under discussion and so have not been able to get the information. An indication of where the information is will be sufficient.
In his remarks the parliamentary secretary was under some misapprehension, I think, because he said there will be some sort of compensation. I cannot see how there would be any compensation or compensating adjustment in the workings of the equivalent of the cost of living index on the three bases, because the $20 is increased by so much, the $200 will be increased by so much, and the ceiling of what is called the low income family will also be increased. Thus there may be more payments to be made at all levels. It is for that reason that I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can tell us that by 1980 the government estimates the additional cost will be some $35 million as against the cost forecast for next year, and that in 1981 the estimates are-of course they are gambling on what the cost of living index is going to be. Then we can more readily understand whether this is a pig in a poke or something that can be justified.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should correct one point that the hon. member made. In the document tabled, the figure for 1979-80 actually indicates a savings of $35 million rather than an additional expenditure.
The hon. member is correct that we did not table figures beyond 1979-80. I was just indicating that it works both ways. Sources of funds used to provide the tax credit are being indexed, but starting at a lower base, or the outlay is starting at a lower base. The source of the funds is being indexed as well. We get it both ways. The index affects both outlays and savings made from a reduction in the level of payments.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I must confess to some mystification, unless I have the wrong end of the stick with regard to the program. First of all the minister proposes to reduce the family allowance to $20 from the present scale. Then there is the introduction of an index to the $18,000 ceiling, because anything over and above $18,000 will disqualify a family from receiving this $200 tax credit, or in any event there will be a declining entitlement because of it. Those two applications of an index represent an increased outlay, assuming that the index is going up.
There is a third component. Providing also that the index is going up, there will be an increasing outlay on the $200. First of all, by reason of the fact that the $200 is going to be indexed, it is in effect a payment to those families who do not pay any income tax and it is a diminution of revenues for those families who do pay income tax. It is, therefore, the equivalent of an outlay of moneys. On three counts, therefore, there is an outlay, or the equivalent of an outlay, of moneys, all three being indexed. This is my understanding of the program. That is what I think we in the opposition are entitled to have presented to us-the minister's forecast of the future cost of this program that she may or should have presented to her colleagues in order to get cabinet approval for it. No one can make me believe that cabinet accepted this plan merely on the projection of the 1979-80 figures which have been given as a statement. There is a table of either the next five years or ten years showing the effect on the cost of the family allowance program as a result of the changes. Surely if that has been used as a basis for presenting and having this program accepted by the cabinet, the minister should be in a position to table it, in order to convince her colleagues and the public that this is something worthwhile.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I think this assurance has been given before during the debate. The whole concept of Bill C-10 was accepted on the basis, and indeed it is before parliament, that it will be basically self-financing over the years, not just for the immediate years ahead but for years to come. Perhaps the point that is possibly being missed by the hon. member for Edmonton West is the fact that the indexing of family allowance payments has been on the books for some time. Where substantial savings occur, which is something I do not believe is entirely clear to the hon. member, instead of the indexing starting in 1980 say on a base of what would otherwise have been $28, it will be applied on a base of $20. Thus the savings, for instance in the next year, could be $8.48 if we assume an inflation rate of 6 per cent next year. This figure would be $8.48 in 1980 rather than $8 this year. In effect the indexing is providing for a higher pay out of the $200 tax credit, but it is also providing for higher savings in government expenditures month by month in terms of what the family allowance payments would have otherwise been.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind, comparing two things in actuality. What I am looking at is the abandonment of a family allowance plan as it exists
November 30, 1978

today. It is being set aside. The minister has declared, "All right, fine, by setting that aside we are going to save as of next year whatever it would have cost to index the family allowance program".
That is all that would have been saved next year as compared to this year if there had been a continuation. Now there is a new plan. I say in order to convince the House that this new plan is valid we should start from square one, which is 1979-80, the effective date of the new plan, and progress on a period of say five to ten years, and see how much that will cost. I am sure that the then minister of national health and welfare, when the program of indexing the family allowance first started some years ago, had to lay a schedule showing estimated costs over the years to his or her cabinet colleagues. Goodness, that is fundamental. I am trying to find out what costs this minister foresees for the next five to ten years for this family allowance program. She has given us the costs for 1979-80 but there are some shell-game operations going on with regard to expenditures in the past, and this year. This is a comparison in effect of apples and oranges. What I want to know is the cost of the oranges. This information has not been given to us, with the greatest of respect, with the exception of the first year, and in that case I have to sort out the figures. It is not as clear as has been indicated.
If the minister says, "We have estimated it, on the basis of our proposal of indexing, that the first year is going to result in an increase of expenditures under the family allowance program as it will start out effective with the new program of $25 million or $35 million," all right, we will accept those figures. Then we will say what about the second year, and let us go on down the line?
I do not think that my colleagues and I are prepared to buy a new program just on this basis without some idea of the cost. We do not know that some of these indices tied into particular items may not result in some sort of a shooting star on expenditures. On the other hand, with the expertise that is available to the minister, surely these tables have been produced. I am sure the President of the Treasury Board did not buy this change in the program on the basis of the minister saying, "I think it will cost $35 million the first year." What if someone said, "What about the following year?" What if she replied, "I don't know"? Her colleagues would be out of their minds to accept that kind of a statement notwithstanding all of the charm she might want to use on them. The minister has a reputation of being pretty hard-nosed about things like this. 1 am sure if the minister's colleagues approached her in cabinet session with a new program, her first question would be, "How much will this cost us in the foreseeable future?"
This is the information we are seeking. This is the information we would like the government to share with us. If it is not available, then I must say somebody has to go back to the drawing board.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I can only repeat that when the Minister of Finance entered the debate on November 9 he indicated very clearly that there would be no substantial difference in total because the family allowance program
Family Allowances
estimates were calculated through the use of models that bring into account all sorts of things, for instance, potential growth of income, rates of inflation, number of children, distribution of incomes, and all the other factors. That has demonstrated satisfactorily to the Minister of Finance, which I think is important. After all, we are dealing with a bill to amend the Income Tax Act, and in particular with clause 2 of that bill. It is important to the Minister of Finance that there be no additional substantial costs as a result of changing this program around.
I defer to your judgment, Mr. Chairman, but I do not think we should be discussing the total cost of family allowance programs per se at this time. I think we are dealing with a technical amendment in Bill C-10, clause 2. We have endeavoured to point matters out as best we can to satisfy the hon. member for Edmonton West. Over and over again the statement has been made that not only in 1979-80 will there be very little change in the next effect of the program, but that indeed will continue in the years ahead. All the reasons for that have been put on the record more than once. I am not sure what else we can add on that score. If the hon. member would like to come up with a guesstimate as to what the rate of inflation might be for the next year or two, then the figures could be reworked, based on that. However, it would work out to roughly the same thing.


Miss B6gin:: Mr. Chairman, could I be given a few minutes by the hon. member?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Miss Begin:: I would just like to repeat once more what I understand of the question put by the hon. member regarding indexation. What seems to me to be important is the key concept that this program is self-financing. Second, out of the three sources from which we created the new child tax credit, two were indexed. That will continue in years to come. Each year where it is cancelled results in more savings.
The new program has two features which are also indexed. The child tax credit is indexed. It will be $218 next year per child. The ceiling of net income, which is our point of reference by which we start cutting off the credit, is indexed. The sources which make up the amount are composed of the $50 tax exemption, which is cancelled. That is a saving in itself. It is not the indexing of it. It will create savings through the years, not just one year. Then the special tax privilege for 16-year olds and 17-year olds which was indexed is cancelled and brought back to the level of other children. That amounts to a saving of close to $400 per child per year, plus indexing through the years. The third source of it is the family allowance reduction and the reduction of the base allows for not only a net saving in the allowances for this year but a major saving in its indexing in the coming years.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I thank the minister for reviewing elements of the program on both sides of the ledger. On the other hand, the mere statements which have been given
1660

November 30, 1978
Family Allowances
to us are not sufficient. The minister says she is eliminating the indexing of family allowances at the present level. Very well. Let us assume that the present level continues for five years. A certain figure would be reached, and there is a projected cost; the cost can be forecast within certain limits of accuracy. Then, based upon population figures, estimates can be made of the number of children who would qualify under the program. The effect of the elimination of the $50 allowance would also be determinable, and the special indexation plan for the 16 and 17-year olds is similarly predictable. Let us see this in tabular form. Then, on the basis of an annual increase in the cost of living of 8 per cent, family allowances will cost us so much starting at $20. A ceiling of $18,000 for low income families will amount to so much. Tax credit will also be indexed at $200.
You can judge costs on the basis of the micro-economic studies which can be performed as background for such a plan. This information should have been available, and I am satisfied that had the cabinet been doing its job properly-and that is questionable-the minister would have been asked to put before the full cabinet, or the cabinet committee, a resume on two sheets of paper showing how much this program would be costing at the end of five years and, possibly, ten years. If this has not been done, I say the Auditor General is right in declaring that the government does not have control of its expenditures because it does not know what those expenditures will amount to-it cannot tell the committee what they are going to be. This is not to be taken on the strength of their word. After all, I have already found enough gaps in government thinking on this particular measure. If the information is not available, I say the plan is not viable as one which we can buy. That is all there is to it.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, again I would remind you of your ruling that this particular discussion, which deals with the whole of the bill, is related to clause 2. I will respect that judgment. But we have to say again that the details of this plan were examined very carefully. Computer models were run and calculations were made, and the Minister of Finance satisfied himself that the government was not getting involved in a program which would cost it any substantial sums of money in future years additional to what the present family allowance plan is costing. If the hon. member is not prepared to accept that statement which the minister has made, there is not very much we on this side can do about it, but I do not think it is fair for him to conclude that there will automatically be large increases in expenditures in the years to come.
Assuming a rate of inflation of 6 per cent next year, the table the hon. member mentions would result in a saving in the following year of about $45 million, instead of the $35 million which shows up for 1979-80. This assumes that all the other factors are constant-population growth, the number of children and so on. I put this example on record merely to indicate that we are not creating ideas which are not supported. The calculations have been done, and they support the concept that this program will not result in substantial additional government expenditure in the years to come.

The Minister of National Health and Welfare would probably have had trouble in convincing the Minister of Finance of the legitimacy of this program if the fears expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton West were justified. But the Minister of Finance was satisfied there would not be substantial additional expenditure in the years to come, and on that basis the bill is now before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I enter the discussion on clause 2 mainly to indicate my strong and solid support for this clause. As the minister knows, I am unhappy about a later clause, clause 10, which reduces the basic amount of the allowance to $20 a month but, having said that, I want to express my strong appreciation of the fact that the principle of indexing will apply to all elements of the family allowance program. 1 say this because I believe it is right.
I am a little surprised that the hon. member for Edmonton West should have questioned the application of indexing to the program and I hope we shall hear from other members of the Conservative party as to where they stand on the matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I want to know what it costs, that is all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member says he wants to know what it costs. However, I do not know any other way to interpret what he has been saying for the last 15 or 20 minutes but to interpret it as opposition to the indexing of the family allowance program.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Good God!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for St. John's East will tell us where they stand on the essential feature of clause 2, which is that all elements of the family allowance program are to be indexed.


Monique Bégin: Bravo!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, we support the principle.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am merely asking how much it will cost.


An hon. Member:: Order!


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to know that at this point the voting in the Conservative party is 50-50. One is questioning this provision, but one is for it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Come along, Stanley. That is demagoguery of the worst kind.
November 30, 1978


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You are being just like a kid.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am hearing all sorts of comments, but I sat here and listened carefully to the entire intervention of the hon. member for Edmonton West, and if he was not questioning this clause I do not know what he was doing. I want to support it very strongly.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Regardless of the figures.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In case the House is wondering about relevance, the clause has to do with indexing, and that is what I am talking about. I happened to be here in 1944 when we passed the first Family Allowances Act under which we provided payments of $6, $7 or $8 a month, depending upon the age of the child. A little later on the $7 was raised to $8, so there were only two categories. However, we went more than 25 years before that amount was changed. An amount which meant something when it came into effect in 1945 became meaningless in the late sixties and early seventies. Finally we raised the amount and provided for its indexation. That is a principle to which I think we must adhere without any question.
I point out that we have provided for the indexing of many other things such as old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, veterans pensions under the Pension Act, war veterans allowances, public service pensions, and others. I point out also that my friends in the Progressive Conservative party led a strong campaign over a number of years for the indexing of the exemption levels under the Income Tax Act. The government finally came through with that, and the Progressive Conservatives took credit for it. That does not bother me one way or the other, but the point is that we have it in all these other programs, and not to have full indexing of the family allowance program would be a hoax so far as the mothers and the families of this country are concerned.
I should like to emphasize again that this clause is right. That is why I am prepared to support it wholeheartedly. It is known and accepted that the basic amount of the family allowance is to be indexed starting in 1980. It is to be indexed from the $20 in 1979. However, if that is all that was done, the whole thing would soon get out of kilter. If we were to index the $20 but not the $200 and not the $18,000 cut-off figure, it would be a matter of only a few years before the whole thing would be out of balance. It seems to me that the only way to put this program on a fair and proper basis is to index all three elements. The indexing of the basic amount, which will be $20 in 1979, is provided elsewhere in the legislation, but what is before us now is the proposal to index the $200 tax credit each year and the $18,000 cut-off level. It is my view that these things are right, and that is why we should support them.
I have listened to the discussions about costs, and I will say that 1 think the answers which the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance gave were a bit ingenious when they pointed out that we are saving money because we will not be
Family Allowances
paying that $8 next year and so forth, but I am not bothered by that because I look at this matter from a broad perspective.
I think it is perfectly true-and I see no reason why the government should not admit it-that both the family allowance payments and the tax credits will cost more in actual dollars in 1980 than they will cost in 1979. They will cost more in 1981 than they will cost in 1980, but the thing to bring into this picture is that this indexing is being done in accordance with the consumer price index. It is not being done according to a wage index.
There are times-many workers are experiencing such times right now-when wage increases do not match increases in the cost of living. However, over the long haul, if we look at statistics for a 40, 50 or 60-year period, the tendency is for wages to rise faster than prices and for the total package of income from wages and salaries to keep moving up. The revenue which the federal government gets by way of taxation is geared to the rise in incomes, and this means that when we index all three elements of the family allowance, the basic $20, the $200 tax credit and the $18,000 level, we are indexing those only in accordance with the rise in the consumer price index. However, since the income which the government will get from taxes is related to increases in wages and salaries, the percentage of the total revenue which will be spent on family allowances will decline.
Granted, in absolute dollars the amount paid out will go up. There is no question about that, but I submit that the argument I am making is valid. I argue that as a percentage of the country's total income it will decline, and I say that for there to be any question about this principle being applied to all elements of the family allowance program is a mistake, and I am very pleased to hear the hon. member for St. John's East state that he and his party support the principle which is in clause 2.
The only thing that worried me when I looked at this clause was the explanatory note on the opposite page. It worried me only for a split second, but I think I should indicate the worry I had anyway. The explanatory note says:
Clause 2: These amendments would permit adjustments of amounts arising out of the child tax credit.
If I thought that all the bill does is to leave it at the option of the government, I would be concerned, but according to the language of clause 2 it is not a matter of permission, concession, discretion or the word "may". The word "shall" is there. Clause 2 reads in part as follows:
The amounts of $200 and $18,000 referred to in subsection 122.2(1)... shall be adjusted annually-
-in accordance with the rise in the consumer price index.
I had intended to speak just briefly and to indicate how much I welcome clause 2, but in view of the discussion which took place I felt that perhaps something more had to be said.
I recall the first bill we passed back in 1944 and how deficient it was in that it made no provision for those small amounts of money to increase. I was glad that in the early part of this decade we increased the family allowance and indexed
80067-34%

November 30, 1978
Family Allowances
it. I am glad that clause 2 carries that principle forward. I am still disappointed and annoyed that the basic amount is being put down to S20 and I shall say so on clause 10. I think we could have kept it where it was and provided this tax credit as well, but at least what is in this clause is right and deserves the support of this entire House. The principle of indexing must be applied to all three elements of the family allowance program.
Mir. Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that as far as I know everybody on this side of the House is in favour of motherhood. The hon. member made a long statement. He is also in favour of motherhood, and he thinks indexing is a good idea. Of course indexing is a good idea because all indexing assures is that if we give somebody $20 today, in buying power that person will have $20 next year or $20 five years down the road.
Having said that, I think the New Democratic Party has demonstrated the careless, reckless type of argument which has led this country to the point of a $12 billion deficit in our budgetary position. Instead of hon. members in this House accepting the glib words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance that the Minister of Finance is satisfied, we have to start examining why the Minister of Finance and his predecessors have been satisfied with the deficits this country has experienced. In an earlier session on this same point my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West, and I asked for concrete figures.
To bring this matter of indexing down to the simplest of terms, let us take the situation of one child whose parent will be entitled to $20 a month in family allowance, that is $240. So far as the tax credit is concerned, his parent will be allowed $200. Accepting the government's figures that for the fiscal year 1980-which is the election year, of course-by reducing the $8 on family allowance they have saved enough in expenditures to offset the diversion of revenue in the tax credit, what we are saying is: pray, tell us what will happen in current dollars in the fiscal years 1981 to 1984?
Take a look at it, Mr. Chairman. If we start with a revenue loss of $200, we know that at the 9 per cent inflation index figure which the government is accepting, next year it will mean a $218 expenditure, which is not an expenditure. I emphasize that the government is very crafty on this. It is not an expenditure, it is a diversion of revenue. So we have a net reduction in revenue in that year of $18. On the expenditure side, because the $240 which goes out in family allowances is also indexed, we have an increase, as I calculated, of $21.60. So, in simple language, with one child, in the year after the base year the expenditure goes up $21.60 on a 9 per cent index basis and the revenue loss is $18. If you add those two, between revenue loss and $20 expenditure increase, you have a deficit or a deficiency of about $40. All we are asking for is that the government tell us what its statistics show year by year, taking into account that its revenue will decrease and its expenditures will increase.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for York-Simcoe is not entirely serious in the argument he put forward. He is endeavouring to relate this clause in the bill to the general indexing provisions in the family allowance program. The indexing in the family allowance program has been a component part of the program since 1974.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since the minority government.


Alan Gray Martin: I think it is essential, if the hon. member for York-Simcoe is going to talk about the 9 per cent figure of $240 being $21.60, which he says it will cost in addition next year for the indexing, to compare that with what the 9 per cent indexing would have otherwise cost. According to my quick calculation, it would have been applied to the $336, which is the $28 monthly payment which would have been otherwise payable, times 12. This works out to $30.24. The officials here are looking a little nervous, but I think that my calculation is correct. So that instead of having an additional cost of $30.24, we have a new cost of $21.60 from indexing. 1 think that that is where the obvious saving is coming about, and when you project that saving per child over the many millions of dollars, again I make the point that has been made over and over again, it offsets, indeed perhaps more than offsets, the indexing that is applied to the actual credit, the $200 credit.
It is completely unfair to relate the over-all cost of the indexing program associated with the family allowance payments to this particular bill. As I said, indexing of family allowance payments, income tax exemptions, and so on, are part of the over-all government program which was introduced several years ago. All we are doing in this bill is simply making a major shift in the manner in which the benefits from the family allowance program will be received by Canadians.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in the parliamentary secretary. Once again he has tried to confuse what is really a simple situation. What he is asking us to accept is that because they are reducing the family allowance payments from $28 to $20, somehow the $8 will create the buffer they need to offset the tax credit they are giving. The fact is that they cannot spend the $8 saving twice. That is in effect what the parliamentary secretary is trying to get away with.
Let us look at their figures. They will save $690 million by de-indexing in the fiscal year 1980 family allowances down to the $20 level. We all agree with that. But in fact they will lose in revenue $810 million, which is partly offset by what they are saving on $690 million. By some addition and subtraction, they come to the net effect on financial requirements which is minus $35 million. We all agree up to that point. For that immediate year we will save $690 million-if you accept their figures. That comes of expenditures. But also, according to the parliamentary secretary's figures, they will lose $810 million of revenue. So both expenditures and revenue will go down. After adding and subtracting a few other things, they end up with a net financial requirement of minus $35 million. My point is simply that you cannot spend that saving next year because it
November 30, 1978

will be gone by then. You have a base where your net benefit is $35 million.
To use my simple example again, if you take one child, in the first year after the base year the family allowance going to his mother will go up $21.60 in current dollars, and on his tax credit it will go up $18. That is a deficiency of approximately $40. If you amplify that year by year in current dollars, you have a very significant figure with which to deal. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. It is irresponsible for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to say; "Let us not get too cluttered with figures, it is nicely indexed." We are saying it is time this parliament regained its supremacy and said to the government of the day: if you bring in new schemes and new proposals, back them up with five years of statistics to show us exactly what you are putting us into over a period of time.
I ask the parliamentary secretary again: based on my simple example, can he not give us the impact of this program year by year, assuming 9 per cent inflation? Surely, as clause 2 makes clear, if you are going to use the CPI, you have to bite the bullet and admit, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that in current dollars it will be a sizeable sum year by year. What is the figure?


Alan Gray Martin: I will give the hon. member a couple of additional figures which might be of some assistance to him, to substantiate the point that is being made over and over again that the Minister of Finance and his officials have satisfied themselves that this program will not cost the taxpayers of Canada any more money in the years ahead than was the case with the former family allowance program. But before I put any other figures on the record I should like to reiterate that in Bill C-10 we are not talking about the total cost of family allowance payments over the years, nor are we talking about the total cost of indexing various government benefit plans. They have always been indexed. The bill does not refer to the total cost of indexing this program.
We are not talking about the total expenditures involved in this program, any more than we are talking about the total expenditures which might have been involved in some of the programs recently put forward by hon. members opposite. We are not talking about the total costs of the program. We are talking about the effect Bill C-10 will have on net revenues or net expenditures of the government relating to family allowances.
The officials performed a very quick calculation, which assumed a 6 per cent rate of inflation. The calculation was projected for one more year. The hon. member for York-Simcoe has the figures for 1979-1980, but I should like to refer to the quickly calculated figures for 1980-1981. Instead of producing a cost of $810 million, the refundable tax credit will produce a cost of $858 million. That calculation is a rather simple one: 6 per cent of $810 million added on. Instead of a savings of $690 million, the reduction in family allowances will amount to $731 million, and the tax implication of that would
Family Allowances
rise from $130 million to $138 million. The elimination of the current $50 child tax credit carries on. It is a one-time thing which is not indexed. It will amount to $260 million. The modification of exemptions for 16-year old and 17-year old children will work out to $50 million, because it is a phased-in program and only half of it is picked up in the first year. The net effect of those figures comes out to a difference of $45 million, whereas $39 million was mentioned for the year 1979-1980. As we can see, it is savings in both cases.
It is blatantly unfair to introduce into the discussion of clause 2 the total cost of the family allowance program, because we are not dealing with the total cost of that program or the total cost of indexing it. We are dealing simply with the effect of Bill C-10 on the total program, as against the program which exists now.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member for York-Simcoe has expired, but I will allow him to put his last question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Today we are seeing something very similar to the old "three-card monte" which people used to despise so much. It is unbelievable what the parliamentary secretary asked us to accept as an explanation for fiscal 1981. In effect he reworked the figures, assuming that the same dodge can be done every year as was done this year. The parliamentary secretary said that this bill does not affect the over-all family allowance program. Eventually we will deal with clause 10, but if he has forgotten what that clause contains, perhaps he should look at it.
Clause 10 de-indexes the present family allowance payment of approximately $28 to $20. Unless the government intends to pass clause 10 or a parallel to it each and every year down the road, there is no way it should be suggested that the saving can be repeated in 1981 and 1982. That is exactly what the parliamentary secretary suggested, that somehow or other the $690 million, which will be saved in the current year, will be resavable next year. It cannot be resavable. The bill moves us from $28 down to $20, which will be a saving of $690 million. If we accept the base of a $35 million net benefit, we must know what the net difference will be between expenditures and revenue. Obviously if the figures are projected to 1981, they will come out roughly the same, but that is not what we are dealing with here.
The minister and the parliamentary secretary should make up their minds that there is absolutely no way parliament should be asked to rubber stamp this bill, in spite of the active support of the New Democratic Party, until they can put before us five years of meaningful figures, using a 6 per cent inflation rate, showing what will be the net cost to treasury of the rising expenditures and diminishing revenues resulting from the passage of this bill.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare can become flustered and frustrated, but it is high time parliament asked such ministers for the hard facts, instead of rising and simply indicating that the Minister of Finance is satisfied. The country has been led to a deficit of approximately $1 billion a

November 30, 1978
Family Allowances
month because the Minister of Finance has been satisfied. The minister and the parliamentary secretary are ruthless toward the poor of Canada, to the extent that they are contributing to inflation in future years by this type of deficit approach.


Monique Bégin: That is rubbish.


Alan Gray Martin: Perhaps the hon. member for York-Simcoe is getting somewhat carried away.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Somebody had better start.


Alan Gray Martin: The hon. member referred to clause 10 and I should like to refer to the same clause, even though we are dealing with clause 2.
Some weeks ago the hon. member registered concern by way of a question, to which I should like to respond. There seems to be some confusion in his mind in terms of the new base upon which the indexing will take place. He expressed the concern that clause 10 would result in only one year of reduction in family allowance payments, and that in subsequent years the amount of family allowance payments would revert to $28 plus indexing. This is simply not the case. It is a complete misconception on the part of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, if indeed that is what he thinks. Judging from his earlier remarks today, he is still of that opinion. Subsection 13(1.1), as amended, sets the new base amount for family allowances at $20 for 1979. The indexation of family allowances, as set out in subsection 13(l)(a), will remain in place. However, in future years the indexing will use the new $20 base.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The committee will deal with clause 10 later. We are dealing with clause 2 at this time.


Alan Gray Martin: Simply, this saving carries on. If there is indexing on a lower base, obviously it does not cost as much as indexing on a much higher base. The difference between $28 and $20 simply grows a little bit each year as the inflation rate is applied. The 6 per cent or 7 per cent applied to $28 will be larger than the 6 per cent or 7 per cent applied to $20.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No wonder the country is in trouble.


Alan Gray Martin: The hon. member for York-Simcoe says that the country is in trouble. He has referred to a $1 billion per month deficit, but he made no reference to the various irresponsible promises made by members of his party during the course of recent campaigns. Approximately $3 billion would be a conservative estimate of the increased deficit which would arise if one of their proposals were put in place.
Last week in Toronto the Leader of the Opposition came out with another one. He wants to allow all Canadians to invest $5,000 a year in small companies and to deduct it from their income tax. If we are worried about shams of corporations that are being formed or have been formed recently to benefit from small business tax breaks-a situation which has been corrected in the current budget-can you imagine the numbers of

corporations which will be quickly put together to manufacture widgets one year, to get this $5,000 tax deduction, and the next year they will move the money out and start another corporation?
There was no estimate in the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition on the costs of this particular proposed deduction. Any Canadian who wanted to throw $5,000 into a company would have a deduction for income tax purposes if that party were in power. The hon. member talks about irresponsibility on this side and nonsubstantiation of facts and figures. I do not think that he is in any position to continue that kind of argument.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You will be surprised if you think that.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I quite understand the concerns of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). Yesterday afternoon she stated repeatedly in committee of the whole that she was seeking to help underprivileged families increase their income and thus reduce their level of poverty. Mr. Chairman, there are many ways to reach this objective. But we are now considering one of them, which is Bill C-10.
I remember well when family allowances were established by an act of parliament in 1945. I was not a member of this House at the time, but we would then, as today, read Hansard and keep abreast of what was happening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was 1944.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Maybe. If I erred by a year I am glad because that makes us younger.


An hon. Member:: In 1944!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: In 1944, I thought it was in 1945, but I will take the word of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because he is an old war horse and he has a fantastic memory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was here and I voted for it.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: When the hon. member gives us dates he is sure of them; I therefore accept his correction. For many years the monthly rate remained just about the same; it did not change much. Then, in 1974-and I hope I am right in this case-it was increased considerably and the cost of living index was decreed by amending the act. Now, to my mind Bill C-10 suddenly changes the nature of this social legislation. The allowance is reduced by $5 to $20 a month. Of course, I know the bill introduces a child tax credit of $200. That is why

November 30, 1978
I say it alters to quite an extent the nature of that very important social legislation. I therefore ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether this change in procedure does not create a potential for discrimination against the mother. Because it is directly related to a tax-


Gérald Laniel: 
Gérald Laniel: -under which you could perhaps put them to the minister; but it would be difficult for me to allow those questions now, under clause 2, which deals specifically with indexing the formula proposed by the bill before the House.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of what you have just told me, as I was also yesterday when the House was adjourned. It was at that moment that I went out, and reached that point. When we came back, after the sitting was suspended, someone-perhaps the parliamentary secretary-moved passage of clause 1. I intended to speak to clause 1 yesterday, but the sitting having been adjourned, I thought I could do so today.
I am not at all questioning your decision. I just felt I had to make this clarification. If inadvertantly I should derogate from the Standing Orders again, please call me to order and I will be glad to comply with your instructions.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister in which month of the year approximately will this $200 tax credit be paid to those mothers who are not eligible for any tax credit because their income is not large enough for them to pay income tax. Is the minister in a position to tell us in what month approximately these payments will be made?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, to answer that question, I should wait until we consider clause 5, I believe, which deals with the procedure relating to tax refunds.
As to the first part of the question, which deals with who will be eligible and will receive these cheques, the hon. member will have to ask his question again when we get to clause 4 which we will consider in a few moments.


Mr. Hare:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak very briefly on this bill in that I am a new member in the House. Since this House has been sitting-it is over four years now-there has been a decided change in the thinking of the people in the country, and I think the by-elections showed this.
I represent a constituency which has a large number of thinking people in it, and I have before me a letter which will indicate what these people are thinking. It is from an individu-
Family Allowances
al on behalf of a group of people who held a meeting concerning:
-amending the family allowance legislation and providing what is, in effect, a negative income tax through the back door, and calling it a child tax credit, but I think there are a lot of dangerous aspects.
The intent apparently is to impose a means test, taking into account income of both father and mother. From the standpoint of equity this may be desirable, but in practice it would be much simpler to restrict the recovery to the parent claiming the deduction for the child. If the combined income concept is to be applied, surely it should be applied-if equity is essential-to other discriminatory provisions relating to spousal income and transfers-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I am faced with the same problem. I have to be fair to all members and apply the rules accordingly. I know that the hon. member for St. Boniface, last night when we were about to call it ten o'clock, was trying to seek the floor. However, he did agree to the passing of clause 1 just before ten o'clock and has therefore yielded his right to speaking on the general subject of the bill. His present intervention would have been more appropriate had it been at second reading of the bill because he is really talking about the principle of the bill in general.
We are on clause 2 and I do not see how I could relate the remarks he is reading from people in his riding, to this clause. There may be other clauses which would permit him to comment as he is doing now, but I do not see how I can allow it without being unfair to the hon. member for Bellechasse who had the floor and was trying to ask general questions on the principle of the bill or a different application that was not related to each specific clause. Under the rules I cannot even ask the committee to revert to clause 1. It has already been debated. I think the remarks of the hon. member and those included in the communication from which he was reading could perhaps be related to third reading of the bill.


James Aloysius McGrath: 
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. We are studying the bill clause by clause. 1 think the minister's comments are valid. If I am to allow special permission to hon. members on clause 2 for all kinds of reasons, we will never get to the other clauses.

November 30, 1978
Family Allowances


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, I have had an opportunity to read my colleague's letter. I think if you heard him out you would see that it is quite relevant to clause 2 as it deals with administrative problems that will ensue from the $200 amount. He referred to the tax credit which, of course, is the meat of this clause. As far as relevance is concerned, I think all of us, and certainly we on this side, rather enjoyed having the parliamentary secretary once again outline some of our party policies. He took us through the $5,000 small business program and that sort of thing. Every time I hear it, it sounds better and better, so I have no objection to him doing that. But, of course, it was all under clause 2. I hope you can let the hon. member for St. Boniface go ahead and make his submission. Surely it does not matter too much whether he does it under clause 2 or clause 4.


Gérald Laniel: If I tried to answer the question raised by the hon. member I think I would be getting into debate and 1 do not want to bring the Chair into debate. I have made my ruling. There will be opportunities for the hon. member for St. Boniface to make his intervention on any other clause, but I think we must restrict debate on clause 2 to consideration of indexation.
Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Now we have heard from the hon. member from Saskatoon who shouts out "carried". They do these things in total disregard of the-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is from Yorkton-Melville.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As long as we have him pinpointed. The irresponsibility of that party amazes me. My first question on clause 2 is to ask the parliamentary secretary to give us the figures for 1981 to 1984 that I have requested.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, in debates of this nature it has not been the practice to table schedules of projected expenditures or revenues for several years ahead. I think the Minister of Finance has made it abundantly clear in this case that there is no proposal to change the general rule. I have given the hon. member for York-Simcoe some figures that were calculated quickly and which relate to the year 1980-81, assuming that the factors of population, number of children, income distribution and so on, would be the same. It is not the intention of the government to change the manner in which such bills are handled in this House and to create a precedent by giving projections many years into the future.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not blame the parliamentary secretary for not wanting to look too far into the future as far as his future is concerned. I tried to bring my question down to the most simplistic situation of one child getting a $240 allowance-or his mother getting it-and the $200 tax credit becoming operational, which means that there is a deferral of that revenue. Would the parliamentary secre-
[The Chairman.]
tary indicate whether I am correct in saying that in the year after the base year, as far as the tax credit is concerned, there would be an increased loss of revenue? We are then up to $218 in loss of revenue as far as the child is concerned, and as far as the $240 is concerned we are up by approximately $21 to $261. In current dollars this would mean approximately a deficiency of $40 to the treasury with respect to one child.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, to the extent that the hon. member for York-Simcoe has indicated, the treasury will be spending more money for that one child in the year 1980 than they will spend in the year 1979. There is no argument about that. I have not worked out the exact figures, but the hon. member has probably indicated them correctly. The point to bear in mind is that, regardless of this bill passing, there would be a substantial increase in the outlay per child in 1980 over 1979.
A further point is that the total net outlay for all children in the country will be no greater in 1980 with this bill in place than it would otherwise have been. I indicated to the hon. member for York-Simcoe that the over-all saving would be $35 million in the first year and about $45 million in the second year. I reiterate that calculations would indicate that in years to come, if hon. members opposite will allow this bill to go through at some point so that Canadians may benefit from the useful measures in it, there will be no additional cost to the Canadian taxpayer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Our point is that every year they cannot claim the same savings that they claimed in the last year. They just cannot do it.
We are willing to accept the net financial gain of $35 million for the first year. I know you understand this, Mr. Chairman. It is simple. The government arrives at the $35 million gain by reducing the $28 payment to $20. We agree with that, that is where some money is saved. But on the other hand, and this is significant, the government is offsetting that saving by dropping below the line and having a revenue loss. The net difference is a gain to the treasury of $35 million. What we are asking is the figures for the next year. We are satisfied about 1980 if their figures are accepted. But I would like to look at the figures for the years 1981 through 1984.
I would like this done without using mirrors or the "three card monte" type sleight of hand trick. Just tell us in simple language what happens when that difficult position is reached of indexing both ways. This is a situation where expenditures go up and revenues go down. Then there is an opening, a canyon if you like, which gets bigger and bigger, representing an ever increasing deficit. Government members will tell you
November 30, 1978

privately that they are already in trouble because, while revenues are indexed one way at the present time, expenditures which amount to something over 50 per cent of total expenditures, are indexed the other way. It does not take an Einstein to realize that if revenues are regularly plateaued and expenditures rise as fast as inflation, something falls in between. That is known as a deficit.
We are trying to avoid embarrassment in future years. We are asking them to tell us what is to be the net increase in the deficit as a result of putting into place family allowance on the basis of a tax credit.
I know you realize, Mr. Chairman, that the parliamentary secretary is most misleading when he says this has always been in place. It is not just $200 frozen in fiscal 1980, it is $200 indexed. That is what is new. And that is what I think should be better explained. We can all work out roughly what the on-going family allowance increase will be year by year. What is more difficult-and certainly it is unique to the family allowance system-is the negative income approach they are using. I want to know year by year based on their indexing how much expenditures will go up and how much expenditures will go down. I ask this simple question: will the parliamentary secretary tell us what the gross loss of revenue in the fiscal year 1981 will be as a result of this tax credit indexed for the 9 per cent?


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, 1 am sure the hon. member for York-Simcoe is hoping his rhetoric will carry on sufficiently long that we will have to close out the day without even getting clause 2 passed. We have had endless debate on clause 2 as we did originally on clause 1. This question has been answered over and over again. I gave the hon. member the figures for 1980-81 a short while ago so that he could mark them down with his pencil against the figures he previously had for 1979-80. I indicated the net result was a $45 million saving. I honestly do not know what else we can do, or say. If it is the determined position of the official opposition to filibuster the bill-


James Aloysius McGrath: Oh, come on.


Alan Gray Martin: -I understood from a conversation I had some time ago with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that one member could hold up the process for weeks. I do not know what other new information I can offer. I could repeat everything that has been said earlier this afternoon. It is very clear, and I repeat again that the cost of this program will not represent any additional outlay to the Canadian taxpayers over the existing program. That is the important point.
I emphasize that the indexing which is calculated on a substantially lower base, that is $20 versus $28, will have the effect of increasing the saving year by year. In other words, the first year it is $8. The second year, with an assumed 6 per cent inflation rate, the amount will be $8.48. And so it goes up all the way through. There is a continual saving. It is not just in that one year. We are starting off with family allowance payments at a new level. The indexing will start from that new
J. H. Poitras & Son Ltd.
level which is $8 lower than the old level. That particular saving in large part is providing the funds for the $200 tax credit. That is where the two major factors come in, and I do not know how we can say that any clearer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, if it is beyond the parliamentary secretary's grasp I hope his minister will come in and perhaps we can get the answer from him. I asked a very simple question. That question was, could the parliamentary secretary tell us for fiscal 1981 what the total gross loss revenue will be as a result of the tax credit being indexed. We have a figure for 1980, which is an estimate of $810 million-


René Bégin: We gave it to you. It is $858 million.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair and report progress.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bonaventure-Jles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard)-Administration of Justice-Firearms control program-Request for progress report; the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton)- Canadian Wheat Board-Purchase of hopper cars by board- Consultation with railways; the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn)-Urban Affairs-Alleged failure of department to promote home insulation program.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
J. H. POITRAS & SON LTD.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved: that Bill S-8, to revive J. H. Poitras & Son Ltd., be read the second

November 30, 1978
./. H. Poitras & Son Ltd.
time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank hon. members, and particularly the member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), for allowing me to proceed with Bill S-8 at this time. Since this bill was introduced in the other place by Senator Mcllraith and has been studied by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, my remarks will be brief and, I hope, to the point.
The purpose of this bill is to revive the company known as J. H. Poitras & Son Ltd. This company was incorporated in 1965 and had its principal place of business in the city of Hull, Quebec. The company sells, services, and instals fire protection equipment such as fire extinguishers, as well as fire and burglar alarm systems, in the Ottawa-Hull area.
In September, 1977, the present owner of the company decided to sell his shares to another company. In the course of completing the documentation arising from that sale, it was discovered by the lawyer that the company had been dissolved in 1968. The reason was failure to file with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, for three consecutive years, the annual information returns required under the Canada Corporations Act. It was discovered also that the notices from Consumer and Corporate Affairs requesting the filing of returns did not come to the attention of the company. These notices were sent not to the company's own address but to its lawyer.
The notices were of course published in the Canada Gazette but were apparently not read by the company. In any case, no returns were filed and the company was dissolved before the new owner, Normand St. James, acquired shares in it.
The petitioner, Normand St. James, and the original owner of the company were not aware of the dissolution of the business. Mr. St. James carried on his activities despite the fact that unknown to him no corporate body existed.
In the circumstances, this bill asks that the company be revived and that it be deemed not to have been dissolved. This would regularize the situation. If it is agreeable to the House, 1 would propose that if second reading is granted, the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills for study.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has, indeed, consulted with respect to this matter. He was good enough to supply me with copies of minutes from the other place and a record of the debate in the Senate in respect of this bill.
It is really an astounding matter. It is not altogether surprising that a notice might not be referred to the company, but what is surprising to me is this: notwithstanding the fact that the company in question had died in law, and that its death had been duly noted in the records of the government through the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, another department of the government, the Department of National

Revenue, should continue to collect taxes from this corporate corpse. On the other hand, there is no reason why this House, or any member of it, ought not, in the circumstances, to deal appropriately with an agency or a citizen coming to parliament for relief.
I gather from the debate which took place elsewhere that if this House does not deal expeditiously with the matter, as the Senate did, an innocent party would be placed at considerable disadvantage. Thus, on behalf of my hon. friends I am prepared to let this matter go and consent to the reference to the committee as proposed by the hon. member.
I know that in referring to the Canada Gazette as a document which was not read by the proprietor of the company who was so innocently misled, he was not implying that the Canada Gazette was on the best-sellers list by any means-it is a publication which is not always read even by some members of the bar. I appreciate the detail which the hon. member has supplied other members of the House with regard to this matter, and we should certainly like to see the bill dealt with as expeditiously as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) certainly practises non-discrimination. He supplied me with the same information he apparently supplied to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
I may say I do keep track, to a certain extent, of what is going on in the other place. It might not always be there, so one should keep track of it while it is. I noticed this bill when it was going through the Senate and it did strike me as reflecting an odd situation. One of the things that interested me when I read the debate in the other place, both in that House and in the committee, was that the Senators themselves, many of whom are lawyers, were shocked to discover that at least one of the culprits in the picture was the lawyer who made the sale, the lawyer who acted for both the parties concerned, the old company and the new company. The lawyer who made the sale was, in effect, selling his new client a decreased corporation. This was obviously a bad situation, and Mr. Normand St. James is the innocent party and should not suffer because of that.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to let this bill be read the second time and go to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I am astonished to see that businessmen can operate without knowing they are in business, or at least without knowing that they are operating under the name of a company that has been legally dissolved.
In any event, I received representations from the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who was kind enough, I would say, to pilot this bill in the House of Commons, a bill that came to us from the Senate. I leafed through the report in the Hansard of the other place rather quickly.
November 30, 1978

Naturally I did not have the opportunity of checking the testimony of all witnesses before that committee. But, be that as it may, I trust people who seem honest like the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. 1 trust this bill will be deferred to committee where it will be looked into very seriously, because we must always be serious in our work when we pass bills, even private ones. That is why I feel it is my duty to give my approval to this bill, that it might be sent to committee where the matter can be settled once and for all, and at the same time to invite the new group that is operating under the name of the company, J. H. Poitras et Fils Ltee., to periodically have to look at the notices published in the Canada Gazette.

Motion, agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Yvon Pinard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is unanimous consent to proceed with the public bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), Bill C-232.
May I ask that all the preceding bills be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


HOLIDAYS ACT
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved: that Bill C-232, to amend the Holidays Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which I have introduced in every session of parliament since 1 came here, has been the subject of fairly lively discussion each time it has been brought forward. I must admit that I was somewhat surprised that it was called so early in this session. I note that there are about 25 private bills ahead of this one on the order paper, and I am concerned because 25 members who have put bills on the order paper are not prepared to discuss them at this time. However, that is their business. I am certainly ready to go ahead with any one of my bills, and this one happens to be the first on the list.
Holidays Act
This bill was debated fairly fully in this House on March 14, 1975. At that time it was decided to refer the subject matter of the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
In my opinion, what this bill seeks to do is regularize a situation which for all practical purposes is a fait accompli. In most parts of the country the July 1 holiday is at the present time designated Canada Day. However, according to our statutes it is still Dominion Day. As soon as one talks about changing the name of the holiday from Dominion Day to Canada Day, there are some stalwart supporters of the word "dominion" who immediately rise and exclaim that we are trying to do away with old traditions and so forth.
As someone who was born in Great Britain, who came to this country as an immigrant, and who likes tradition, parades and so forth, I am not overawed by the suggestion that we should be respecting certain old traditions and guarding the word "dominion" in our statutes. Whether we change the name legally now is probably of very little consequence because for all practical purposes, as I have already said, from coast to coast we use the present terminology "Canada Day", and we use it with pride when we refer to the anniversary of the founding of our nation.
There has been some concern about this change among members of the Royal Canadian Legion. I am a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, an ex-serviceman, an ex-military man. I understand the concern of the Royal Canadian Legion.
I understand its feeling about the word "dominion", but I suggest to the Royal Canadian Legion, and to everyone who is concerned about the use of the word "dominion", that in a country with the difficulties we are experiencing today it is a relatively minor matter to eliminate a word, despite all its history and ancient significance. Surely the name of the day which should be of major significance to all of us, July 1, should be acceptable to all Canadians. I say "all Canadians" advisedly, because even those people who speak against this change have not, at least to my knowledge, spoken against the terminology "Canada Day". They speak for retention of "Dominion" without speaking against the word "Canada".
I think there is little else to be said. I honestly believe that this bill is just a tidying up. There are few people left in this country who do not recognize that the connotation which is attached to the word "dominion" is divisive in itself. It is an ancient terminology. It has a significance which is certainly not helpful in uniting all parts of the country today.
In terms of importance perhaps the name "Canada Day" has little significance in that, as I have previously said, it is now a fait accompli. However, in terms of significance to a certain section of the population in this country which does not like the somewhat subservient nature of the word "dominion", it is important. For these reasons I strongly urge passage of Bill C-232, which would change the terminology "Dominion Day" to the popularly acclaimed and generally used "Canada Day".

November 30, 1978
Holidays Act


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), I am a little amazed that this bill came up as early on the agenda for the session as it did.
I want to take exception to one expression used by the hon. member twice, and that is that Canada Day is a fait accompli. I am not at all sure it is. To any Canadian, whether of British birth or, as I am, descended from parents of British birth, or who has been here eight or ten generations or who has just come off the boat from Europe or other countries, the word "Canada" has a very special meaning. I do not disagree that the expression "Canada Day" has been used a great deal, whether appropriately or not. However, I think this is important, particularly to the people I represent, many of whom are descendants of United Empire Loyalists.
I do not downgrade the hon. member at all, but I think that a matter of this significance should not be brought up in a private member's bill. The government has been using the expression "Canada Day" for the past few years. If the government wishes to use that name, it should bring in legislation changing the name of the holiday. This is an important matter. I was not here at the time, but we all know about the debates in this House on the flag. Many institutions debated long, hard, and sometimes bitterly about the flag.
The hon. member mentioned one institution, the Royal Canadian Legion, of which he is a member. I am proud to be an honorary member of Branch 99. I think perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, would remember the lengthy flag debate. I know others in the House remember. It was a very acrimonious debate, but because there was an act of parliament all Canadians are now prepared to accept the new flag. A few, of course, would like to have the old one, and I admit that in my heart there is a warm spot for it, but I think most Canadians now accept the new flag.
We have that new flag because of a debate in this House. There was a vote in this House. There was proper committee scrutiny and finally a decision of this House that Canada would have a new flag.
I do not think this matter is a party matter, but if this new name is to be accepted by all Canadians, it should be dealt with in this House as a matter of importance. I think there would be acceptance from many parts of the House and I think there would be considerable debate on the matter, but I do not think it should be taken lightly as a matter to be considered during private members' hour and to be given less than an hour of debate on a quiet Thursday afternoon, with just a few dozen of us in the House who are regularly here at this time of the day. I really do not think this is the time to slip a matter of this importance through the House. I think the matter deserves full debate.
I have to correct the hon. member on the slip that he made when he asked us to pass the bill. If we allowed it, it would be given second reading, approval in principle, and then would go to committee. But it would be wrong to send it to the commit-

tee without the full weight of a debate in parliament and without the weight of government support.
I have said virtually all I want to say on the matter. I will be interested to see, in fact, if members on the government benches are prepared to let this bill go through. If they are, then it would be a very interesting situation.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


John Raymond Ellis: In my view, if the matter is to be given any credence, it should be put forward by the government in the usual manner. I commend the hon. member for Vaudreuil for showing initiative in bringing this bill forth, but I think that on a matter of this importance and magnitude-it is of some magnitude for those Canadians who are concerned about this sort of thing-it is inappropriate for it to be brought forward in the private members' hour. I will let it go now. I do not know whether any of my colleagues will intervene on this bill, but I think it deserves the weight of government action.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks concerning Bill C-232, an act to amend the Holidays Act, in order that July 1 be known as Canada Day. The hon. member opposite who spoke last pointed out that in his opinion it was inappropriate for this bill to be brought up in private members' hour. I beg to disagree with him. I do not think that good ideas come only out of cabinet. 1 think good ideas come from all sides of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: I believe that this act is a step in the right direction. However, I would point out that the hon. member is correct in assuming that if this bill is passed by us here today, it will go into committee, be debated there, and then will come back to the House and be debated here again. So there will be a great deal of discussion of the matter and, I hope, a great deal of deep thinking about it before the bill is passed and becomes a fait accompli.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this bill in the context of my riding. The census of 1971 showed that 69 per cent of all the people whom I represent in St. Catharines list their home origin as the British Isles. Notwithstanding that fact and the great tie and great love they have for tradition and for things that are British, the majority of the people in my riding, I believe, would be in favour of calling Dominion Day on July 1, Canada Day.
As you know, this day is currently designated as Dominion Day in the act, but I think most hon. members would agree that over the past few years there has been a growing feeling that such a designation is no longer suitable or desirable. Indeed, throughout what is now almost a decade, it is on what is known to many as Canada Day, Canada Week, and Festival Canada, that millions of Canadians have celebrated the birthday of our nation. I submit that the official designation of July 1 as Canada Day would reflect accurately the feelings of Canadians.
November 30, 1978

The hon. member referred also to the flag debate. I make no apology for taking great pride in the fact that after 98 years we finally chose a flag that is uniquely our own. A great many debates took place across Canada in which people from all walks of life and from all regions had something to say about whether or not we wanted our very own flag. I am an honorary member of the Legion, Branch 24, in St. Catharines. When I went back to my riding on Remembrance Day to join the veterans of the two world wars who marched on that day, it seemed to me as if hundreds of years had passed since we had debated so vehemently whether or not we should have our own flag. As I travel around the world, 1 feel, as do other hon. members and other citizens of Canada, a great deal of pride when I see our very own flag raised.
Let me point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that on November 5 of this year I represented the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) at the ceremony in Vimy marking the sixtieth anniversary of the end of World War I. During my stay in Europe I visited many Commonwealth war graves. These graves, where our soldiers, our fellow Canadians, our brothers and sisters of another year lay buried, had the maple leaf engraved on their headstones, an emblem of Canada which was chosen many years ago, the emblem which we display so proudly on our flag.
I know it may be argued that the designation "Dominion Day" is somehow related to the historical development of Canada and that it should be retained for reasons of tradition, nostalgia, and so on. However, I would like to think that Canada has undergone great and vital growth and has emerged from the colonial status and, in the process, has acquired strength, independence, and a sense of identity, and that therefore Dominion Day is no longer a suitable title for that day set aside for all Canadians, Canadians of all origins and from all regions, to celebrate Canada's birthday and to take pride and joy in being Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: I suggest that giving that day the more appropriate name of Canada Day is only logical, and 1 agree 100 per cent with the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). Most of us think of the day as Canada Day, feel it to be Canada Day, refer to it as Canada Day, and celebrate it as Canada Day. 1 say we should therefore call it just that, that is, Canada Day. But I wish to make it clear that I am not belittling the importance of tradition. No, that is the furthest thing from my mind, because our roots run deep to all the great countries and cultures in Europe.
We have emerged with our own Canadian culture, and I think we must recognize that fact over and over again, if needs be, because it took us 111 years to become the Canadians we are today. We did not just happen in the last 12 years, notwithstanding the fact that we have had our very own flag only since 1965. I believe that without a tradition a nation cannot be said to exist. Indeed, 1 do not believe a nation can exist without the traditions and the roots we acknowledge here today.
Holidays Act
I am sensitive to the concerns of those who, in perceiving the importance of tradition, question closely all proposed changes, however seemingly superficial. Without such questioning there would be no balance, there would be nothing to impede those more interested in change for the sake of change. Indeed, it has been due to the efforts of those who are convinced that tradition has an important role to play in the forging of national identity that much of our heritage has been preserved, many of our traditions retained.
That which makes Canada and Canadians unique will continue to play a role in the Canada of the future. I cannot lend support to any move which I consider to be detrimental to any part of the fabric of Canadian heritage. I do not endorse change for its own sake. However, dynamic change which comes in the course of growth and development or the evolution of a nation cannot be impeded, any more than the day when we wanted to have our own flag. I believe one day Canada will have a day on which to celebrate its birth. We will be able to rise and say that this is our day, our birthday, that this is "Canada Day".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: The burgeoning of this nation from its origins to its current independence is an example of dynamic change. We have grown to a nation called Canada. I submit that the day on which we celebrate that growth should be called "Canada Day".
I endorse this bill 100 per cent. It should be considered for future debate and referred to the appropriate committee. We must have an opportunity for debate, input and contribution concerning the day which should be called our very own, that day being Canada Day.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to take part in this debate and I shall be very brief, but I would not have wanted to miss the opportunity to say a few words to congratulate the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on presenting this bill. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member who spoke before me and who said that ordinary members can have excellent ideas, and the fact that a Liberal member of parliament, who is also a parliamentary secretary, thought it appropriate to introduce during this hour set aside for private members' measures a bill which concerns the whole country. That deserves to be emphasized and encouraged. For my part, I must consider his bill in the context of the major public debate on national unity.
Mr. Speaker, since in certain areas of the country we are much more aware of the importance and the urgency of solving the problem of Canadian unity, I want to take this opportunity in this national forum to give my opinion on all the initiatives, whether they be symbols or bills, which aim at strengthening our sense of belonging to this beautiful and

November 30, 1978
Holidays Act
great country of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I support such initiatives. The fact of wanting to confirm the designation of Canada Day for July 1 instead of the name Dominion Day seems to me an initiative which aims precisely at strengthening our sense of belonging to Canada in the present context of Canadian unity problems.
In my opinion, the fact of being able once a year on July 1 to celebrate the day of a country called Canada reminds me of the importance of living in total harmony and also in strict equality among the two great founding peoples of this country, that is the French and the English. We have a very vast country where many cultures co-exist in what is commonly called multiculturalism, but two great peoples have contributed to build a society inspired on the one hand by French humanism and on the other hand by British parliamentarian-ism. This is a very rich heritage that we have been given by two great founding peoples whose languages are French and English, and in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the fact of celebrating each year a national holiday which would be called Canada Day could make us more aware of the wealth of this great country, not only on a material level, but in terms of its origins and of that need to consider the great importance once again of living not only in mutual respect for each other, Mr. Speaker, but also of living together in the strictest equality. And that is what justifies our role as members of parliament from Quebec here in Ottawa in trying to make this country a truly united country in that context. And when we have before us such a legislation to change the name of Dominion Day for Canada Day, we feel more at home, we feel more pride in being Canadians, we feel more authenticity, and we feel better prepared to live in harmony and on equal terms in this land of ours.
Mr. Speaker, I think we must not overdo traditions. There is a right balance to keep, and I always have had much respect for the saying In medio stat virtus, virtue stands between extremes, and I feel that traditions in certain instances, 1 imagine, have to be respected, but one has also to be realistic and try to present and support measures which make us live according to the reality. Yesterday is gone, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is yet to come, the present is today. I suggest that we should forget the past somewhat more easily to avoid nostalgia, that we should not live too much in the future to avoid anxiety and that we should be practical and live in the present and in the reality.
And today, Mr. Speaker, when we just had federal-provincial conferences, whether on the constitution or the economy, and that we realize a tendency to hoard a bigger share of the pie, to monopolize, to be selfish, we realize, I think, the importance of having a Canadian government, a federal government, a central government really representative of our two great funding nations and strong enough to maintain unity at the constitutional level and to make sure that our two great linguistic communities will live together with equal opportuni-

ties and that, at the economic level, there will be a fair distribution of our wealth in all areas of the country.
I think that the recent federal-provincial conferences emphasized the need to have, first, a central government with a minimum of power to create that balance, to maintain it and to keep the country united. They also make us realize the need to avoid an over-decentralization which might cause some prejudice to the needy provinces like the maritimes and the province of Quebec.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, again 1 commend the hon. member for Vaudreuil who took the initiative to introduce Bill C-232 urging us to call Canada Day the July 1 holiday. I for one support his initiative and I hope that hon. members will make sure that his bill will be enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary
of State): Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with my colleagues on this side of the House in thanking the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for bringing this bill before us. I would like to address a few remarks to the subject of the bill before us today.
Before getting to the subject matter, I want to address myself to the remarks made by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis). 1 could hardly believe my ears when he suggested that because this matter was coming before the House at this time it was being taken lightly. I could not believe that this came from the same side of the House after hearing the catcalls, cries, demands and pleas from the other side that certain matters should be allowed to go forward, that they were important and should not be taken lightly by this House and talked out.
That side of the House has spoken about this government's not respecting the rights of individual members and has said that not just the government should be coming up with ideas, that all members of parliament should have the right to bring forward ideas and see them achieve fruition. They now suggest that we throw out that principle and that only the government should bring forward ideas at this time. I cannot believe this either, and I wonder what it is they really believe.
I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) suggested at one time that we should be giving credence to the committee system and that there should be a role for committees. I can understand why he would be seeking a greater role for committees because members of his party do not understand the committee system as it exists now. They believe that any subject matter that goes to committee is an indication that it is being taken lightly, and robbing hon. members of the opportunity of debate. My understanding of the committee system is that it gives hon. members an opportunity to debate.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil indicated that this matter is not something that was drawn up and put into the House yesterday. It has been before this House on many occasions and has even gone to committee before. It has been the subject
November 30, 1978

of much debate. To say that it has been foisted upon us quickly, not affording an opportunity for debate or quiet contemplation, is a total misunderstanding and misconception of what has in fact taken place. This matter has come up before and it has been approved and disapproved of by members.
It is important that we understand some of the basic concepts behind this bill. Unfortunately there are Canadians who in the word "dominion" sense something more than sovereignty, that they are being subjugated, put under thumb or throttled. I would like to disabuse those people, along with the hon. member for Hastings, of the idea that the words "dominion" and "monarchy" are linked.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: He didn't say that.


Mr. Daudlin:: I agree that he did not use those words, but if there is to be any rationale at all for the concern he has when he raises the argument of the United Empire Loyalists, many of whom are in his riding, he must mistakenly conceive that to remove the word "dominion" somehow emasculates the monarchy. I do not understand how a person could arrive at that reasoning and at the same time say that that must be the kind of rationale behind the hon. member's argument about the United Empire Loyalists.
In my particular area of the country there are a number of people who trace their roots to the British Isles and the French-speaking countries of Europe, and they have a deep tie to the Queen and to the concept of the dominion of Canada. There are those, however, who have difficulty with change, but I find that most people are able to understand change and accept it. I find very few people who stand steadfast and resist change regardless of reason.
I challenge the hon. member for Hastings to go back to his riding and ask the youth there whether they see themselves as United Empire Loyalists. I suggest that the hon. member will find they do not, that they see themselves as Canadians. The youth in my riding, their parents, their grandparents-who, admittedly, link themselves to their origins more strongly than do the youth-the people of my generation and those after me have the idea that in fact they are Canadians and want to see the indicium of Canadianism. They want to see names like "Canada Day" instead of "Dominion Day". They want to be able to stand up, when they are abroad or indeed in other parts of Canada, and share with other Canadians and say "Canada Day! Canada is my country and yours."
What it takes, Mr. Speaker, is understanding on the part of those people who see subjugation in the word "dominion" and who see a strong attachment between the words "monarchy" and "dominion". Both I think are wrong. There are dissenting voices, and we heard one today from the other side. There is no doubt that there will be-


Mr. Nystrom:: You're worse than he is.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I must be touching some soft spots because there is more noise coming from the other side. I must have
Holidays Act
awakened them. I regret that my time is being used like this because I have but a few moments to speak, and I assure hon. members that I intend not to go the full length of time. If they will allow me to complete my remarks they will be pleasantly surprised to see that the matter will proceed forward.
As I was saying, while there will no doubt be dissenting voices and while no doubt much will be made of it by a few, I perceive this bill as being a sensible piece of housekeeping that will bring the statutes up to date in order that reality be accurately portrayed therein. The hon. member is to be congratulated for his good sense, and while we in the past have been back and forth on this issue many times, unofficially we have been celebrating July 1 for many years now as Canada Day. Let us have the common sense to change the statute so that it can reflect the facts as they are.


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of the bill introduced by my colleague because I believe that if we cannot find causes for the weak Canadian political situation in Quebec at this time, it is probably because we have not been able to identify with Canadian symbols. Take examples in history, for instance, when Quebeckers were calling themselves "Canayens" while the majority of English Canadians in other provinces were calling themselves "British subjects" or "British citizens". Quebeckers got tired of calling themselves "Canayens". They then called themselves French Canadians and now, to a certain point, feeling alone as Canadians, they decided that if no one else wanted to get in the boat, they would call themselves Quebeckers. Talk about Calixa Lavallee who decided to write the anthem "O Canada" in the beautiful riding of Louis-Hebert in Quebec-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Dennis Dawson: -with words and music coming from Quebeckers. English Canadians continued to sing "God Save the Queen" or "God Save the King" when we, French Canadians-this has improved over the past several years- were the only ones at the time singing "O Canada", the others were singing "God Save the Queen" or "God Save the King", as I just said. Here is another example where Quebeckers not feeling part of a group decided that perhaps they are not in the right boat. Take the example of the flag, the famous debate on the flag in 1964 when once again, perhaps, I believe, a majority of members from Quebec, who were Liberal members to boot, and the Liberal caucus were fighting to have a Canadian flag so Quebeckers would be able to identify with something else than a fleur-de-lys, the fleur-de-lys which basically all Quebeckers respect but which was adopted in the 1950s only to fill a void because French Canadians could not face a flag called the Union Jack or the Red Ensign. They were looking for something Canadian. They were looking for something they could feel they belonged to. They could not find that feeling in a flag that for them was the flag of colonizers. They fought within Mr. Pearson's caucus, they

November 30, 1978
1674________________________________
Holidays Act
fought within the government, so we would have a flag, and today all Canadians everywhere, with a few rare exceptions-


Some hon. Members:: Everywhere. Everywhere.


Dennis Dawson: -in a few groups a bit too much on the extreme right, I think that all Canadians are proud of their flag-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Dennis Dawson: -all Canadians rise with pride at the sight of their flag. For the same reasons, I believe that today the motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is something entirely natural. Why Dominion Day? That is going to frustrate monarchists who are afraid that the word Dominion, if it is taken out of the vocabulary, will mean that we are against the monarchy. I think it is not being against the monarchy to want to identify with Canada Day, it is not being against the monarchy, it is being realistic, identifying with something you belong to, and not something you belonged to in the past.
I would like to add another point, especially in view of the statements made by the hon. member of the opposition. I am surprised, after a year and a half in the House, to see that we are being blamed for introducing a bill which in effect encourages the "Canadianization" of our institutions. I think that Quebeckers would surely be astounded to be told that Canada Day is improper, that what we must have is a Dominion Day. The present political tension which exists in Quebec-and one need only look at the latest polls on sovereignty-association- and the fact that Quebeckers are wondering if they should continue to belong to this country are probably due to such acts and symbols, it is because of the failures of the past that Quebeckers, French Canadians can no longer believe in the future. It is indeed up to us, as a political party, as government, as militants, as members of a political force to try and identify ourselves as Canadians.
There are several other symbols, one could refer, for example, to this summer's famous debate on the patriation of the constitution. That is yet another symbol which for the past hundred years should have been the property of Quebeckers, of Canadians, but those who oppose changes and evolution have decided against the patriation of our constitution, saying: "Let us leave this famous document in England. After all, this is nothing but a piece of paper. We all know that the real power is in the hands of the Canadian parliament".
It is a fact that we are those who are governing, but as a symbol, it is very bad, because it gives the people the feeling that they belong to something for which they cannot find any reference point. Canadians of British descent or born in English-speaking countries may find there a certain relation, but we cannot expect the same from Quebeckers or other French-

speaking Canadians. If we want to maintain unity among Canadians and develop a feeling of belonging within the limits of this political entity called Canada, we shall have to make sure that they identify more and more with purely Canadian symbols. We must look for these new symbols within our own institutions, and I suggest we could find some in this very hall which are historical memorabilia, for which we have a sort of attraction because they remind us of our roots. However, those who are in a position of power may sometimes give the impression of a lack of will on the part of Canadians to identify with their own geography and characteristics. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add just a few words to this debate. I was touched by some allusions to what Canadians did in 1944. I remember some of the things that happened on June Beach in 1944.
I feel there has been a fair amount of emotional outpouring today which is sometimes worth while on subjects like this. It is always nice to think of our ancestors, whether they were United Empire Loyalists, whether they have been in the Annapolis Valley or Quebec for 300 years or more, or whether they arrived across the Aleutian Islands 25,000 years ago. They all became Canadians whether they came from central Europe in the last generation or, more recently, from Viet Nam.
I believe Canada Day is a more appropriate designation than Dominion Day which really has outworn itself. It refers to part of our history of which we are all proud but which has passed by. Canada Day embraces everyone who is a Canadian and is the name that should apply to the holiday on July 1. That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired. Perhaps the House would permit us to go back into committee of the whole before the Chair calls it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 30, 1978



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-10, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide for a child tax credit and to amend the Family Allowances Act-Mr. Chretien-Mr. Turner in the chair.
Charles Robert Turner: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I can see by the expression on the parliamentary secretary's face, that after a good meal he has now come back to the chamber ready to give us the information which I have been requesting. Perhaps in order to expedite this matter I could put my question again. Will the parliamentary secretary now give us the 1981 fiscal figures? In short, we have the refundable tax credit amount of $858 million for 1981. Would he tell us what the total expenditure would be for the family allowances in 1981? Specifically, how much will those family allowances go up compared to fiscal 1980?


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would be quite happy to repeat a series of figures that I gave to the hon. member a little earlier. As I indicated at the time, he could pencil them in on the table that he has. These figures that we have calculated for 1980-81 would correspond with the figures on his table for the fiscal year 1979-80. He has read out the first figure, the refundable tax credit, which moves from $810 million to $858 million. As I mentioned, I am putting these figures on the record for a second time today. He may not have heard me in the first instance.
The reduction in the family allowance figure moves from $690 million to $731 million. The offsetting figure from the lost income tax is $138 million, as compared to $130 million in 1979-80. The figure for the elimination of the $50 child tax credit remains at $260 million. The modification in the exemptions for 16 and 17-year old children moves to $50 million from $25 million, being the second year of the phase in process. Incidentally, these calculations are worked out assuming a rate of 6 per cent inflation and would vary depending on what assumptions one uses. This has the net effect of a $45 million benefit to the government in the second year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, if we could take those individual figures, we could arrive at the point I am trying to reach.
Family Allowances
When the parliamentary secretary says that expenditures will be down $731 million with respect to the family allowances, could he give us the basis on which he is figuring that? What is the total family allowance payment anticipated for fiscal 1980? As the parliamentary secretary knows, all that we have before us is by how much the figure is reduced. In order to arrive at the base, we need this information and then we can figure out the 6 per cent from there.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat hesitant to get into a dicussion regarding the total amount of family allowance payments on clause 2 of a bill that deals only with certain changes in the method of paying these benefits when we have indicated there is no over-all net effect. I am told by the officials that family allowance payments for the year 1980-81-I think that is the year we are talking about-would have been in the neighbourhood of $2.3 billion. This figure would now be in the neighbourhood of $1.6 billion, from which the $731 million flows.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I think we are making a little progress, I am pleased to say. I think part of the confusion that has arisen has been caused because the government is working backwards. They are telling us what they are saving. That may be the way the Liberals like to express things. Normally I think the other way. We know presumably what the government will anticipate spending in 1980. After there is a reduction of $690 million in fiscal 1980, could you tell me what you anticipate to be the family allowance pay-out in that year?


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, again I defer to your ruling, but we are dealing with a clause in the bill that talks specifically about indexing the figures of $200 and $18,000. If you feel that it is in order for us to continue having a discussion on the over-all concept of family allowance payment, we can continue. The latest question which the hon. member for York-Simcoe is asking relates to the total family allowance payments for-


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I was talking about the effect this bill would have upon the status Indians. I am sure this question comes under clause 2 which we are presently discussing and that this is a suitable point at which to make my comments.
The Indian people of Canada have been given little time to review the implications of Bill C-10, not having been invited to comment on it until the meeting between the minister and the National Indian Brotherhood on November 14, 1978. In spite of the brief time for consultation among Indian people, there are a number of concerns about the bill that they would like to raise, as well as to offer two amendments to the bill that would help resolve these difficulties.
For many reasons, Indians in Canada historically and traditionally have not been and should not be part of the process of

November 30, 1978
Family Allowances
taxation of income. Freedom from taxation is one of the fundamental rights the original occupants of this land possessed, this being but a partial compensation for the land originally occupied by them. This relationship was and still is an understood condition of the treaties, and of the establishment of the reserve system. Parliament recognized tax exemption of Indians in the Indian Act itself.
In spite of these previous understandings, the Indian exemption status has been subjected to what appears to be a planned, progressive erosion by government forces. The government, through its Ministry of National Revenue and that ministry's departmental bureaucrats, has been using tax questions as a form of unjustified harassment of Indian people, both at the Indian organizational level and the individual level. This harassment is on the increase, and the department is expanding its attempts to collect income tax from Indians engaged in their traditional pursuits, especially trapping.
The Indian people of Canada have no choice, therefore, but to view Bill C-10 as yet another surreptitious attempt by government to establish a mechanism for taxation of Indian people on Indian lands, this time by arbitrarily indexing all Indian mothers into the tax system through mandatory acquisition of social insurance numbers and the filing of income tax returns prior to receiving the child tax credit.
Is it fair and just to ask the mothers of the most impoverished and disadvantaged group of this country to forgo the very much needed financial benefits offered by this bill in order to protect the Indian people from the bill's inbuilt potential for violation of their traditional and historical rights?
The National Indian Brotherhood has another great concern. The requirements for receiving the tax credit-those of acquiring a social insurance number and fding an income tax return-would prove quite complicated to many thousands of Indian mothers who have relatively negligible experience in matters of business and paperwork when compared to their non-Indian counterparts. I mentioned this in my remarks yesterday, Mr. Chairman. There is a strong likelihood that as a result of this requirement a significant number of Indian mothers will not receive the tax credit to which they are entitled.
Reports from departmental officials indicate that between 15 per cent to 25 per cent of pensioners eligible for the guaranteed income supplement do not receive it. We expect that the percentage of Indian mothers not receiving the child tax credit will be at least as high. Suppose that 20 per cent of the qualified mothers were not receiving child tax credit because the forms had not been completed or because they did not understand how to obtain it. A large sum is involved here. Twenty per cent of the $14 million which, we are told, would go to the status Indian mothers on reserves amounts to about $2.8 million.
The government has offered a small amount of assistance to Indian mothers as far as the paperwork is concerned, but the National Indian Brotherhood strongly feels that this will not be adequate to ensure that the tax credit will be distributed as planned.

A further concern is that the payment of the credit in one lump sum annually will likely lead to unwise spending of the money by families unused to handling such large amounts at one time. We discussed this yesterday. I brought up this question of the lump sum payment to Indian mothers and pointed out the difficulty they would experience in cashing these cheques. Further, it might not be easy for the mothers concerned to understand that, because of the $8 increase in family allowance per child and the nature of the lump sum payment, they would have to distribute it over a seven or eight month period. If this is not well understood, perhaps the money will be spent unwisely. I am glad to have this opinion confirmed by the National Indian Brotherhood. Unwise use of this money by people unused to receiving money in lump sums could have harmful consequences, including even family breakdown.
The National Indian Brotherhood suggests that the department should be considering putting out a special form distinct from the income tax return form and devised especially for use by status Indian mothers. They suggest that this form be considered complete with the use of the mother's band number, and that a social insurance number should not be required. It is well known that all status Indians have a number. They keep this number from birth until death and they refer to it frequently. I cannot understand why Indian mothers should be required to have a social insurance number in order to qualify for the child tax credit. Status Indians living on reserves do not have to pay income tax. I ask the minister to pay particular attention to this request.
The second suggestion the National Indian Brotherhood made is that the child tax credit be paid in quarterly instalments rather than in a single annual payment at the option of the mother.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that clause 2 refers to indexing, and the statement he has been making does not.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned indexing as I was going through this, and I thought this pertained to this clause. I will just finish up and then sit down. I will refer to this again when we come to the appropriate clause, if the Chair feels that way. The National Indian Brotherhood concludes as follows:
That payment of the child tax credit in quarterly instalments, rather than in a single annual payment, be allowed at the option of the mother, and that this option be allowed for the year 1979.
Yesterday the minister gave us a run-down of the various forms mothers will have to fill out merely to qualify for this child tax credit. If she would consider quarterly payments to mothers who opt to have quarterly payments, a part could be added to one of the many forms mothers will have to fill out so that they could indicate whether they want quarterly payments.
I will finish my remarks, Mr. Chairman, when we get to the appropriate clause, if you will alert me.
November 30,1978


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, in future discussion on this clause I hope it will be possible for us to direct our attention to the provisions of the clause, bearing in mind that there has been a great deal of discussion in the committee on clause 1, which is the clause under which general discussions of this nature are more appropriate.


Charles Robert Turner: I suggest to all hon. members that we should get back to clause 2, which refers to indexing.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance says that we should get back to the bill and that we had lots of time to make statements like this when we were considering clause 1. There has been so little consultation with the people this measure will affect that they are only now beginning to understand what this bill means. Much information is now coming to us, and we feel we should put it on the record.


Charles Robert Turner: I suggest to the hon. member for Churchill that third reading is coming up and that he can participate in all the discussions he wants to at that time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order with respect to your ruling. Of course, I am not going to challenge it, but the fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Churchill has just put on the record a communication which came to him subsequent to the second reading stage of this bill. That communication has to do with one of the subjects dealt with in clause 2, namely, the indexing of the $200 credit.
What the hon. member has asked on behalf of the National Indian Brotherhood is whether the government is prepared to consider making the payments on a quarterly basis. The minister cannot ignore the question; it has to be dealt with. If we are going to be treated this way, hon. members opposite will get themselves a filibuster. I say to the minister that the hon. member for Churchill has raised a very important matter on behalf of the National Indian Brotherhood. This is the only time he can do so. With respect, he cannot raise it on third reading because that stage does not allow for the kind of detailed discussion this matter would entail. The third reading stage does not allow for questions and answers.
The hon. member has laid the very serious reservations expressed by the National Indian Brotherhood on the record of this committee. He has framed a very legitimate question to the minister, namely, given the potential socialogical consequences of this lump sum payment to native peoples, is the government prepared to consider paying it out on a quarterly basis? That is a simple, straightforward but serious question. The hon. member is entitled to an answer.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, to use an English expression, I am in your hands, but clause 8 would be the proper clause under which we should be discussing instalments.
With regard to the form prescribed for the transmittal of this credit, that should be dealt with under clause 4. I do not know what to do. I could very easily answer, provided this game will not be played when we are dealing with clauses 4
Family Allowances
and 8. I answered this very question last night. It was answered in October and early in November. I am sorry that I do not have researchers with me to refer me to the pages of Hansard where the answer is very clearly set out.
Our tax machinery is being used for this purpose for the first time. The tax system has never sent payments to people except for income tax refunds. Those refunds are made once a year. For the first year of operation of this program there is no way we can arrange for several instalments. There will be one lump sum payment. If the hon. member persists in using Indian mothers in this way, at some point people in this House who are close to children and family budgeting will tell him that Indian mothers are like other mothers. They know how to operate their family budgets. I do not know what the hon. member is suggesting. At one point last night he made a Freudian slip: he spoke of illegitimate children. I did not like that at all.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are out to lunch.


Cecil Morris Smith: 
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Chairman, the minister has her head in the sand. The National Indian Brotherhood, which represents Indian people, brought this to my attention today, November 30, at 3.15, because the minister did not have the courtesy to meet with the National Indian Brotherhood until November 14, after this bill was already in committee of the whole.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, again this has nothing to do with this clause; clearly it should be discussed when we are dealing with clause 4. Perhaps the hon. member did not hear me last night or did not understand me. He can check Hansard, but I told him that yesterday at lunch time that I suggested to the National Indian Brotherhood we should explore this. I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to do that. That is confirmed by letter. There is a possibility that officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will help Indian mothers with the paperwork. Did I not say that last night? Did the hon. member not listen? Did he not read Hansard? I said that. We think it is very important to help all mothers overcome the paper burden which, unfortunately, big governments sometimes impose. I said that before and we are looking into it.
It is important to arrive at solutions and to make the system as simple as possible. Surely we should not create barriers for mothers who will need this money. One barrier is wasting the time of the House, not passing this bill and therefore stopping us from preparing these forms and working with groups for the best possible implementation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman-

November 30, 1978
Family Allowances


Prosper Boulanger: Not him again. Don't be too long.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend opposite wants to ask a question, I am prepared to let him.


Prosper Boulanger: That is very nice of the hon. member. 1 appreciate that, but I was getting up on a point of order. In any event, I thank the hon. member. At least once he has remembered to be a gentleman toward me. I appreciate that.
My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that twice you have said that we should stick to clause 2. The hon. member for Churchill rose on a point of order which turned out to be a question to the minister. Now the debate begins again. If hon. members in the official opposition have made up their minds to filibuster, they should at least respect the authority of the Chair and the rules. I think hon. members opposite are playing a game, and that is very wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I know we do not have to tell you again, Mr. Chairman: we are dead on clause 2. We are dealing with indexing of the $200 tax credit. What I am trying to establish with the parliamentary secretary-and this is the important thing-is what will be the net impact in 1981, 1982 and 1983 of the indexing on family allowance increases. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we must relate this to clause 10 because the two clauses are joined together. In clause 10 the indexing which otherwise would have applied to the $20 family allowance payment is reduced. The last time I questioned the parliamentary secretary, when my time ran out, I think he was just about to give me that information. My question is: What will the budget pay-out for family allowances be in 1980, after the $690 million will have been saved as a result of the reduction in clause 10?


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, once again I say that I do not think we should be discussing total family allowance pay-outs in relation to this bill because, as I said before for the record, the net effect of this bill on the total cost of the family allowances program is virtually nil. As we have pointed out, in the first year it will save the Treasury $35 million. We have given figures to the hon. member for York-Simcoe indicating that in the second year we would save $45 million, and the amounts would be of a similar nature in the following years. So it is not clear to me why we are continuing to talk about the total cost of the family allowance program. I did give the hon. member for York-Simcoe a figure for 1981; now he is coming back to 1980. I am not sure whether or not we have that figure.


Prosper Boulanger: It does not matter. He does not need it.


Alan Gray Martin: We do not have it at the moment. I suggest that it is simply not related to this clause.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order-


Charles Robert Turner: We are not on a point of order.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, you know I was chairman before. It is very easy to see that the hon. member does not wish to respect your ruling. If you do not show that you are running the House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Prosper Boulanger: -he will show no respect for your ruling.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Mr. Nielsen:: Maybe the hon. member opposite should run a school.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Certainly it is not my wish to delay this committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I mean that, Mr. Chairman, but I think we are entitled to certain information. Frankly, if you check what the parliamentary secretary said in reply to me in his last answer, you will find it is still pretty incomprehensible. He is saying that the government cannot tell us what will be the fiscal 1980 pay-out for family allowances, notwithstanding the fact they can tell us by how much it has been reduced. That cannot be so; they must have a gross figure. They subtracted $690 million and that amount gives us the figure they anticipate to be the amount paid out in family allowances in 1980.
To show that I have no desire to belabour this point if I can get the facts, may I ask whether we could possibly stand clause 2 and go on to some of the other clauses. If the parliamentary secretary is upset that I should be asking about family allowances under clause 2, then let us stand clause 2 and we will deal with clause 2 and 10 at the same time. If that suits his neat little mind a little better, it is fine with me. But I emphasize again that even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre understood the first time around about what I was getting at, and if he can understand it I do not see why the parliamentary secretary, supported by a minister and three officials, still cannot understand my elementary question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does that make me?


Monique Bégin: He is slow, but he will understand.


Alan Gray Martin: I do not see any rational for standing clause 2. I think we have answered all reasonable questions quite adequately. As a matter of fact, some of the answers are on the record at least 12 times.


Erik Nielsen: Not this one.


Alan Gray Martin: I gave the hon. member a figure a little while ago for family allowances for one year which indicated how the $731 million was arrived at. It seems to me that he has this table, he has figures for each of the two years, 1979-80 and

November 30, 1978

1980-81, which indicate the net savings of the various aspects associated with this problem and which support the contention made over and over again by the Minister of Finance, by myself and by others in this committee, that the net cost of the program will not cost the taxpayers of Canada any additional amount.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, let me put this into perspective. This is literally what has happened. In response to my question about fiscal 1980-81 we were told, first, that the net reduction in family allowance was $731 million. That was established. We were also told that the gross amount was $2.3 billion, and that leaves a net amount of $1.6 billion for 1981. The parliamentary secretary is agreeing with me. They gave me the figures for which I was looking. Now I ask: Would you please give me those figures for 1980, and I am being refused. That does not make sense. I will bring out later why I think I am being refused these figures. I ask the parliamentary secretary again: Can he furnish us with the 1980 figure comparable to the 1981 figure he gave me?


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, we did give the hon. member for York-Simcoe the figure he wanted for 1980-81 because he was looking for some support for a previous figure, for the $731 million. There is no reason why we should put ourselves in the position of having to give supporting schedules for each of the figures which have been tabled during the course of the discussion in this committee. That is why I am resisting at present going into the background of these various figures. The figures are there and they speak for themselves.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this will put it into perspective. What the parliamentary secretary is trying to get away with is similar to a woman who goes into a store, buys a fur coat, comes home and tells her husband that she saved him $2,000 because, although she spent $2,000, there was another coat there for $4,000.


Some hon. Members:: Sexist.


Monique Bégin: Why can't you talk about a man? Do you agree with that garbage, Flora?


An hon. Member:: Male chauvinist pig.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I think it is fundamental for us, in continuing to study this bill, to get this figure, and I am surprised at the resistance we are encountering. I realize this is embarrassing to the government. They will finally have to admit that there will be a widening deficit, but 1 think members of parliament are entitled to hear those facts before getting on with this bill.
In view of the frustration we are experiencing, Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East:
That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


An hon. Member:: This motion is not debatable.
Family Allowances


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion (Mr. Stevens) negatived: Yeas, 14; nays, 27.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I will try again with the parliamentary secretary. Can he explain why they will not give us the figures for fiscal 1980 respecting the total family allowances pay-out expected in that year, bearing in mind that they were set out in gross terms in the budget presented on November 16? Why can those figures not be given to the committee tonight?


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, it is really not part of the bill under discussion to come up with the total amount of family allowance payments. A lot of factors go into that calculation, including the rate of inflation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am asking for the 1980 figures.


Alan Gray Martin: One could take into account various rates of inflation and come up with various numbers.


An hon. Member:: Give us the numbers.


Alan Gray Martin: There is no relationship between the request being made by the hon. member for York-Simcoe and the specifics of clause 2.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is the parliamentary secretary serious in what he is saying? How was he able to give the figures for 1981? Why are the figures for 1981 clearer to him than those for 1980?


Alan Gray Martin: When I gave the figures to the hon. member for York-Simcoe, I indicated to him that the officials were attempting to meet some of his numerous requests which were unrelated to the clause under consideration. In attempting to do this, they came up with a quick calculation of what the family allowance pay-out would be in 1981, making a certain assumption as to the rate of inflation. Those figures can be varied, depending on whatever rate of inflation one wishes to use. In this particular case, I think they used an inflation rate of 4 per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Hopefully we are reaching a point where we will receive this information.


René Bégin: What does the hon. member want?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Presumably the 4 per cent inflation rate can be taken off in order to arrive at the base figure for 1980. Can he tell us what base was used for 1980?


Alan Gray Martin: There is an assumed growth in the payments of 4 per cent. The officials do not have the 1980 payments with them at the present time. Once again, those figures are not related to the particular clause under discussion. I do not intend to put any further hypothetical figures on the record without substantiating them or having the officials do a very careful calculation.

November 30, 1978
Family Allowances


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the mystery grows. Why is it hypothetical to talk about 1980 when presumably it was not hypothetical to give the figures for 1981? A 4 per cent inflation figure was used by the parliamentary secretary. I would ask him to check the record in this regard. Before dinner we were told that a 6 per cent inflation factor was used; now we are told that it was a 4 per cent inflation factor. Be that as it may, 1 do not understand how officials can come to the point of giving us apparently non-hypothetical projection forecasts for 1981, yet when we ask for the base for 1980, they say that is hypothetical and cannot be given. Can the parliamentary secretary explain this?


Alan Gray Martin: The hon. member for York-Simcoe has given as very good explanation why we should not put any more figures on the record which do not basically relate to clause 2. As soon as we attempt to come up with a quick or rough calculation, it is used by the hon. member as a substantive figure from which he can move forward and say, "All right, given that, what is the next figure", and on and on we go.
Basically these figures are not related to clause 2. They were read into the record in an attempt to help the hon. member get to the bottom of his question. 1 believe he is having trouble comprehending his own question, as he carries on with the rhetoric. The figures we gave him were examples containing very many assumptions. The 1981 figures referring to the costs and savings in the new program were based on a 6 per cent inflation rate, with an assumption that all other factors would remain the same.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Was it 6 per cent or 4 per cent?


Alan Gray Martin: There were very many assumptions. Basically the hon. member has given his own explanation why I am very reluctant to place any more background figures on the record. It is because he will turn them around to serve his own purposes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I am not using these figures to serve my own purposes. I am attempting to serve the House and the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We have received a budget for fiscal 1980. Surely the parliamentary secretary has not forgotten that. It came in just two weeks ago. It included estimates for expenditures for 1980 and also figures for 1979. An estimate had to be included in those expenditures as to how much the family allowance payments would be in fiscal 1980. We are in the ludicrous position where his officials, on some basis, tell us what 1981 will look like, and when I request the assumption for 1980 in order to perform my own calculation, I am told that those figures are hypothetical and that I cannot have them.
The parliamentary secretary has refused my request once. In all fairness, and in view of the type of confusion we are facing, can he not agree to stand clause 2? If he likes, I can speak with one of his officials in an attempt to explain exactly

what I want. If we can save half an hour, so much the better. There is no mystery about what I am asking. I do not want to prolong the debate in committee, but the committee is entitled to the information. I cannot understand why it is not forthcoming. Can we stand clause 2?


Monique Bégin: No.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I am not agreeable to standing clause 2. The information the hon. member for York-Simcoe is seeking is not directly related to the clause at hand. There are various computations, calculations and figures which could be produced. I am sure that if the hon. member had the opportunity, he would ask for each one of them individually. That would assist him in further prolonging the passage of Bill C-10. We have given him some background information additional to the table submitted earlier in this debate. I do not see any reasonable purpose being served at this time by furnishing additional background information which is unrelated to the particular clause at hand.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary keeps referring to the fact that I am not relating my remarks to clause 2. I suggest they could not be more clearly related to that clause. Clause 2 deals with indexing of the tax credit amounting to $200. We had it established that in the fiscal year 1980 it is estimated this will mean a diversion of revenue in the amount of $810 million. The parliamentary secretary gave us a figure for 1981 based on a 6 per cent inflation rate. He said he thought it would then be $858 million. What I am trying to determine is whether in fact that is going to be the scenario in which we have a widening-or dropping, if you like-of revenue to the extent of that $200 indexed and, on the family allowance side, an increase in expenditure to the extent it is indexed. If that is so I would like the figures, and my point is as simple as that.
Let me come back to this point and perhaps I can accomplish what I am after in this way. As the parliamentary secretary will recall, during a previous occasion he gave me the schedule showing how he arrived at a net benefit of $35 million or, as he has said, a self-financing mechanism which occurs between the tax credit and the family allowance. Included in that schedule, and it is now a part of Hansard, was reference to the reduction in family allowance of $690 million. Can the parliamentary secretary tell me what the gross figure was that they used to arrive at that reduction of $690 million?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, what I think is very important and what is at stake here is a bill creating a new child tax credit using several sources of funds; a reduction in family allowances this year and the freezing of the indexation of family allowances for this year as well. We gave members the figures for both 1979-80 and 1980-81 in respect of the refundable tax credit, the reduction in family allowance, the elimination of the current $50 child exemption and so on. That is a modification of the fiscal exemption for 16 and 17-year olds.
November 30, 1978

We gave all those tables, and this afternoon they were given again at great length. We concluded from those that in the fiscal year 1979-80 the government will be, if I may use the expression, saving $35 million on a 6 per cent inflation assumption. Next year there will be a saving of $45 million based on the same assumption. I explained, as did the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Finance, my co-sponsor of the bill, when he was in the House, that the concept of the refundable child tax credit was based on a self-financing proposal which is slightly in favour of the public purse in the sense that there is a small savings now.
I think the hon. member was very sexist and very stupid in using the example a few minutes ago of the woman going to buy a fur coat. We can see the kind of people he goes with. There are no fur coats in my riding. I want to remind him that the very easy and bad imagery he is spreading around I do not think is shared at all by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Miss MacDonald:: Don't worry; I don't agree with what you are saying either.


Monique Bégin: I think that by using this imagery he is making a profound mistake. This afternoon he was in the Grand Canyon using other imagery which misleads the public. He is assuming, which is the mistake behind all his apparently learned calculations, that if we were not today putting to this House clause 2 relating to the child tax credit we would be cancelling family allowances. He is making an obvious mistake.
The public finance of this country functions on forecasts. He regrets that we do not have the exact mechanism the Americans use, which is a five-year plan. That is another question which has nothing to do with this bill. It is a theory of public financing. He regrets that our forecast is different. We still operate on forecasts, and in next year's budget and the budgets of years after, family allowances of today with full indexation at a rate higher than $20 were forecast. When I came in with the proposal, which the Minister of Finance endorsed, regarding the creation of a new child tax credit the total arithmetic in this proposal was offset against future forecasts of what the total bill for the children of Canada would have been. Because of the nature of the proposal it has to be self-financing. He has not gotten that into his head yet, but I think it is pretty obvious.
We gave details and more details to prove that. He wants to make us look stupid by saying that by proposing a new credit we are increasing the expenditures of the country. He has forgotten that today on the statute books there is family allowances legislation which would cost much more than the plan of today, the indexed one. There is a child tax credit of $50 in the tax system for upper middle class and wealthy people which is worth a lot of money. That provision is on the books today and has not yet been cancelled. It is, therefore, included in public finance forecasts.
The hon. member does not want to accept that. He wants to suggest that we are going to bring the country to bankruptcy.
Family Allowances
This is a profound mistake and I do not think we should continue to play the game he wants to drag us into. We have given all the facts and figures for the two coming fiscal years showing, based on an assumption-and we gave him the points of reference-the order of magnitude of the proposal, what it is all about, with all of its components. I think that should satisfy more than reasonably his need to understand clause 2.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, my question to the hon. minister, who we know is a very bright minister, is a very simple one. She has referred to some figures including a reduction in family allowances of $690 million for the fiscal year 1980. Will she please tell us what the gross figure was from which that $690 million was subtracted?


Erik Nielsen: "We haven't got it."


Alan Gray Martin: No, I did not say that. As the minister has indicated, we have indeed co-operated far beyond what really would be required by reasonable people in terms of answering questions on clause 2 of this bill. However, to show how co-operative we are attempting to be in trying to get this bill passed for the benefit of Canadians who are going to receive some money as a result of this bill, as opposed to members of the official opposition who seem to be doing all they can to retard the passage of the bill and slow down the effectiveness of this new benefit program, let me say that in 1979-80 the old system would have produced an amount of $2.4 billion in total payments. The new system will produce a figure of $1.71 billion.
At this time I would again go back to the fact that those figures are being drawn out specifically to serve the requests of the hon. member for York-Simcoe and are fast calculations made by the officials.
Fet me refer back to the 1980-81 figure I gave the hon. member earlier. I think I mentioned that it was based on a 4 per cent rate. Here is a figure worked out on a 6 per cent rate. At 6 per cent for that same year, instead of being 2.3 million and 1.6 million, the earlier figures I gave him based on 4 per cent, it would be 2.45 million and 1.81 million, again producing a difference of $730 million.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting back here minding my own business and not paying a great deal of attention, because my family are all beyond the family allowance limit. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has spent a great deal of time evading a very simple question and now he magnanimously tells my colleague what are the figures after trying to hide them for three hours.
I want to go back to a comment made by the Minister of Health and Welfare a few moments ago. She pontificated, called the hon. member for York-Simcoe a sexist so-and-so, and that sort of thing. The implication of giving parables has been around for almost 2,000 years, and sometimes making a parable is a way of getting a message across, but I wonder if I heard the minister correctly. Did she say in her remarks that if

November 30, 1978
Family Allowances
we do not go along with her proposals she would cancel the entire family allowances plan? That is what I heard her say, and I am anxious to know whether or not she actually meant it.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I knew that I was the female Jean Chretien with my bad English, but I did not think that it was that bad. Nobody has said that, and I think the hon. member has been imagining things. I see that he is also signing his Christmas cards as he is sitting there, so perhaps he did not listen carefully enough.
I am the minister in charge of family allowances. I am not interested in cancelling them at all. That is the interest of the hon. member for York-Simcoe. I see that the hon. member for Hastings is signing his Christmas cards again. He will not understand the answer if he does not listen and will be up again five minutes from now. The hon. member for York-Simcoe, who just asked the hon. member for Hastings to buy some time for him, does not understand this clause very well. He would like the public to believe that this child tax credit is a new expenditure and would not have existed were it not for Bill C-10. I can tell him that identical expenditures would have been brought in through the actual fiscal exemptions for some children and the actual rate of the family allowances.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to hear the minister say that she in fact did not mean that she would withdraw the family allowance.


An hon. Member:: She didn't say it either.


John Raymond Ellis: The little seals over there are starting to make a lot of noise, but it does not bother me at all. I will take a quick look tomorrow morning at Hansard. Certainly the inference was, as far as I am concerned, that if this bill did not go through she was interested in perhaps cancelling the family allowances plan.


An hon. Member:: Get serious.


John Raymond Ellis: I have all night. I thank the minister for her reply. She is bound to make slams at any member who stands up and speaks, no matter where they come from, whether Churchill or York-Simcoe. I am quite capable of signing this material in front of me and paying full attention to the minister. It does not take that much attention.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, it would be wise for the committee in a very sober sense to realize what has happened here tonight. We are told-and it is on the record in Hansard-that the 1981 figure is $2.3 billion and that after the reduction and certain allowances it will be $1.6 billion. After my pressing to find out exactly what figures they are using for 1980, we finally got it established that the figures were to be $2.4 billion and $1.71 billion. That is the gross figure less the $690 million.
Before I had a chance to ask for an explanation as to why the 1981 figures were actually lower than the 1980 figures, I think they realized that they had bombed on the 1981 figures

and they quickly gave us the revised 1981 figures which are $2,540 million gross and $1,810 million net. These figures are significant because they substantiate the point I was trying to make earlier, that expenditures on family allowances according to their own figures based on 1980 will go up $100 million. If the parliamentary secretary disagrees with that, I would like to hear his comments.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for York-Simcoe has made a mathematical calculation that is quite accurate; 6 per cent of $2.4 billion is approximately $100 million.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, will the parliamentary secretary also be as frank about telling us that the revenue loss between 1980 and 1981 will be $48 million as compared to the base year 1980? Is that not correct?


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, again using 6 per cent calculation figures, the hon. member for York-Simcoe has done a correct mathematical calculation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary agrees when I use 6 per cent, but it is 9 per cent that we should be using. That is the indexing figure for September 30, 1978, and the indexing figure that will be used for income tax purposes. I hope all hon. members will realize when the government suggests that this is a self-financing mechanism that they are overlooking the fact that it is self-financing in the base year 1980 only. From that year on the expenditure will go up, on the one hand, as we have said, using the figure of 6 per cent, by $100 million. On the other hand, on the revenue loss side, again using the 6 per cent figure we will have a loss of $48 million.
If we project that ahead to 1984-and I will not delay the committee to do it-we can see the colossal deficit that will fall in between those two lines. What is so serious about this misrepresentation is that the parliamentary secretary and the minister are using mirrors and trying to confuse us by saying that the figure could have gone up or could have gone down by x amount, so they subtract that, and then they net out the two subtractions, ending up with this figure that they talk about.
The point that I am trying to make is that the only year where they can gain an advantage in the family allowance write-off is in the base year. From then on, if they index both ways their expenditures will go up and their revenues will go down. I hope before we deal fully with this bill that all hon. members will realize this.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe what I am hearing from the hon. member, who is the official financial critic as for the official opposition. Presumably people look upon him some day-many years hence, and I doubt it will ever happen-being minister of finance.


An hon. Member:: No, it will be de Cotret.


Alan Gray Martin: I do not know how to explain the situation any more simply. We have two figures. Going back to his 1979-80
November 30, 1978

figures, the two main figures are $810 million, and $690 million on the other side. If the indexing rate goes up, both those figures go up, not just one. Using his own figures, the $240 annual payment for one child will grow by $21.60 in the following year at the present rate. That is on the outgoing side. On the saving side, as a result of the lower base, those payments would have gone up by $30 from a level of $336. As indexing goes on year by year, we are bringing in additional funds as well as paying out additional funds.
I am sure the hon. member for York-Simcoe understands that. I could not conceive that he would seriously hold himself out as the official finance critic of the official opposition if he did not understand that there are two sides to this matter.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, after over an hour I have the figures established. I think we have demonstrated that, contrary to the rather unfair presentation the government has been trying to get away with, in fact the family allowances expenditure will go up from the base year. The parliamentary secretary agrees that it is about $100 million even at a 6 per cent index rate. Revenues will fall by $48 million, again based on a 6 per cent indexation, which is well below the 9 per cent the government has used as far as income tax figures are concerned.
Before we vote on the bill I hope that all hon. members project ahead on the basis of the figures now in Hansard to see what the impact will be as far as future budgetary deficits are concerned. That is, if the bill passes in its present form. The time is long past when we should accept ministers of finance coming in after the event and telling us they miscalculated, or whatever reason they like to state, and that we now have a billion dollar deficit. The government has stumbled us into a $25 billion deficit for the coming year and they are now putting into position a widening deficit by this plan.
The final question I should like to put to the parliamentary secretary concerns clause 2 which refers to subsection 117.1(1) of the act and suggests adding a subsection (b), which in part reads as follows:
-the consumer price index for the 12-month period that ended on the 30th day of September next before that year bears to the consumer price index for the 12-month period that ended on the 30th day of September, 1977.
As the parliamentary secretary knows, the basis of the CPI has been changed and this month we got new figures. May I ask him if he has some assurance from Statistics Canada that they will furnish comparable figures to allow the base to be taken as September, 1977. Because as I understand it, the comparable figures will not be forthcoming on a month by month basis.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member would not want me to leave one comment on the record without responding to it. We have pointed out that it is not the case that this particular bill is going to have any net effect on over-all government expenditures and widening the deficit, as he has continually attempted to suggest. That is not the case.
Family Allowances
As a result of passage of this bill, there will be a net saving to the over-all cost of the family allowances program in the first year of $35 million, and in the second year of some $45 million.
On the specifics of his question, the inflation rate to apply for next year was indicated in the budget; it will be 9 per cent. I believe subparagraph (b) gives the Minister of Finance discretion to establish the appropriate CPI applicable in subsequent years.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: This could go on all night, Mr. Chairman. One thing I want clearly understood is that the parliamentary secretary's interpretation of the effect of the bill in 1981 and ensuing years is totally wrong. I have taken the pains to try to demonstrate that, from their base year of 1980, in the first year there was going to be an expenditure of $100 million and a loss of $48 million. I hope that will clear up the record for most members, if not for the parliamentary secretary.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Amount deemed paid in prescribed manner.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I listened to much of the debate today with a great deal of interest and watched the minister act indignant from time to time as she threw out charges and countercharges. I have a particular interest in this clause. Of all the things that upset me about this bill, nothing upsets me more than the sexist language in which this clause is written. I am absolutely aghast at the minister saying she is the co-sponsor of a bill written in language such as this.
Let me just read one or two phrases from clause 4 into the record. Dealing with definitions, when talking about family income subclause (2)(6) reads as follows:
"income of the individual's family" for a taxation year means the aggregate of all amounts each of which is
(i)	the income for the year of the individual, and
(ii)	the income for the year of his spouse while married, if the individual
resided with his spouse at the end of December of the year.
I will come back to this later in discussing the whole clause. In the phrase "income for the year of the individual", for the word "individual" read "male". And in the second part where it says "income for the year of his spouse", it does not even specify the "other" spouse-not anything of that nature. The minister then gets up and puts on a great sham show of sexist charges. There was a time in this House when the former member for Vancouver-Kings way would have raised the subject time and again on behalf of the party to my left, but I am not at all sure where that party stands on questions of this nature any more.
This clause embodies not just a repugnant kind of language written, into a bill of this importance, but also, and even more significant, there is a basic philosophical difference here. Certainly there seems to be between the minister and myself. That basic philosophical difference is embodied in very clear lan-
1684

November 30, 1978
Family Allowances
guage. The difference between the minister and myself, in the interpretation of this clause and in the general approach of this bill is the way in which she views the rights and responsibilities of women as individuals and the way I view them.
I am sorry that the minister has not been able to see the point I have been trying to make over and over again during the course of the debate on this bill. Income of women cannot be looked upon as appendages to their husbands' income, any more than they can be looked upon as appendages to their husbands. They are individuals in their own right. That is the way any kind of a change to the tax system should be discussed.
I raise this point because I am extremely concerned as to the way in which the government has been looking at the role of Canadian women in society over the last few months. I am concerned because I see a pattern emerging. This pattern is here again in this clause where the Minister of Finance makes the statement that women are taking jobs away from men. By insinuation he implies that women going into the labour force and increasing their participation in it are the cause of mounting unemployment.


An hon. Member:: He said he has nothing against that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If he has nothing against that, why does he not stop saying it?
Bill C-14 is now being discussed in committee, and the adverse impact of that bill will fall heavier on women than it will on men. We have had group after group come before us who have made that point. We have seen this kind of legislation recently with the changes to the spouse's allowance and in the niggardly approach the minister took toward elderly women.
As I say, this seems to be a pattern that is emerging, and it is seen more clearly than ever as set out in this particular clause. Embodied in this clause is the principle of family income. It is a new principle as far as the Income Tax Act is concerned. The principle of family income has not been written into the Income Tax Act before. It is the first time a provision is being put into the Income Tax Act based on the joint income of spouses.
The minister refuses to acknowledge any connection between the joint income provision in this bill and the principle of joint filing. She has discounted it on a number of occasions. Whether there is a single sheet of paper on which both incomes are added together or whether there is a joint, complex tax form is quite beside the point. It is important to point out that the filing unit for the purpose of the child tax credit is the husband and wife, if both are working. This is very clearly stated in this clause.
I refer the minister to a document that was put out by the Minister of Finance on November 16, the night of the budget. This is a document which dealt with filing units. The document is called "Integration of Social Program Payments into the Income Tax System". In this booklet the Minister of Finance deals with four options of filing units for the purposes

of the income-tested refundable tax credits. The four options include (1) the individual; (2) the primary earner-this is the spouse with the higher income; (3) the primary earner plus spouse; and (4) the family, including children. This clause that the minister has before us clearly uses the third option that the Minister of Finance presented in his integration of social program payments into the income tax system. In this document the minister speaks about this particular option; that is, the primary earner plus spouse; the husband plus the secondary earner, which is the wife. At page 14 of this document he says;
However, a move to any type of "joint filing" for purposes of the Income Tax Act would be very significant, both conceptually and in terms of administrative complexity.
The Minister of Finance recognizes that there is a connection between the two. He considers it very significant. At page 19 of this document, under the heading "Family-Based Benefit and Income-Testing", the statement appears:
Since supplementation is intended to assist low-income families, it would be appropriate to adopt a fding unit which included both spouses.... As noted under general features, any move to "joint" or "family" filing for purposes of calculating a tax credit would involve major changes to the present tax system.
That is the point I want to underline, that the Minister of Finance said it would involve major changes to the present tax system. However, the Minister of National Health and Welfare when she was responding to me earlier in this debate passed it off as having very little meaning whatsoever. I was glad to read that the Minister of Finance recognized that the introduction of the concept of family income into the Income Tax Act is a very major step. On the other hand, the Minister of National Health and Welfare denies there is anything new in the family income provision. It is just the same old thing, she said; all the other programs are based on it.
This is the first time it is built into the income tax provisions. That is what is new. That is what is different, and that is what is major about it. I ask the minister, does she disagree with the Minister of Finance on the significance of this step that is being taken in introducing the family income provision into the Income Tax Act? Does she agree with him that it is a major step or doesn't she? The other night she dismissed it and said that it was already in practice. I would like to ask her as well if she disagrees-and I quote the Minister of Finance-if this step comes under any move to joint or family filing for purposes of calculating a tax credit. The other night the minister dismissed that as well. I hope that she will not answer as she did the other night, when she said that the income tax form used is "just a slip of paper".
I have attempted previously to express to the minister my concern about the concept of family income based, as it is in this bill, on marital status. I have expressed my concern that it is a regressive step to put such a principle in the Income Tax Act at a time when the human rights commissioner is looking into all legislation, but especially if he is looking into the Income Tax Act for discriminatory clauses. This is also a time when society is in transition, a time when a more complex analysis of household units and income would make much better sense.
November 30, 1978

I have raised this matter, as the minister knows, on several occasions. The family income provision in this bill is discriminatory since it is based on the marital status of the individuals concerned. I have read the particular portion of this clause which sets this out clearly. The commissioner of human rights has written to the Minister of Finance expressing his concern about assessing family income as a basis for taxation and social policy. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance could tell me whether the Minister of Finance has responded to the concern shown by the human rights commissioner. The commissioner wrote:
We would like to be assured that the government does not intend to base its future taxation and social policies on the joint income of two spouses, which is not an adequate definition of family income.
That is the definition we find in the bill. The commissioner goes on to state in his letter of November 2, 1978:
The basic principle of using the income of the total family or living group will require extensive examination before its implications are fully appreciated.
I should like to know what views the Minister of Finance expressed in response to his letter.
Aside from the fact that the family income provision discriminates against couples who are married, the principle falls back on the notion of dependency against which women have been fighting for many years. I would have expected the minister to have recognized this. The assumption inherent in the bill is that a man who earns $5,000 or $20,000 or $50,000 shares that income equitably with his family. We all know that in law a wife has no claim on her husband's salary. She may be entitled to half the house should the marriage dissolve, but she is not entitled to half the monthly pay cheque as long as the marriage holds together. The family income provision in this bill presumes that married people pool their income and share it. I hope that is true in many cases but I am sure that in many other cases it is not. Large numbers of married women go out to work to improve their economic status and that of their children. They may need an individual income because they do not get a fair share of the husband's income.
That is the reality of the world we live in, yet this clause proposes to lock into legislation a presumption that the husband automatically shares his income with the wife. The wife becomes a dependant who is looked after by the husband at all times. The family income provision lumps the income of the wife with that of the husband and assumes it to be one income. As a result, many thousands of married working women will be deprived of the child tax credit. As long as women on the whole make significantly less money than men, and as long as they have no claim in law to their husband's income, the family income provision as set out in this clause will hurt them. As long as married working women are looked upon as an excuse for high unemployment figures, as long as their income is regarded as secondary income, any kind of family income provisions will work against their attempt at equality in the work force and in the home.
I should also like to ask the minister what kind of study went into the family income provision as set out in this clause.
Family Allowances
I would like to ask her how much consideration was given to the other options listed in the background paper put out by the Department of Finance. Did she, for example, consider option number four which talks of taking total family income into account rather than just the income of the spouses? Did she consider a total "household income" option? Did she give consideration to any options dealing with individual income? Or did she choose the joint income route just because it was easiest from an administrative point of view? Is that the real reason we find this proposal before us today, one which will, indeed, hurt women?
I should like the minister to tell us as well whether she intends to have those sexist clauses redrafted-


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but her time has expired.


Monique Bégin: First, two corrections to statements made by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands. When she referred to the study carried out under the Minister of Finance, she made a mistake. The book is entitled "Integration of Social Program Payments into the Income Tax System." It is a paper written by officials of the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Finance and the Department of National Health and Welfare. This document-it is particularly boring to read, I must say-studies the avenues existing within the income tax system for the delivery of social payments. Two different task forces from the three departments considered what could be done and which of the four avenues listed in this report would be the best and most equitable. This work was carried out over two years. The last report was submitted to me in March, if my memory serves me well. We did the work at my level and then within the cabinet committee system. So the question has been well studied.
I wish to correct the hon. member further. She suggests the bill is sexist. Bills are boring, as far as I am concerned, in their jargon but the French version, the one with which I am most familiar, is absolutely neutral if there is such a way of referring to men and women. The English version could be improved upon as far as I can see. If there is a discrimination in this bill it is that the cheque goes to the mothers in the vast majority of cases, except where fathers have legal custody.
I am very proud of that feature of the bill. It is a discrimination. It could go to fathers, but it is going to mothers. That is something of which I am particularly proud. That means $120 million more net money-after compensating in my calculation for the slight reductions in the family allowances-in the hands of women in Canada who are at the low end of the middle class and at the low end of the social and economic class of the country. This amounts to economic independence in the hands of women. It is exactly what I wanted, and I am very pleased about it. It is money for children, but it must go through the hands of adults. We had to choose which adults. After much discussion we on this side of the House chose women. This money will be good money. There were opposite
1686

November 30, 1978
Family Allowances
viewpoints on that question. We chose women. It is a discrimination, I acknowledge that, and I am very proud of it. I have waited and waited, but again this morning in the Globe and Mail there was a long article tending to depict this bill as being discriminatory against women. I cannot accept that, because that is not true.
I would like to point out a few truths to the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands. She knows and I know very well that ideologies at times carry us away from a few realities. I suggest to my hon. colleague that she is becoming impractical when she pushes an ideology to the ultimate. She loses track of the realities of families and of life. In fact, she is attaching her name and her credibility to a very elitist argument. In lower middle class and poor families women and husbands work together. Each knows what the other earns. Their money is put together. There never is enough money. The economic autonomy which is the symbol of some women's movements happens only in rich social classes. In those classes wives do not work outside, and husbands do not give their wives enough of their salaries. That is not what happens in poor families and in the lower middle classes.
The view being pushed by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands is a mistake. The arguments she is putting forward are clearly not applicable here, and she has taken an elitist view regarding the economic independence of women. By equipping mothers in the poor classes with $120 million more, we are equipping them with economic autonomy. That is very important. That is not discrimination.
I would like to remind the hon. member that numerous women's groups are supporting this bill. Native Indian women are supporting this bill. The National Advisory Council on the Status of Women is supporting this bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A Liberal patsy group.


Monique Bégin: The Quebec Women's Federation supports that bill. I repeat it.

The Quebec Women's Federation, of which I am a co-founder, supports this bill. That federation has told us so. We have documents. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women supports this bill. The Liberal Women's Commission supports this bill.
[ Translation]
The Quebec Action and Information System for Women, the AISW of Quebec-

-supports this bill as well. I could go on and on. In order to be just and fair, I said earlier that women's groups in this country regret that to do what we have done we had to reduce family allowances. I appreciate that. It is about time women fought for their share of government programs. I regret that too, but this tax credit is supported by women. The opposite is not the case.
I would like to remind my hon. colleague of two other dimensions. I mentioned briefly native women's associations. I want to tell the hon. member that there will be $90 million more for native women in 1979. Is that good or bad? As far as I am concerned, it is good. It is cash. It is economic autonomy. Of course, it is for children. When people have relatively limited budgets, it is always for children, but it goes to mothers. That is important. Mothers are very good at making decisions regarding families and often are family ministers of finance. I think 90 per cent of single parent families are headed by women, and $30 million more is going to them. From all angles this measure benefits women above men, and in that respect it may be discriminatory. I do not apologize for that; I am very pleased about it.
With regard to the philosophical basis for asking mothers to declare their incomes-and the incomes of their husbands in two-parent families-I want to say to my friend the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who has been my friend in the women's movement until this bill came under study, when she became carried away by ideology, that for years women have been fighting to get fathers to assume parenthood with them jointly. They do not want to be left alone to solve problems, to provide care and to take responsibility for their children.
If that is what the women's movement has wanted, and rightly so, why does the hon. member suddenly want to have it both ways? It is impossible to have it both ways. Both parents are usually responsible for their children. It is impossible to put that responsibility on the shoulders of one of the two. It is wrong and unfair, and the imbalance now existing by which mothers have almost the sole responsibility, for all practical purposes, should be corrected. Women have fought to have fathers assume parenthood with them. This bill has nothing to do with implementing joint filing for tax purposes in Canada.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not according to the Minister of Finance.


Monique Bégin: I have often tried to explain this. I should have brought with me a draft of the single page which will be sent with all family allowance cheques in the month of January. In that draft we discuss a form which will be used to establish the number of children and the incomes of their parents. This bill makes provision for children in poor families and in lower middle classes. It provides more money.
When it comes to children we cannot speak of autonomy of women as opposed to men. This is not the forum for that. We want two parents to be responsible for their children and to exercise their responsibility jointly. When there are two parents and two sources of income-or one, depending on the choices of the families involved-we have to know what amount of money is available for the children. We will ask about that on a simple one-page form. That form will have space for the identification of the mother. There will be a space for her social insurance number, her address and so forth. In the second part we ask for the arithmetic of the family, which means the take-home pay. The form asks for a

November 30, 1978

declaration of take-home pay and the number of children. This will tell us how much is requested in the form of child tax credits.
Then there is a certification. There is space for two signatures stating that this is the truth, the only truth and the whole truth. Those signatures are the signatures of the mother and the father. If there is no father, only the signature of the mother is required. In cases of separation, divorce and so forth only the mother's signature is required. Of course, she will declare, whenever it applies, all moneys or other payments she receives on behalf of her children because those are forms of family income.
This is no discrimination. If there was need for proof, and that is the ultimate proof-I regret it in a sense because it means an additional paper burden on women in the country- each partner in a family will have to file an income tax form separately. So individual taxation, which is the key to the taxation system in Canada, is totally respected here. I hope that next year we will be able to have only one form for the 1.5 million mothers who do not file an income tax return. 1 cannot repeat more clearly that this bill reflects the reality that children depend on parental resources and that parents are jointly responsible for their children. Nothing is more basic to our society or to any society, and that is what the women's movement has strived for.
I could speak and speak on this subject because it is one of my favourite topics. It happens that I want to do things that will help women take their full place in society and get what they are entitled to. Today I am sponsoring a bill which discriminates in their favour, and I am proud of it. I ask: Is the hon. member opposed to the GIS procedure by which every month both partners in a marriage put their income together and declare it so as to get the supplement? What is wrong with that?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: Mr. Chairman, in the short time remaining I want simply to point out to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that no party has a monopoly on fighting discrimination. Certainly if you look at the statements I have made-I admit I am not the kind of member to whom one would instantly refer while reading Hansard-you would find that on November 7 I raised this matter with the minister and with her colleague. We were sitting in almost the same places and we discussed precisely this isssue which was raised at that time by Mr. Fairweather of the human rights commission. So I do not think she can say that this party has been either silent or unconcerned about whether or not there are discriminatory elements in this aspect of the bill.
However, I think the issue is a little more complex than the hon. member has allowed, for the very simple reason that what we are trying to do in this bill, as I understand it-we support it, I want to make that perfectly clear, but I am certainly not sure where the hon. member for York-Simcoe stands on the
Family Allowances
bill after having heard him this evening-is not simply to deal with whether a woman or a husband can file separately. That is not the only issue.
The other question is, what is the income of the household unit, of the family unit which is supporting a child or children. It is a middle class illusion of the worst kind to think that we cannot take into account the income of the family unit because it would give rise to all kinds of other discrimination of an economic nature that is much more profound.
What will you do in a situation where a middle-class lawyer or doctor is earning $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year, his wife is not working because she has children and they have decided that that is the way they want to do things, so she is not making any money? That is a household unit supporting a family. It would be highly inequitable if the poorer members of this population were to support the children of that family because we were allowed to carry out a bourgeois illusion-if I may use that word in the House-that the woman was independent in that situation.
In this situation we are looking at the whole family unit, and we have to ask ourselves not only whether there is discrimination against women, but whether there is discrimination of an economic kind and the money is getting to the people who really need it. That seems to be the critical question.
I have some concerns, which I have already expressed to the minister and to the parliamentary secretary, in that I am not sure that the wording in section 121.1(a) as it now stands really addresses itself to the reality. The reality is that a family unit today is much more broadly defined. Here I agree with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who brought out the same point. Today, the family unit is much more complex than this bill allows for.
I do not wish to put forward an amendment tonight, so I will give the minister notice of the amendment which I propose to bring forward on Tuesday. It will take into account the fact that we have to deal with common law relationships where people are not necessarily married but nevertheless are providing a joint income for the support of the child, and it will deal with a form which will be quite separate from the income tax form, as the minister has already said-and I was delighted to hear it. There is no reason why we cannot have the concept of a family income or household income, and a definition of a household which will ensure that there are no inequities in this system. I gave an example on November 7 but I will give it again. If you have two common law spouses living together and, let us say, they have been separated from their previous marriages, and they have children from those marriages to support but they do not happen to be married, and both happen to have a sizeable income, it would be discriminatory to give that upper middle-class family with a high standard of living a benefit to which they are not entitled in economic or social terms.
I want to say on behalf of my party that the real discrimination with which we are concerned-we have expressed our concern for women, youth and the unemployment problem yesterday and today in committee and in the House and we

November 30, 1978
Adjournment Debate
will continue to do that-is the fact that we want to be certain that under the bill the money will go to those households and families where there is a need for it; and we want to ensure that we keep intact the redistributive effects of this bill. We congratulate the government on the redistributive intent in the bill and we want to see it preserved.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the Elouse.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, on November 14 a Montreal newpaper, The Gazette, published in its daily edition a disturbing article, under the circumstances, about the restricted firearms recall campaign undertaken by the Canadian government. With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a few excerpts of that article entitled:
Guns amnesty may misfire, police fear.
Operation Exchange-the two week old amnesty campaign started by the federal government to encourage people to hand over illegal or restricted firearms-appears headed for failure in Quebec.
Police believe there are about 10,000 illegal firearms in Quebec but say this year's program will fail unless the government steps up its publicity campaign.
"Many people aren't aware of the amnesty program because of poor publicity," said Quebec Police Force Constable Marcel Belanger.

Such are the comments of Mr. Steven Kowch, if my pronunciation is correct, which led me on the following day to direct to the Solicitor General a question which appears on page 1149 of Hansard and which was stated as follows:
With regard to the restricted firearms recall campaign undertaken by the Canadian government and more particularly by his department, could the minister tell the House and the Canadian public whether it is true that this campaign has had disappointing results in the province of Quebec? At the same time, could he indicate whether this campaign is having encouraging results in other parts of Canada?
[Mr. Rae.J
If, in his answer, the Solicitor General said he was satisfied and very much encouraged by the results of that campaign among the general public, he was far from answering my concern about the results of that operation in Quebec, which arose from the statements made by Mr. Kowch. If encouraging, an accurate answer would have enabled me to ignore the statements published in the Gazette, and consequently to regard them as a reinstatement of the frequent regard and absolutely political criticism of the relations between the Government of Canada and the province of Quebec. The people of my province want only to feel as completely secure as possible, and consequently they would have also welcomed a clear answer with some relief. As a result of this incomplete reply by the minister, the concern which Steven Kowch's remarks had raised in me, instead of being dispelled or reduced, increased.
You are certainly aware, Mr. Speaker, that this campaign- which by the way is supposed to end today, unless it was extended-is part of a process initiated by the Solicitor General of Canada to encourage Canadians to register their restricted weapons or get rid of them if they want to. The public must also understand that this service was set up to protect individuals from a possible accusation of simple possession of illegal weapons as provided under the act. Hon. members, needless to say, need not being reminded that the government, in order to maintain law and order in this era of violence which began several years ago, had come to the conclusion that it was necessary to reinforce the Canadian statutes dealing with gun control and introduced a legislation which was adopted by parliament in 1977 and entered into force on January 1, 1978.
We should consider that over a five year period before the adoption of this gun control act, the number of casualties due to firearms increased constantly every year. For instance, the number of suicides which account for the greater part of these casualties increased by 17.12 per cent, the numbers of murders or homicides increased by 27.10 per cent, while, accidents decreased by 19.82 per cent. There is no longer any need to prove the relevance of this measure passed in 1977. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the article I referred to at the beginning of my remarks has created some concern in my mind and among a large sector of the people in Quebec. In the hope of obtaining tonight a clear and precise answer, I will again put this question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General: With regard to the restricted firearms recall campaign undertaken by the Canadian government and more particularly by his department, could he tell the House and the Canadian public whether it is true that this campaign has had disappointing results in the province of Quebec? At the same time, could he tell us whether this campaign is having more encouraging results in other parts of Canada?


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member last queried the
November 30, 1978

Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) on the results of the firearms amnesty program in Quebec and other regions of Canada, the program was only at its halfway mark and results were available only for the first ten days. It was, therefore, difficult at that point to make an accurate forecast of the final outcome.
Today at midnight the program comes to an end. Figures released today by the Solicitor General make it clear that the program has in fact been a resounding success. With statistics only up to November 24, the national total stands at 23,331; that is, firearms of all types brought forward for registration or disposal. I am confident that by the time the results of the last six days are tallied we will be very comfortably over the 30,000 mark for the entire month. That is 1,000 guns a day, most of them illegally held guns now made legal, but large numbers also being unwanted guns turned in in the interest of safety. This demonstrates a tremendous vote of confidence in the gun control program on the part of the public.
I also wish to stress that, based on figures available to date, the program has been a success in all parts of Canada, including Quebec, where for years the authorities have been actively encouraging owners of illegal weapons to bring them forward to police for legalization or disposal.
It has been said that the Quebec figures were too low. Indeed, if one judges only by the rough statistics, of the more than 23,000 guns received to date, Quebec was responsible for only 1,300 or so, while Ontario accounted for over 10,000, over 80 per cent of the guns in all cases being handguns.
In fact, those figures should be analysed in relation to the gun ownership pattern across the country. Quebec, for instance, holds only 8.1 per cent of all the handguns in Canada, according to an extensive gun survey done in 1976 by Statistics Canada. Under amnesty, they account for 5.2 per cent of all handguns brought in across Canada. Although this is slightly below their share of the national stock, the discrepancy is probably more than offset by the fact that under its unofficial amnesty policy, Quebec received about 2,500 such weapons in 1977 alone. It is fair to say that most of those guns would otherwise have quite probably turned up this year. This parallel holds true for other regions, none of which is very far above or below its share of the national stock.
Our Quebec figures are a little bit light due to difficulties in obtaining returns from certain districts. Full figures for all regions will be available next week and I am sure they will confirm that the program has been totally successful in all parts of the country.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-PURCHASE OF HOPPER CARS BY BOARD-CONSULTATION WITH RAILWAYS
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in the debate tonight because of a three-part question I put on November 28 to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. My question was inspired by an announcement that the Canadian Wheat Board was tendering for 2,000 hopper cars to be purchased out of the
Adjournment Debate
proceeds of the sale of producers' grain, and the government was using as its authority section 4(4)(d) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act which gives the board the power:
-to acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property, but the board shall not acquire or dispose of any real property without the approval of the governor in council;
The first part of my question asked if there was a need for these cars. The minister presently has a study costing $650,000 under way on this very subject. The second part of the question asked if producer groups had been consulted. Despite what the minister says, Mr. Speaker, no farm groups were consulted. The advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board, however, was consulted, but this group ceases its functions very soon when their terms expire, and a new committee is about to be elected.
The third part of my question asked if any new or innovative ideas were forthcoming to improve the situation at Vancouver, to which the minister replied no, there were no new ideas.
We see this move as a breach of the spirit of the National Transportation Act. In effect, what it does is change the statutory freight rates on grain without consulting parliament. It is unprecedented in the 40 years of Canadian Wheat Board operations. On this side of the House we feel that the Canadian Wheat Board has been an outstanding example of the implementation of government in action on behalf of the individual producers. It must be assisted by the national government, and we want to keep it that way.
I fear, because the present minister has let things slide so badly, that the board probably had no alternative but to take this unprecedented action in order to focus national attention on transportation problems. This government has a responsibility to act and to act now. The situation at present is that we have greater markets overseas than the Canadian Wheat Board can serve, and there is greater productive capacity on the prairies than our producers have used. The tragedy is that unless this changes there will be no incentive to use the modern technology that is available. It is easier to sell grain now than to transport it to tidewater.
Lost sales, deferred sales, interest and demurrage claims will total well over $500 million this year, something over $4,000 for every permit holder in western Canada. We are sold out right through 1979 and will not be in the market in a meaningful way until after that time. So the story is, lost sales, deferred sales, boats waiting and customers waiting out there.
The question is, how can we make better and more effective use of the system we have? This fall the railways claim that they have unused capacity. If, as they contend they have unused rail capacity in the summer when weather is good, then surely we should be looking at stockpiling or positioning our grain in overseas terminals during that period. It seems to me that in a great port such as Rotterdam there should be a terminal elevator with "Canada" written on it, and a Canadian inspector stationed there so that when a miller sends his barge down the Rhine he will be assured he will be getting the proper

November 30, 1978
Adjournment Debate
grade. We have never allowed one bushel of Canadian wheat to leave this country unsold. I know the old argument, that if you put us in a long position it will force the price down, but in 1978 I cannot buy that.
We have unused capacity at Pacific seaboard in the form of the bulk handling terminals, Canadian Pacific at Port Moodie, Neptune Terminals and Vancouver wharves. These could be used to supplement the existing terminal system at no additional cost. Put the wheat through the terminals, but let us put our feed barley through the bulk handling facilities. Certainly farm run feed barley is equally as good as our export grade. It seems to me that the fastest way to get the price of this grain up is to get rid of it; but instead we continually advertise to the world that we have a tremendous carryover here in Canada of half a billion bushels. Nothing could be more depressing to the world price than a statement like that.
We could have given special over quota privileges at the interior government elevators which would have helped shorten the turnaround time required for the railways. This method was tried in Lethbridge and was found to be very successful. All we needed in Prince Rupert was a commitment by the Canadian Wheat Board and this government that grain would move through there. If this commitment had been given the grain companies themselves would have had terminal facilities at Prince Rupert years ago.
Our western grain farmers go about the business each year of producing wealth for this nation, and I believe that they deserve a better shake than this. It is time for new and innovative ideas as we get ready to move into the 1980s.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, the question relating to the number of cars we might need is a complex one because we have to know how many times they are turned around between the prairies and Thunder Bay or the west coast. We also have to know if we have a minimum number of cars to meet the needs in ordinary times or peak periods, when necessary, even though it be for only five or six weeks.
Railway companies have argued that the number of cars required would be available but it is still difficult to determine how many cars are required. The Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), as he stated this afternoon, are convinced we will need more cars in the very near future.
The Canadian Wheat Board may have a different view from the railways as to what constitutes an adequate number of cars. The board must be concerned with the fact that it might have to pay demurrage charges. Consequently the cars that the Board is planning to buy might enable it to avoid demurrage charges in the future during peak periods of market demand.
Producers have the same concerns as the board and when they were consulted they accepted in principle the proposed purchase. These past few days, the minister supported the

steps taken by the Canadian Wheat Board. However, I must also emphasize the other steps taken by the minister. The branch line upgrading program being over, greater and more efficient use will be made of the cars now available and all those the board might acquire later on. In order to ensure better use of the whole system, the minister announced this afternoon the appointment of an analyst to study grain handling and transportation operations and make suggestions for improvements.
The recently released Snavely report indicates that major improvements have already been made with respect to the use of cars. Nevertheless we have to determine whether it is possible to do more and make further improvements as soon as possible. In concluding, I will say that we can prove that the government took a benevolent attitude towards the handling and transportation problems this country is facing.


URBAN AFFAIRS-ALLEGED FAILURE OF DEPARTMENT TO PROMOTE HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, on October 23 I addressed questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) regarding cutbacks amounting to $116 million in the Canadian home insulation program. At that time 1 did not receive satisfactory or substantive answers from either minister.
When the program was unveiled last year it was described by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as the "key item" in a campaign to reduce the rate of growth of energy use to zero per cent per person by 1985. I do not think anyone would dispute the aims of this program particularly at a time when the conservation of our non-renewable resources is recognized as being more important than ever before. The minister envisioned that CHIP would save this country 50 million barrels of oil a year, which would amount to a saving of $1 billion on the annual cost of imported oil. What is more, the average Canadian who took full advantage of the insulation program could expect to cut his heating bill by 37 per cent. According to the minister, that would amount to a saving of $140 a year for the average family.
After such ambitious beginnings, it was difficult to believe the government announcement that CHIP, barely a year old, would become a victim of this government's misguided restraint program. But it did. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has announced that the CHIP budget has been cut in half, leaving only $116 million to continue the program over the next two years. When I asked the minister if the cutbacks mean the government is abandoning its commitment
November 30, 1978

to help home owners reduce their energy consumption, he replied that it was not. In fact, he suggested he was satisfied with the success of the program and said it would go forward on a much less ambitious scale in future.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain the government is indeed abandoning its energy saving conservation objectives. With funds for the "key item" in its energy conservation program cut in half to $56 million this year and $60 million next year, that conclusion is obvious. These cutbacks in home insulation grants are going to mean a long, cold winter for thousands of homeowners who will be disqualified from the program.
Under CHIP, owners of homes built before 1946 can apply for a grant of up to $350 to cover the cost of insulation materials. As it was originally conceived, the program was to be advanced so that by 1984 all homes built before 1977 would be eligible for grants. The cutbacks mean that the qualifying date for CHIP grants will be held at 1946. This completely disregards the fact that by far the majority of Canadian homes were built after the second world war. Because of the restrictions imposed by the cutbacks, only 20 per cent of Canadian home owners will be able to participate in what is-or was-a very important and beneficial program.
I addressed my supplementary question to the minister of urban affairs, who was responsible for the administration of the Canadian home insulation program through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I regret his answer was no more informative than that supplied by his colleague.
It is a sad fact that only 50,000 of the 1.2 million owners of single unit dwellings eligible for insulation grants have taken advantage of CHIP. I suggested to the minister that the reason for this poor showing was his own department's failure to promote the aims and objectives of the program. The minister preferred to turn this around and he blamed the public for being slow to respond.
The minister's department optimistically claims that more than 100,000 home owners will take advantage of the program next year, which will fulfil all the demand there is. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that if this program was better promoted, and if eligibility was not limited by budget cutbacks to less than 20 per cent of the home owners in Canada, demand for this program would be increased tenfold.
Energy conservation is no less important today than it was a year ago when CHIP was first introduced. In the process of reducing energy consumption, this program has created jobs and boosted industry. This is not the time to cut back. It will also cut out the creation of jobs in the Canada Works phase 2 for senior citizens and those eligible under the CHIP program. That is another problem that we will have to face this winter. It will add to unemployment.
All in all I was not satisfied with the answer to my questions. I hope the parliamentary secretary will have some good news in his brief remarks.
Adjournment Debate


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, this subject was discussed in committee just this afternoon. It is not a question of budget cuts but of utilization of the funds that have been made available. It is true the requests that have been coming have not been coming fast enough to use up the available funds.
When the Canadian Home Insulation Program was first introduced there was concern over the possible impact of such an incentive on the supply and price of insulation materials. As a construction man I was concerned because at that time there was a shortage of insulation materials in the province of Quebec. Even when the program was introduced in Prince Edward Island and another maritime province I was concerned that this would create a further shortage of insulation materials. There was a belief that the manufacturing capacity had not yet been put in place to meet the extra demand that would be stimulated. This was true.
During the preceding summer, manufacturers had not been utilizing their full manufacturing capacity. There was a fear that consumer protection mechanisms had not been sufficiently developed. The government wanted to provide an incentive for people to insulate their homes but it did not want to do so in a way that would result in dislocation of the new housing industry, or put inflationary pressures on materials and cause problems of faulty insulation. Obviously if there had been a bigger demand for insulation materials, it would have had some effect on new house construction.
The nature and amount of grant offered needed to be tailored to a deliberate and responsible introduction of this new factor into the market. Now we have more than a year's experience and it is clear that if the Canadian Home Insulation Program is to meet its targets, some additional inducements will be needed. Obviously the first effort must be to have the older houses well insulated. These are the houses which have the poorest insulation as a general rule. The program has been structured so that these changes can be brought in with a minimum of complication. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation staff have been studying through sample surveys and other means what advice to give to the minister on this matter. He should be in a position to make an announcement within a few weeks.
The home insulation program staff have worked hard and conscientiously to promote the program. Over 272,000 Canadians have been sent application kits, and requests are coming in at the rate of more than 1,500 each week. I have no doubt that ultimately the program can and will achieve its objectives.
In conclusion, I was personally concerned that the demand would be such that the construction market for insulation
1692

November 30, 1978
Adjournment Debate
products would be disrupted by the program. I expressed that concern to the minister at the time, and I was not then occupying my present position. I feel that the way the program has been introduced is the best way to proceed, and as time progresses I have no doubt whatever that the moneys allowed for this program will be utilized to the full.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock a.m. tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m., without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, December 1, 1978