1978-10-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. de Cotret). I move:
That the Minister of State (Environment) table all studies, reports and other documents that lead the government to believe that it would be to the advantage of the forestry industry of Canada to reduce research programs at forest research institutes, and make a statement on motions outlining the short and long-term effects of this decision, in new product development and employment in the forest industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FIXING OF PRAIRIES GRAIN AT FARM MARKET PRICE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Four years ago, the farm producer received $4 a bushel for 3CW wheat. Since then, farm costs have risen an estimated 30 per cent, which makes it obvious that the selling price of $2.49 a bushel, for example in northern Saskatchewan, to the farmer is totally inadequate to cover even the cost of production.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the government should direct that the price of the said grain should be fixed on the prairies at the farm market price of $3.50 per bushel.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Agriculture said "No".


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I move:
That this House notes that on November 11, just 11 days away, we shall be commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the armistice that concluded World War I, and this House believes that this is an occasion to do more for our veterans of all wars than giving them words of praise and, therefore, calls on the government to introduce forthwith an amendment to the Pension Act to provide pro rata pensions for the widows of disabled veterans where the rate of disability was below 48 per cent, it being clear that this House would pass such legislation without any delay at all.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FINANCE


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion of national interest.
In view of the fact that according to the Canada Gazette dated September 9, 1978 the total assets of chartered banks as of July 31, 1978 amounted to $167 billion, that is $20 billion more than nine months earlier; considering also the $13 billion deficit incurred by the government for the same period, I

October 31, 1978
move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That the House direct the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to ask the president of one of the chartered banks to guide him in the management of our finances and teach him how and to lay out our wealth and money to advantage.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, regarding the administration of justice.
Yesterday, in the trial division of the Federal Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Decary issued a writ of prohibition against RCMP superintendent Norman D. Inkster prohibiting him from continuing with the trial of RCMP member William Patrick Radey whose legal difficulties arose, in part, from charges of entering into consultation or discussion with counsel for a judicial inquiry.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. Crosby):
That, in the interests of natural justice, the Crown refrain from further action by way of appeal, that some of the recommendations of the Marin commission of inquiry which reported in January, 1976, providing for fairer treatment for members of the RCMP, be implemented in order that members of the RCMP whom we expect to uphold the principles of justice will be entitled to greater protection for themselves.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: 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 Newfoundland division of CN has cancelled certain trains and laid off employees, in violation of commitments made by CN and by the Government of Canada, and that CN has now directed drastic cuts in capital expenditures and maintenance expenditures for the Newfoundland division for the year 1979, including a reduction in the capital budget for the restoration of track by 50 per cent, or over SI million, and cuts in maintenance of $500,000, all of which will result in further lay-offs of railway employees during the winter of 1979 and ceasing of hiring of extra gangs during the construction season from May to October of 1979, with employment down by 200, and in view of the refusal of CN management to permit the replacement of 12 employees of the bridge and building department of the Newfoundland division who have retired or transferred to CN marine, so that the normal complement of that office is now 41 rather than 55, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House directs the government to order CN to cease their sabotage of the Newfoundland Railway, to advise CN that the government will meet operating losses and necessary capital expenditures of the Newfoundland Railway, which is owned by the government, and to direct CN or other management to make an effort to make the rail a viable mode of transportation in Newfoundland and to carry out the promises made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on September 12, that the railway would not be abandoned but that every effort would be made to increase rail freight traffic.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that the postal workers have now gone back to work, in view of the fact that charges have been laid under section 115 of the Criminal Code against executive officers of CUPW, and in view of the fact that the Criminal Code should not be used in the settlement of labour disputes, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae):
That this House calls on the Minister of Justice to withdraw the indictments.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion can be done with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
*
October 31, 1978



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROPOSAL THAT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS BRANCH BE TRANSFORMED INTO ADVISORY OFFICE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43

Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an important and urgent matter.
Considering the necessity of showing all the required objectivity in the discussions on the position of Quebec in the present Canadian federalism; considering that as full Canadian citizens Quebeckers pay federal taxes and that they are not unanimously prepared to see their money spent for political purposes, possibly against their constitutional option; considering that it would be to the benefit of all Canadians to know and study all the realities of the country without any passion, prejudice or electoralism to inquire on the best constitutional formula which could satisfy both major nations which make up this country, and because this option could be the establishment of a new Canada which would be in line with the diversity itself; and considering that the special committee co-ordinated by Mr. Tellier, from the federal-provincial relations branch seems to be used first of all for the political polemic against a government which was elected democratically, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That the federal-provincial relations branch be transformed into an advisory office for objective consultation without any partisanship, to which supporters of the main constitutional formulas presently put forward could refer in all objectivity.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In a recent letter to the Prime Minister, the Fisheries Council of Canada pointed out that Canadian scientists and research managers have considerable work to do with regard to gathering knowl-
Oral Questions
edge of fish stocks and population dynamics. It is in this area that the federal government has the responsibility and expertise, and it should be directing its efforts there rather than to commercial activities which must be the responsibility of the private sector.
The minister announced his decision to close the department's technological laboratories as part of the government's program to cut back expenditures. I ask if this decision was made after consultation with the private sector. If so, did the industry suggest other methods of reducing the fisheries department budget which would not be harmful to the industry, and what were the industry's proposals?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gives me an opportunity to put a few facts on the record. First of all, we are not closing scientific research in any capacity. We are looking at closing a technological branch. In fact, it is the industry's normal responsibility to develop the product that it wants to put in the marketplace. We have very substantially improved our scientific research capacity in stocks and management and will continue to do so.
1 might say, Mr. Speaker, that the article I saw in the Globe and Mail this morning indicates that one company-which is one of the few public companies in fisheries-has tripled its income. Because of our policy, I think the industry is in a position now to do its own technological research.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, since the need for scientific input has never been greater, due to our extended fisheries' jurisdiction on both coasts and the potential it offers our primary fish processing sector, will the minister indicate, in light of his recent answer, what sections of the work presently being carried out by the laboratories will be turned over to the private sector, and how this transfer will be accomplished so that vital scientific work and the scientists who are now doing it will remain in Canada and be available to all processors?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, again I refuse to use the word "scientific". It is technological research; it is not scientific. I have made it clear that in the area of the primary producers-gear and other developments for fishermen-we will not cut down on the program. There are members of an industry who constantly sign letters in which they ask governments to stay away from certain sectors and to spend less money. Now that their profit picture has improved so much, we have asked the industry if they are interested in developing their own products, in which case we would make an orderly transfer to them. I must say they were less enthusiastic about this suggestion than they were about writing letters of protest.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In the same letter to the Prime Minister, the industry pointed out that the minister's approach is one of increasing intervention and opposition to the private sector. The Prime Minister has stated there is a need to rely on the private sector to create the jobs necessary to improve the

October 31, 1978
Oral Questions
employment situation. Does the minister agree with the Prime Minister, and does he intend to follow his policy? If so, when can we expect an announcement from the minister about the federal fisheries' development program?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member calls intervention is simply the federal department playing the role assigned to it by the present constitution, which is the management of fisheries. That management takes place for two groups, the fishermen and the processors. I indicated that I thought the fishermen should take their turn at bat, and that is what the policy is designed to do.


LICENCES FOR FREEZER FACTORY VESSELS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. The Fisheries Council of Canada, in their letter of September 22, appealed to the Prime Minister to change the direction of the Department of Fisheries and to change government policy on fisheries. They pointed to the refusal of the minister to issue to Canadians any licences for freezer factory vessels to replace the foreign effort and enable our fishermen to catch new species.
Why is the minister refusing to issue licences for new Canadian freezer factory trawlers, when he is now permitting East German trawlers to land fish at Newfoundland's south coast ports to enable those plants to continue operating, presumably because the plants need the fish? Why will he not permit Canadians to acquire their own trawlers and start that process, in light of the fact he is now allowing foreign vessels to land their fish from the Canadian quota at south coast ports?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Fisheries Council and the hon. member did not bother to read a letter which was published in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and, if my memory is correct, in the St. John's evening Telegram in which I said very clearly that if there were enterprises which wanted licences to catch under-utilized species, and only that, I would be willing to look at their requests.
The fact is that catch rates are still such that the existing fleet can take a very large percentage of the fish available to us in the zone in which we have traditionally fished. The East German landing of fish was done in order to help plants that are undersupplied mainly because of the failure of the Gulf redfish. We made an offer that was open to everyone. Companies that wanted to avail themselves of temporary charters to fish selected stocks, which we had not been taking, were invited to do so. A couple of companies responded; the others did not.


John Carnell Crosbie: The letter also points out that there is ad hoc manipulation of fishery resources instead of forward-planning for development. There are now more deals in the fishery than in Las Vegas.

Will the minister tell the House why he is permitting East German vessels to fish traditional species and land them in Newfoundland, and why he gave permission to Bulgarian and Russian vessels to take 400 metric tonnes of herring on the northeast coast of Newfoundland, herring that, had it been landed in Newfoundland, could have kept plants operating and men processing fish? Is it because the president of the union- the minister appears to be his puppet-asked for this concession for the Russians and Bulgarians? What is the explanation of this?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member suggests, the East Germans are fishing for northern redfish stocks which we have traditionally not found economical to take. It is being landed in plants that are undersupplied.
On the second point, yes, I did authorize the sale of 400 tonnes, out of the total quota of 20,000 tonnes, to the Russians. I feel that our fishermen and our industry are not getting out of herring, which has become quite a luxury product, the full return which they should be getting. The industry asked me if there was a way of putting in a needle, and I answered yes.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. According to today's press, the Anti-Inflation Board reports that inflation in food prices is back with a vengeance, with a 1.9 per cent increase in the past month and a year over year increase of 16.5 per cent.
I have here another secret cabinet document of June 20-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -which the minister played a role in developing, and in this document a number of serious possibilities for government action to deal with food prices are spelled out, including special indexing of the GIS, tariff cuts and consumer subsidies. In view of this re-emergence of inflation in food prices, I ask the minister whether the government has done anything about these suggestions.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I am continually making representations to my colleagues and others with respect to food prices, food quality, and so on. In many cases, those suggestions are accepted; sometimes, they are not. But I shall continue to press forward with the suggestions I have made to them.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister has clearly demonstrated, by his answer, that he has had no influence at all, because it is apparent that the government has done nothing. I will direct
October 31, 1978

my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is sitting there with a benign expression on his face.
Since that document dated June 20 states that the cabinet will review by the end of September of this year-not next year-what ought to be done, including far-reaching action, I should like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether that review did take place last month and, if so, whether the cabinet has decided to take any action about food prices.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. gentleman has rapidly erased whatever benign expression I may have had on my face. I can tell him he will not find me authenticating any cabinet document by falling into the trap of his question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The minister had better go back to Rome and get some better advice on how to deal with serious matters, if he thinks that answer will be persuasive.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. Jamieson:: You had better go back to Rome and learn some humility.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Edward Broadbent: My question to the minister is a serious one having to do with food prices, a subject which does concern consumers, if not the government.
Since both the documents of June 20 and an earlier document of June 14-and I quote from the latter document-say that food prices are likely to remain an important economic problem for the next 12 months, and since this was realized by the government last June, is the Deputy Prime Minister telling us that since then nothing has been done and the government can just laugh about it? Or does it intend to take some action?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The government has already taken some action. Last week, as I recall, we sent to committee amendments to the Old Age Security Act which will help to cushion the effects of inflation upon the most needy of the old age pensioners. Today we shall begin a discussion of amendments establishing a new program of child benefits which will mainly help middle and lower income families meet the obvious disadvantages imposed by inflation.
The hon. member has evidently missed a good deal of parliamentary development during his visit to Rome, and if that is to be the result I shall not take him in the future.


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


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns section 57 of the Unemployment Insurance Act regulations. Since this section stipulates that a farm or forest worker must have worked 25 complete days to be entitled to unemployment insurance stamps and since this regulation affects no other class of worker, does the minister intend, in due fairness to all workers, simply to rescind section 57 of the regulations, which is causing real discrimination against the farm and forest industries?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the situation described by the hon. member, and if there is some form of injustice, we will make the necessary changes.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seize the opportunity to draw the minister's attention to the fact that this section causes serious problems for farmers, especially those in Ontario, where many of our families go to pick fruits and vegetables because they cannot get the stamps they would earn in any other industry.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has added weight to his argument by that remark.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Now that the tactics used by the government in the latest Post Office confrontation have raised tensions in the Post Office to unprecedented heights, and lowered the morale of the workers to unprecedented depths, can the Postmaster General inform the House as to his priorities in resolving this critical labour-management situation?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the reports received by the hon. member for Bran-don-So*ris are different from the ones I receive. Reports I receive indicate that workers are back to work: they are working better than they have ever worked.
With regard to the action we intend to take with workers who happened to be in difficult circumstances during the strike, I can assure the hon. member that we will use all
638

October 31, 1978
Oral Questions
possible fairness. Laws and regulations exist and they must be applied, but the other side of the story is that many workers abided by the law and wanted to work despite the fact that their leaders told them not to do so. We have to be fair to these people, who are the most important part of the Post Office work force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to be conciliatory in this matter, I would like to ask the Postmaster General a very positive question. Is he contemplating early action on Crown corporation legislation? Will the legislation be put before key unions, such as the Letter Carriers Union of Canada, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the International Electrical Workers Union and the Public Service Alliance, and will they have an opportunity, because of its very vital importance, to comment on any draft legislation? Is the minister having consultations with them?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between being conciliatory and understanding, and being soft. We intend to be understanding in this situation.
With regard to the second part of the question about meeting with the unions, we had a meeting last Wednesday with all the unions involved in the Post Office. We are having another one tomorrow to discuss the setting up of a Crown corporation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the fact that prior to the erosion of the rights of members of parliament in this House we used to have an opportunity to express our viewpoint on proposed legislation, will similar consultation take place with the House leaders?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, of course if we introduce a bill on a Crown corporation, hon. members of the opposition, no matter of which party, will have the opportunity, when the House committee holds its hearings, to discuss the bill and express their views before it is passed. They will then have ample opportunity to discuss the matter and I can assure the House that when the bill is studied in committee I shall be there to stick up for it and the hon. members can then express their opinions.


REQUEST UNIONS SEE DRAFT LEGISLATION RESPECTING CROWN CORPORATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the most important part of the hon. member's question concerned the draft legislation dealing with the Crown corporation.
I should like to ask the minister whether, in fact, the Department of Justice has now prepared legislation which is on his desk and, even more important, if that legislation is

available, will he give the Letter Carriers Union, CUPW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Public Service Alliance of Canada the opportunity to look at the draft legislation in order to improve it because, as I understand, right now it is a mess?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member got his information-


An hon. Member:: From your office.


Maurice Lamontagne: -but if he were on this side of the House he would know very well there is a procedure to be followed before a bill is put before the House and before items can be discussed relating to labour-management relations, and that is what we are doing with our unions.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns the employment tax credit scheme which was announced initially by the minister over a year ago and was finally implemented in January after one day's debate in the House. Would the minister tell us how successful the program has been, a program which was to cost $140 million and create 50,000 jobs?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the program which was announced was particularly successful in one of the provinces. We have put our officials to work to determine where the roadblocks might be to private enterprise taking advantage of the program. They indicated some of the red tape they thought should be removed, and in effect we have done that in the hope that it would encourage private enterprise to participate in the program.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, presumably, should be directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that while this bill was under debate in the House, the red tape to which the minister referred was drawn to the minister's attention. At that time he stated he did not wish to see first-time job seekers take advantage of the program and that, secondly, to use his words:
One of the objectives of the program is to get people who have been in the work force and are discouraged because they cannot find employment back to work.
Would the minister tell us two things: first, is it true that a mere 8,000 jobs are attributed to this program to date and, second, have the regulations been changed or are changes to the regulations being contemplated so that the minimum manpower registration will now be two weeks, as opposed to eight weeks; and if that is so, how does the minister reconcile his new position with what he told the House last January?
October 31, 1978


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in one breath the hon. member has criticized us for suggesting we should be flexible in that area. That is precisely what we are. We put the new program into place and we wanted it tested to see that undue strain would not be put upon the revenues paid by the taxpayers. Also, the 8,000 people who have those jobs do not think it is insignificant: they got a job as a result of this program and I suggest-


Mr. Clark:: Eight thousand?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I thought the Leader of the Opposition liked to be on the front bench. He is acting much more like a backbencher today.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


An hon. Member:: That is where he should be.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we have the opposition blowing their cool. That is not the way Mr. Paproski told them to behave this week.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT RESPECTING LES TERRASSES DE LA CHAUDlfiRE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works but in his absence I will put it to the acting minister. We would like to know why the government signed a lease-purchase agreement for 1.5 million square feet of space in the Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere development in Hull while they still had an existing lease arrangement for 40,000 square feet of space in buildings in downtown Ottawa which are now largely empty and are still being paid for?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Acting Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the hon. gentleman's question and report it to my colleague. The minister is now here.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I caught the tail-end of the question. 1 think the hon. member referred to the 1,100,000 square feet of leased space. I suggest to him that the allegation is extremely unfair and unjust.
Of those 1,100,000 square feet, a quit lease has been negotiated on 375,000 square feet as of the middle of September. There were an additional 275,000 square feet in Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere for which we have identified a tenant whom we expect to be there in the near future. There are another 140,000 square feet on which the lease expires today, and an additional 130,000 square feet are being prepared for the Department of Supply and Services, the Depart-
Oral Questions
ment of the Environment and the Department of National Defence and will be occupied before the end of the year. If you add all that up, you will come to something near one million square feet out of 1,100,000 square feet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Elgin McKinley: It is still obvious that the minister had leased far too much space for occupancy at the same time. I should like the minister to explain the following. It has been reported that $500,000 a month has been paid for empty space. Can the minister advise us how this extreme waste of the taxpayers' money has been allowed to go on by his department?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, this figure refers to the space that I have just gone over and identified for the hon. member. In fact, as I said, these sums-


Robert Elgin McKinley: How did it happen?


J. Judd Buchanan: -are not now being paid out. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have done extremely well. Many of these leases go back ten years. It would have been very difficult to foresee, ten years ago, that we would now be in the situation where, to all intents and purposes, there is zero rate of growth in the public service and a very significant alteration made by Treasury Board in space allotments. For instance, the department of my colleague in Ottawa occupied some 160,000 square feet, but because of the new restrictions in space allocation, when it was relocated it was cut down to 100,000 square feet. Yet in spite of all those changes we have been able to keep the amount of unoccupied space for which we are paying the absolute minimum in rental.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the decision announced today by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Keable case, which decision fully supports the legal positions taken before the Keable commission by the present Solicitor General and his predecessor, can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House, on behalf of the government, that the documentation which has been denied legitimately to the Keable inquiry will be made available to the McDonald commission?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think that by way of clarification in reply to the hon. member's question it should be pointed out that there was complete and full co-operation with the Keable commission in so far as it was investigating
8006S -41 Vi

October 31, 1978
Oral Questions
specific illegal acts within its own mandate. It was only when requests were made for documents beyond that mandate that the Solicitor General, properly, took the course of action which has now been vindicated by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I should add that virtually all the documents that were involved in the Keable commission are already in the possession of the McDonald commission, and I believe have been for some months.


SUPREME COURT OF CANADA JUDGMENT ON KEABLE COMMISSION DOCUMENTS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a supplementary question, assuming he has seen the judgment and had his attention directed to that part of it which held that documents obtained by the Keable commission, and presumably other Quebec government officials from the law enforcement agencies of Quebec, were held contrary to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act and could not be published without an offence being committed under that act.
-142)
Can the Solicitor General advise the House about the present situation regarding those documents? Are they still in the hands of the provincial government of Quebec, or have they been returned to Ottawa? What is the government's intention in that regard?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to go through the judgment, which 1 felt was a proper one and one in which-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blais:: -found support for the positions which had been taken by my predecessor and myself. I looked at the section referred to by the hon. member, relating to the Official Secrets Act. As yet, 1 have not ascertained where the documents are to be found. But I would like to point out to the hon. member that the judgment itself identifies the Official Secrets Act as being the nominating legislation. It does not matter who holds the documents. If they are classified as being secret, they come within the provisions of that act.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, this particular judgment illustrates the absurdity and the anomaly of section 4 of the Official Secrets Act. It provides that people who might have acquired documents quite innocently and genuinely may, in holding those documents, become subject to a charge, as in the case of Dr. Treu. Will the minister consider recommending to his colleagues repeal or modification of this legislation, as is being done now in the United Kingdom?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the act is quite clear in terms of the classification of documents. There is no doubt that the classification itself is really the basic criterion. Surely the hon. member knows that if people have documents which could be classified, they have

an obligation to make sure those documents are dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the act.
In terms of what intentions there may be relating to amendments to that act, I will take seriously the representations of the hon. member.


EMPLOYMENT
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It arises out of a response which he made on October 17 to a question put by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.
On that occasion, the minister confirmed a directive from his department to the effect that Outreach will no longer consider funding projects which specifically help women. In light of that confirmation, can he tell the House what is to happen to Woman Power in London, Women's Career Counselling Services in Ottawa, and Times Change in Toronto when their contracts run out at the end of next March?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in the ordinary course of events, those particular programs will be looked at to determine how effective they are, whether there are other programs which might be put into place and whether the specific Outreach program is appropriate. That will probably take place during the month of November.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the same date, October 17, the minister said that Outreach programs which specifically help women are not needed because there are many other programs which do that. In view of the fact so many programs which help women have been cut, can he identify the programs which help women who are having difficulty getting employment either beause of age or lack of skills or training?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of the employment strategy of the department and the labour policy committee of my own department, we are looking at those specific areas to determine how we can better give assistance to women who have a particular need in a particular area, be it training or skilled training. We have set criteria for our offices in skill training for tasks not normally done by women. Primarily because of attitude, we have asked our offices to set a particular quota so that women, in fact, will participate in those particular programs and others which are in place.
October 31, 1978


FORESTRY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Environment): It concerns the request made to him by the Forest Management Institute for a task force to look at the future of the Canadian Forestry Service and the development and continuation of federal forestry programs. Has he received that request for a task force? I understand it was delivered to his office on October 12. Has he considered that request? Can he advise the House what he intends to do about it?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see any real value in employing a task force at this particular point. The Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers now has ongoing a series of committees looking at a national forest policy. It is expected they will deliver that document to me next June. Once I receive it, I will be in a much better position to recommend to my colleagues in government where the Canadian Forestry Service should go and, as a matter of fact, what our national forest policy should be.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the report to which the minister refers. Also, I am aware of the time that it will be reporting-in June. The task force requested by the Forest Management Institute is one which would report on December 15, 1978. It would deal with the rationalizing of these programs in relation to the cutbacks.
In view of the short period of time for its consideration by the government, and in view of the concern expressed by Professor McNally of the University of Toronto and others, will the minister reconsider his decision and review the appropriateness of a task force which can report quickly? Also, would he undertake to table the reports of such a task force before the House, so that people in the Forestry Management Institute and others in the forestry industry would know quickly the government's intention respecting the maintenance of these programs which are vital to employment and other areas of Canadian life?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will have another look at the representation made to me. Yesterday I received one report verbally from Dr. Solandt in relation to the forest products laboratory in Vancouver and the one in Ottawa. He made some very good recommendations to me. They were not much different from the ones given to me by my officials in the Canadian Forestry Service. As a matter of fact, I think the recommendations were fairly sound and fit in well with those announced previously by the President of the Treasury Board.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


SALMON ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. On October 14 and 15, he was supposed to meet with a group of fishermen in British Columbia to take part in the signing ceremony of a salmon enhancement program in that province. Even though there have been several years of negotiations, that agreement has not been signed. Instead, he was in New Brunswick. It so happened that a provincial campaign was ongoing: I do not know whether his visit had anything to do with that.
Can we look forward to the signing of that agreement in the near future, as it is vital to the fishing industry of British Columbia?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if it is so vital I cannot understand why the province took so much time responding to the initial draft which we sent them. Now that the province has done so, we are looking at the very fine print: the lawyers of the Department of Justice are looking at the legal language of the agreement. As soon as this is reported back to me, it will be ready for signing. Certainly, the reason for the delay has nothing to do with whether or not I was campaigning successfully in my own riding in New Brunswick.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the provincial officials will be glad to read that answer. If the minister was ready to sign the agreement on October 15, why does he now say he has to look at the fine print, and that they need extra time to negotiate the agreement?


Mr. Malone:: For the "hal-i-but"!


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, at no time did I say that I would be ready to sign. I told the British Columbia minister that I hoped we might sign this agreement when I was up on the Adams River to see the return of the sockeye. As it turned out, the delays-which in good part were caused by the fact that the provincial government took a rather long time to define its own position-were such that I was not ready to go forward and sign the documents.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I have received reliable information that vegetable and fruit importers have been utilizing the depreciation in the Canadian dollar to justify increases in fruit and vegetable prices which are far

October 31, 1978
Oral Questions
in excess of any variation in either the dollar or production costs.
Would the minister undertake to investigate this situation to determine whether any excess profit or price-gouging exists, and report back to the House?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would provide me with the information, I would be glad to look into the matter. I should point out that between July and September there was a 23 per cent decline in fruit and vegetable prices as indicated in the CPI, but it is true that in the past month there have been increases. I would be glad to follow it up if I could get the information.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State: it is a matter that I am sure the minister is well aware of, because it has been discussed in the public media for the last week or so. It concerns the recent employment of Mr. Knowlton Nash as chief correspondent to read the national news, at a reported figure close to, I believe, $90,000 or $92,000. That figure is in comparison with the $45,000 he was receiving as head of news and current affairs.
In view of the fact that there seems to be no audition procedure, that Mr. Nash himself was involved in the negotiations, if not the decision, with respect to the hiring of the newsreader, and that there is some question about violation of the collective bargaining agreement with the staff announcers of CBC, has the Secretary of State initiated any kind of inquiry to find out if the facts are correct in terms of this extraordinary salary which apparently was negotiated for a five-year contract?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the assumptions of the hon. member are correct, but I will be happy to solicit the view of the corporation on his comments and communicate it to him.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: it has to do with what appears to be a rather extraordinary arrangement which has provided for a 20-year monopoly to a food and liquor concession at Montreal's Dorval airport, the details of which seem to be a very highly-guarded secret.
Having regard to the fact that this arrangement is due to expire in 1981, and the fact that there appears to be some

debate within the Ministry of Transport as to whether tenders will be called, and since there is an outright reluctance on the part of the MOT and, indeed, the operator of that concession, to provide details with respect to sales figures, rents, etc., I wonder if the minister, in his capacity as protector of the consumer and defender of the spirit of free enterprise, is concerned about this and whether he or his officials will look into this very serious matter?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my department has jurisdiction over that matter. It seems to me that it would be what one would call a regulated industry and subject to control by another ministry; but I will refer the matter to the proper minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would think that anything pertaining to impact upon the consumer or potential bidders for this concession should certainly interest the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, unless he is simply attempting to protect the skin of the Minister of Transport, if not his own.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are rules and bodies which regulate that particular business. It may not come under my department, but I will look into it.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Minister of Transport.
It has been almost two months since the royal commission on CN operations in Newfoundland reported. The minister, in fact, announced the policy, on behalf of the government, with respect to rejecting the principal recommendations of the royal commission, allowing CN to phase-out their operations in the province. Since that time, notwithstanding the assurances that there would be no cutbacks until the final report of the commission was made, two trains have been taken off, with a resultant decrease in employment with CN, Newfoundland, as a result of declining revenues. I ask, what is the position of the government with respect to the future of CN operations and declining revenues, bearing in mind the commitment the minister made on behalf of the government?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer the question within the confines of the question period. On the matter of the cutback of trains, I have personally made representations to the Minister of Transport. I have no hesitation in saying here that I believe the CNR is interpreting the instructions given them in the broadest possible sense, and I think it is quite inappropriate for them to have done so.
October 31, 1978


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you speaking for the government?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked if I am speaking for the government. When I stand as Acting Minister of Transport, I am speaking for the government. Furthermore, I can assure him that I will also speak out vigorously and consistently for the people of Newfoundland and the workers of Newfoundland, as I have been doing for the past 20 years or more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the Government of Canada must institute discussions with the CNR- this is in the short run-as to the appropriate interpretation of the instructions that were laid down with regard to maintaining the status quo until the Sullivan commission's final report is in. It is my view-and I repeat that I think this is something which we must make clear to CN within the limits that we can control the CN in this regard-that these cutbacks ought to be delayed.
I would further say, without having been invited to do so, that I think the same thing applies with regard to the rate increase on the bus service. I think that both of these matters are linked; that is the position: I cannot in this sense speak for the Minister of Transport as to how.


Charles Joseph Clark: Oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Leader of the Opposition is interrupting or if he has hiccups, but I wish he would let me finish my answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to conclude what must be said necessitated a long answer. I am not sure, because the Minister of Transport is across the street at the conference on the constitution, how far he has actually gone with instituting these particular talks with CN, but I will find out from him. Perhaps he will be here to answer for himself tomorrow.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Acting Minister of Transport, what is the position of the government with respect to the position taken by CN, that because of declining revenues the service will have to be phased-out in any event? Is it the position of the Government of Canada, in keeping with its constitutional obligations, that to operate this service it will have to step in and look at an audited statement of losses; and can the minister tell the House if the Government of Canada holds the position that the government of Newfoundland has to share in these losses?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the last point, with regard to the government of Newfoundland-did the hon. member say the Government of Canada?


James Aloysius McGrath: The government of Newfoundland having to share the losses.
Privilege-Mr. Horner


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the government of Newfoundland having to share in the losses of the railway is concerned, I do not believe that that has ever been suggested. Certainly, it is not anything I have ever contemplated in that particular sense and, to the best of my knowledge, the government has never formulated that idea, whatever CN may have said. There is, of course, the broader question of the whole transportation mix of services in Newfoundland and the costsharing between the two levels of government.
On the earlier question, the CN, of course, makes the point that if the revenues and the business is not forthcoming, then one of two things obviously will have to be done, either the trains must operate without having necessarily paying loads- or, indeed, even being filled on some occasions-or somebody other than CN directly must pick up the losses.
The question of auditing the books is one which is now being undertaken by the Sullivan commission. Indeed, I made a specific request, personally, to Mr. Sullivan, after the first volume emerged, that he look into two things, one being the rate structure of Canadian National, to put to rest one way or the other the claims which have been made that, indeed, it is the rate structure that is largely at fault. I understand that that is now going on.
The second thing that I have asked him to do-and which I am prepared to do in co-operation with other members because the hon. member for St. John's West has asked me about this as well-is to talk with all of the parties concerned. 1 do think-and hon. members, I am sure, will agree-that the business community in Newfoundland must be a part of those discussions, because what we have to determine is whether or not it is possible, given the best good will in the world, to put freight back on to the rail lines. If a meeting involving the business community, the CN and hon. members will help to resolve some of these questions, I would be glad to do what I can to initiate it.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It has long been established practice in this House that we go to great lengths to keep the proper amount of decorum, because the purpose of this House of Commons is to encourage intelligent and rational debate. Therefore, when one's motives are questioned, that must be immediately substantiated or the accusation withdrawn.
Last evening I was not in the House, and this has just come to my attention today when reading the speech of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) as reported at page

October 31, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Horner
616 of Hansard. In the second paragraph of the right-hand column on that page, there appears this statement:
Two years ago they purchased from our side of the House a man to go to sit with them as a cabinet minister.
There is no question in my mind, or in anybody else's mind in this House, about to whom he was referring. Later in the same paragraph he names "the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner)." I am not going to get into a debate on the merits of name-calling-


An hon. Member:: Or the price.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -but I do believe that we want to keep rational and intelligent debate alive in the House of Commons, which we all go to great lengths to do, and I believe the word "purchased" imputes a motive upon both sides-the persons being purchased and the persons offering the bribe. That is what the word means.


Mr. Fraser:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) has something to say, he should rise and say it on his own question of privilege.


John Allen Fraser: This is not a debate I would want to get into.


Mr. Hees:: Jack, the government is asking for a rebate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, to my mind, the word "purchased" imputes a motive upon my services to my constituents and to the country of Canada. I ask you to ask the hon. member to withdraw it because it is unparliamentary. If we are to get into a name-calling contest, I think 1 will do all right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: You have certainly done it before.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that surely everybody realizes the distance between these two front rows in the government and the opposition benches is the length of two swords. If we were to get into a name-calling contest the sword distance would have to be a lot longer to keep us apart, and to carry on that intelligent and rational debate that the Canadian people should be privileged to see and hear.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the statement is imputing motives, it is imputing the fact that I was paid money. I want you to rule on the point I am raising that the statement is questioning my privilege to serve in this House for any other reason than the benefit of my province, my country and my people. I say that in all seriousness. If anybody wants to say that outside the House in the presence of a third person, they will have a lawsuit on their hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Pay your price and get your product.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Orders of the day. This is a lot of nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the course of this intervention I have been reviewing the fourth edition of Beauchesne which I have before me, and I am sure I can take more time to look at other precedents. At page 130, subparagraph 3 of citation 154 deals with the imputation of bad motives. Specific examples are cited. I am sure that this had not come to the attention of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) when he used this language last night and it was not brought to his attention by the Chair at that time, but I want to draw his attention to subparagraph (6) on that page. This paragraph says that "the words 'purchased by legislation' applied to a member of a House are unparliamentary." Under that section on bad motives it is very difficult for me to be absolutely certain but in general there seems to be a very clearcut precedent there. Obviously, where any doubt would remain I would always want to resolve that doubt in favour of asking the member who had used a phrase like that-I am sure without malice aforethought and without even thinking of the complete implications of it-I would want to ask him to withdraw it, to be on the safe side.


Arnold John Malone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I would not want to cause any harm to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner). I should like to change the word from "purchased" to the phrase "given away".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

MR. MacEACHEN-UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE USED BY MEMBER FOR BATTLE RIVER


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I had intended, following the question of privilege raised by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), to raise a separate question of privilege founded upon the same sentence as that to which my colleague drew attention. However, I understand that Your Honour requested the hon. member concerned to withdraw the offending expression. But in the gale of laughter from the opposition benches which surrounded his withdrawal I was unable to determine the nature of that withdrawal.
I should like to look at Hansard tomorrow, and reserve the right to found a separate question of privilege based upon the same sentence. However, I will not do so until I have seen in Hansard the words which were used and which were greeted with such levity and hilarity by members of the opposition party. Given the gravity of the situation, I could not believe it was a sincere withdrawal when it was greeted with such laughter. However, as I say, I will look at the exact words tomorrow.
I say this because there is involved the sentence, "Two years ago they purchased from our side of the House a man to go to sit with them as a cabinet minister." Well, those who are sitting with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce are the ministers seated here, and we have been accused of
October 31, 1978

buying a member of their party to come to sit with us. I think that raises a serious question of privilege, and the words ought to be withdrawn without hesitation or equivocation. In saying so I recall to Your Honour and to hon. members opposite an incident which took place in this House on the last day of the last session when a question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Pictou involving the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). Your Honour ruled that the words used were offensive, and under strong insistence they were unequivocally withdrawn by the Minister of State.


An hon. Member:: Be serious!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In my view the words used yesterday are even more offensive and I do not think they can be settled by a sort of copping out, in the midst of laughter from the hon. member's colleagues who ought to have been ashamed at the words he used.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we can now return to the prior but unfinished question of privilege which was raised by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), after which there had been what I took to be a withdrawal by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone). In this regard I refer back to the point raised by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen).
The Chair is often as troubled by withdrawals of offensive remarks in this House as it is by the offensive remarks themselves. I reflect back immediately to three or four occasions upon which I have asked for withdrawals of offensive remarks, and I think the record will show that I have been met with some very ingenious and very qualified withdrawals which, in the circumstances, I have been obliged to accept. Whether I ought to be more insistent on an unqualified withdrawal in these circumstances is a point which I am not at all disinclined to discuss, and on examining this particular instance I refer the Deputy Prime Minister back to three or four cases in recent memory involving the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and, I think, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
In those cases statements were made which I said ought to be withdrawn. On all those occasions there were presented to the House and to me a fascinating variety of withdrawals. I think we should examine all of them to see whether or not we should be insistent-I am not afraid of this if it is the will of the House-on a categorical withdrawal, not something that carries with it a qualification. In any case, if the President of Privy Council wishes to argue that point tomorrow, I will be glad to hear him.


MRS. HOLT-AFFRONT BY COMMISSIONER FAIBISH, MEMBER OF CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today on a question of privilege arising out
Privilege-Mrs. Holt
of an incident that took place about 1.55 p.m., Tuesday, October 24. The incident, a gross and unseemly assault on me and my office as an hon. member of this House, occurred moments before my scheduled intervention on behalf of thousands of constituents and petitioners before the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission for the express purpose of stopping their harassment of citizens and infringement on the right of free choice on the main cable dial of television in the greater Vancouver area.
I gave notice to you of my wish to raise this matter last Friday, October 27, the earliest opportunity following my return to Ottawa.
My intervention was designed to tell the CRTC that no agency of government must overstep its mandate, that in no way has it a right to diminish or interfere with the freedom of cultural or entertainment choice of the citizens, as it exists now.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that in order to illustrate fully to you the enormity of the offence, I must use, in this House, the explicit language that one commissioner directed at me. However, I feel you can only properly judge the extent and the depth of the contempt by the words he used.
I want to say that I am hardly a neophyte in the world of vulgar, angry men. I have been through the wars of life where men have dominated. In my profession as a writer and reporter I have worked on the streets, in prisons, on skidroads, waterfront-yes, even in exclusive men's clubs and in city newsrooms-where the explicit language of inadequate men is as common as weather talk in a meteorological station.
But I was shocked and stunned when a public servant used assaultive epithets on me as a member of parliament, and thus on my constituents. Some of my constituents were witnesses to the incident, and one actually was struck by a button he seized from my hand and hurled across the space in front of the commissioner's desk.
Mr. Speaker, I will recount the incident and then will give you proof that I was there in my capacity as a member of parliament, that it was an extension of my job here, and, in fact, I could not be here that day because my constituency believed I had a prior duty to serve them before the CRTC in what many B.C. people consider to be a crisis in freedom. Further proof that I was working there before the CRTC instead of here will show in my attendance record this month, as it did in three previous appearances before the CRTC in the past three years. I was acting in my full capacity as a member of parliament.
In the final part of my submission, I will argue the reasons-the law-to show why I feel you should find contempt and a breach of my privilege as a member of this House, and refer this matter to the appropriate committee for action.
I had properly notified the CRTC September 28, 1978, with a hand delivered message to the chairman that I would be appearing as a member of parliament on behalf of my constituents and petitioners in the hearing on October 24, 1978, in Vancouver, on the renewal of cable licences.
646

October 31, 1978
Privilege-Mrs. Holt
The chairman himself, in response to a phone call I made to him, scheduled my intervention for 2 p.m., October 24, to accommodate my duty to be back in the House of Commons on the first available flight, the all-night flight, out of Vancouver to Ottawa.
Between numerous other duties, I worked almost 30 hours to prepare and finish my brief in time for the hearing. The zeroxing of the copies for the commissioners was completed by 1.30 p.m. About five minutes before my scheduled 2 p.m. appearance at the witness table I began to distribute copies of my submission to the CRTC commissioners who were drifting in to take their places at the table following the noon recess.
I was wearing one of the 10,000 buttons that had been distributed to my constituents, petitioners and those people who had called at my office for them and who came in to complain to me about the CRTC and its repeated attempts over the past three years to eliminate all American stations from our primary cable dial in greater Vancouver. The button says "CRTC Stay Out of B.C.". As I handed out the briefs several commissioners asked if I could give them a button. At no time, Mr. Speaker, did I offer a button to them. I carried only a few in my purse.
As I reached the centre table, commissioner Real Therrien, who has always been cordial and responsible in our committees on broadcasting and at the CRTC, asked for a button. He said, "The last time we were here you pinned your previous button on me." 1 asked the obvious question, "Would you like me to pin this one on you?" In the good humour that we were sharing, I suggested that it might be wise not to wear it while sitting in Vancouver. He replied that he would like me to pin it on him.
As I reached across the table to fulfil his request, my hand was grabbed, the button taken from it and hurled across the space in front of the table. It struck a constituent who was standing a few feet from me. The assault on her, I have no doubt, was not deliberate. The person who flung this button and made the following statement was later identified to me as Commissioner Roy Faibish.
Mr. Faibish shouted or snarled. I cannot remember the sound, other than it was one of hysterical anger. I do remember what he said, however, "Get that damned button out of here." I said something to the effect, "How dare you? This is still a free country and you are not giving the orders." I remember telling him at some point that the chairman the night before, at the opening of the hearings, had asked for and received a button from me.
He said that he did not care who asked for the button, that I had better get them out of there or he would, in his words "Shove them up your ...". I hesitate to use the word in here, but you know what I mean.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: I was livid with anger and reminded him that I was present at these hearings as a member of parliament-I was there, hon. members as an hon. member elected and representing my constituents-and that he was the servant and not the master of the people.
He repeated his first threat with, "I don't give a damn who you are, I'd like to shove that button up your-"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: Again I say I am not a shy person, but I think we should all be concerned that a bureaucrat, a person appointed to serve us, would treat a member that way. I am not new to bad language.
I could think of only one thing to say in rebuttal, "You chauvinist pig, I will take this further". I said during my submission, and it is on the record, and the whole commission heard it, that I would take this incident to the top. I did in fact wire the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) details of this incident and had the message delivered to his desk at 2 p.m. Wednesday, October 25, with a copy to the leader of the government in the Senate, Senator Ray Perrault, who is the minister responsible for my constituency.
I might say that several commissioners apologized to me for what happened, and said that the language was uncalled for and the actions unacceptable.
But, Mr. Speaker, it did not end there. I want to point out further that because of Mr. Faibish's actions I was deprived of the opportunity to deliver my intervention with the normal strength and responsiveness that my constituents have grown to expect. I took my place at the witness table seconds after this incident to deliver my intervention. I was so shaken and angry at the contempt of my duty, this, the highest assignment, which you know best, Mr. Speaker, in the whole of the public service any citizen can accept, that my voice quivered and my hands shook. Friends who were watching the television on monitors at the back of the room expressed surprise later and wondered what had happened, since I had gone in there with confidence and was quite cool. Of course, the newspapers ridiculed my quivering weak voice and angry approach. It may be hard for hon. members to believe that there are times when one is weakened by anger.
When I returned to my duties I was advised Friday by my Vancouver constituency secretary that a friend of Mr. Faibish, his apologist in effect Denny Boyd, had published a statement that, I believe, compounds the contempt and adds to another serious offence against my duties as a member of parliament.
I believe, as a result of what Mr. Faibish did later and what he admitted he did in his statement, my constituents failed to receive a proper, unbiased, and full hearing from the CRTC on October 24 through their member of parliament.
Here is the published corroboration of this in a column in the Vancouver Sun, October 25, 1978, by Denny Boyd:
After the shouting was over and Holt began reading her formal intervention statement, Faibish screwed a plug into his ear and listened to the French translation of her remarks. Faibish is not French; he is bilingual, however, and,
October 31, 1978

at that point, he had heard quite enough of the Holt voice. And after all, freedom of viewing and listening choice is what the CRTC is all about, isn't it?
Thus by his own admission to Boyd, Mr. Faibish treated my representations with bias and contempt. This and other articles were evidence that this public servant nurtured contempt in the media, not only for this member but of parliament itself.
It does not matter a whit whether Roy Faibish likes me or my method and style of serving my constituents. In fact even if he despises me, and obviously he does, it does not change the fact that he must respect the office I hold as an hon. member of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I was duly elected in Vancouver-Kingsway to represent the people of Vancouver-Kingsway. This was my fourth appearance before the CRTC in almost four years. Each time I made it clear, as I did in this case, that my constituents and others petitioned me to act in their interest to halt the repeated attempts by the CRTC to remove American television from our rich primary cable dial that we are so fortunate to have in the greater Vancouver area.
We receive six Canadian stations, four commercial American-two of them impaired-and one public broadcasting service. Repeatedly in British Columbia we have had attempts to remove them one after another. Constantly my constituents have written, petitioned, and begged me to work for reversal, which we have succeeded in doing in five different instances. In that respect I was working as a member of parliament here and in Vancouver.
Repeatedly before the broadcasting committee on which I serve, and at these hearings, I have made these complaints clear, as I did before the CRTC, that they were over-stepping their mandate. In these actions and in the interventions, starting January, 1976, I have always stated clearly that I was acting for my constituency and had literally thousands of petitions and letters. I have here a small sample from just this one week before the hearings. These people have asked me to act for them. They have made their anxieties clear to me about their concern over freedom of cultural choice. They have made it clear that big government agencies are diminishing or threatening that freedom, the right of cultural and entertainment choice.
Further and current evidence that I produce to you now to prove that I attended at the October 24 CRTC hearings as a member of parliament is contained in my September 28 notice to the chairman. In it I said:
This is to advise that I wish to intervene on behalf of myself, my constituents and numerous petitioners.
One set of petitions brought into my office is also proof of my appearance as a member of parliament. These petitions contain, I presume, 1,000 to 1,500 names. They are proof that I appeared as requested by constituents and petitioners. It begins simply with the heading "Petition". I quote:
Privilege-Mrs. Holt
Simma Holt, MP will be appearing on behalf of the undersigned at the CRTC licence renewal hearings commencing in Vancouver on October 24, 1978.
It goes on to say:
We demand the right of free choice of television from our cablevision channels.
Possibly the most graphic proof that I was acting as a representative, as a member of this parliament, and that I was seen as such by my constituents, was the writing on an envelope containing a petition requesting that all stations presently on the dial be grandfathered there. It was slipped through the mail slot of my office some time during the night before my CRTC appearance. At the top was a sketch of the button with the words "CRTC stay out of B.C." The letter was addressed to Holt Simma, MP, 303 Knight Road, Vancouver, B.C. At the bottom right hand corner was written:
Thank you Mrs. Holt Simma for fighting for our freedom. We appreciate this very much.
Sincerely A. Nandenberg
The return address was in Vancouver-Kingsway.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that such behaviour toward any citizen, whether member of parliament or private person, by a CRTC commissioner, is totally unacceptable. However, when the witness is a member of parliament, the offence must surely be contempt of this the highest of offices in Canada, and therefore of parliament as a whole.
Certain persons in position of power and influence, of whom Roy Faibish is one, seem unable to conceal their contempt for the elected representatives of the people and the institution of parliament. We have all heard this type of bureaucrat say or imply, "I wish that the members of parliament-or politicians-would stay out of our hair and let us do our job."
It is thus that tyranny by bureaucracy grows. They are not accountable and can do as they wish if they are not stopped. I say that every effort by this parliament, by cabinet, and in this instance by you, Mr. Speaker, must be used to halt this insidious and creeping interference with the lives of the citizens, and to halt contempt of their elected representatives. This may be the start.
Mr. Speaker, I tell you and hon. members that if it is the last thing I do in my life, whether in this place or as a private citizen, I will fight to restore freedom from these kinds of power hungry tyrants whose egos are bigger than their talent.
I must now move on to the law in order to back up these facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: Hon. ladies and gentlemen, I feel I had to state the facts and the proof before I could state the law. If any of you happen to be worth-while lawyers, I know you will understand.
Privilege in the parliamentary sense is the rights and immunities which are necessary, and indeed essential, for the member to fulfil his or her functions. It is the vehicle without which the member could not properly perform his or her functions. Since parliament could not perform its functions
80065 -421/*

October 31, 1978
Privilege-Mrs. Holt
without the unimpeded use of the services of members, privilege is thus enjoyed by individual members.
When the privilege of an individual member of the Elouse of Commons or when the privileges of the House of Commons have been breached, this constitutes contempt of parliament.
However, apart from these rights and immunities, or specific privileges such as freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings, by virtue of its penal jurisdiction the House of Commons has the right to punish actions which, while not breaches of any specific privilege, are offences against its authority and dignity. No precedent is required. If the House of Commons decides that such an action is contempt of the House and requires a punishment, no other court will set aside the warrant when expressed in general terms.
In this regard, a member of the House of Commons has the right to go about his or her business or to perform the functions of a member without being molested, intimidated, or obstructed. Any interference constitutes contempt of parliament.
The British House of Commons on June 6, 1780, resolved:
That it is a gross breach of the privilege of this House for any person to obstruct and insult the members of this House in the coming to, or the going from, the House, and to endeavour to compel members by force to declare themselves in favour of, or against any proposition then impending or expected to be brought before the House.
In other words, when a member of the House of Commons is in the course of his or her functions as a member, such as speaking in a parliamentary proceeding and acting in his capacity as a member, that member is protected by certain specific privileges, for example, freedom of speech in a parliamentary proceeding and, in the event of obstruction-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think there is any difficulty about definitions of basic parliamentary privilege. Had it been in respect of a proceeding of this chamber that this event had taken place, there would not be much doubt. The difficulty that the hon. member has, as I am sure she realizes, is that she was appearing, not at a gathering of the House of Commons or even a committee of the House of Commons, which might leave her in a stronger position, but rather before a public board which, while it may in some ways be an emanation of decisions of this House, nevertheless is a board at which the public can appear. Therefore, that is the area in which the hon. member should concentrate in establishing her privilege, that indeed she was there in her capacity as a member of parliament.
The difficulty is it may have happened to any other citizen, a difficulty I say only in respect of her establishing a connection with a long line of cases of parliamentary privilege which have always narrowed and confined it to proceedings of parliament or parliamentary committees-a parliamentary proceeding of some sort.
I want this in no way to be taken as diminishing the evident affront, which may equally be an argument that the hon. member may want to establish, to her, as a member of parliament, which is alarming in its proportions and its clarity,

I am sure, to every member of the House. That, as a contempt, may be argued. However, in terms of the privilege of attending that proceeding, the hon. member ought to concentrate on the fact that this was a proceeding outside the House. I hope she will state her case in that difficulty.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I know it is not an easy task to determine when a member of the House of Commons is acting in the parliamentary capacity or whether, when you are not in this House or in committee, you are still a member of parliament. However, I feel very strongly that when one member is treated with contempt, not just by a newspaper, it is certainly relevant. There have been cases where contempt has been found as a result of newspaper articles. However, this is by an agency appointed by parliament, and involves a servant of parliament and a servant of the people. I feel very strongly that it is an extension of parliament. I know that if I were speaking before a Kiwanis Club or another group, it would be quite different. I should not have the protection. However, if I were assaulted for having voted in this House, it might well be a contempt.
I do not know whether the case of the Attorney General of Ceylon v. de Livera helps my case or not. I would like to present it. If Your Honour feels that I have already taxed the time of the House, I will not go on any longer. However, I would like to cite that case for your consideration. I feel it is such a gross and ugly contempt that further consideration should be given to it. I will not press my time on you if you feel that case will not be worth-while.


Mr. Speaker:: I only wanted to indicate to the hon. member that it was not the basic definition of privilege that would assist her. Rather, she ought to concentrate on the difficulty that she faces by the evident difference between a proceeding of this House and a public proceeding in which any citizen might participate as a functioning member. I do not wish to restrict the hon. member in any way on any argument she may wish to develop that the behaviour of this member of a public body was contemptuous toward her and therefore contemptuous toward the House, because that seems to be a very strong argument.


Simma Holt: I just have a few more points to make, Mr. Speaker. Had I been there just as a citizen I contend that this paid official, whose salary would be voted in this House in supply, would still be in contempt of a citizen, but it was greater contempt when I was really there as part of my job in place of being here. I think I have adequately proved I was there and was accepted there as a member of parliament.
If you would permit me to continue, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in the case of the Attorney General of Ceylon v. de Livera (1963 A.C.103) the defendants gave money to a member of the Ceylon House of Representatives as an inducement to write to a minister requesting him to abandon a proposal to acquire the defendants' estate. For this they were charged under the Bribery Act which dealt inter alia with
October 31, 1978

offences by people offering gratification to a member to induce him to take some action "in his capacity as such member." The central issue to be decided in the appeal was the interpretation of the phrase "in his capacity as such member." This may be stretching the similarity of the cases, I do not know. But in determining the meaning of this phrase the court threw some light on what proceedings in parliament, or what the real or essential functions of a member are, for the purpose of considerations of privilege.
Given the proper anxiety of the House to confine its own or its members' privileges to the minimum infringement of the liberties of others, it is important to see that those privileges do not cover activities which are not squarely within a member's true functions.
Again, if I were before a board of trade or a similar outside body, I would not expect to have the privileges of the House. But I do feel that as a member, appearing there as I did, and consequently absent from the House, I enjoy certain rights and a certain protection. Similarly, when I am asked by my constituents to intervene before a federal board which was established by and is accountable to parliament for public money, and then, as a member of the House of Commons, I ask and receive permission to present a brief to that board, can one say I am acting only as a private citizen and not in my capacity of a member of the House of Commons? Or, in the words of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, is not my appearance before the CRTC "sufficiently bound up with and analogous to a proceeding in the House as to be properly described as done by a member in his or her capacity as such"?
The difficulty in defining a member of parliament's role is also set out in the judgment in the de Livera case at page 121:
The most, perhaps, that can be said is that despite reluctance to treat a member's privilege as going beyond anything that is essential it is generally recognized that it is impossible to regard his only proper function as a member as being confined to what he does on the floor of the House itself.
In the de Livera case, a member of the Ceylon House of Representatives had written


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the similarities are well understood between that case and the case raised by the hon. member. I do not think the analogy is very helpful. The difficulty in that case was to define the functions of a member of parliament in such a way as to include a bribe. The case before us is really quite different. There is no doubt that the hon. member was before the board in her capacity as a member of parliament. That is really not the point. The argument is whether or not privilege can be extended so far as to cover a member wherever that member may appear, whether in the course of his duties or not. In my view, this case is quite different. Perhaps if the hon. member has any other arguments to address to the Chair as to the aspect of contempt, she would conclude them.


Simma Holt: I was simply citing the principles as stated by the Privy Council. I was hoping to get the benefit of the doubt and that a committee would be allowed to investigate the matter. I was only using the case to cite a principle which should have protected me in my job.
Privilege-Mrs. Holt


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to get these questions of privilege sorted out at least, if I cannot resolve them. I did notice that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) was seeking the floor at the time I recognized the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). I did not observe, however, that there were other members who wished to make a contribution to the discussion of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and I should like to rectify that situation.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my contribution will really be short. I listened intently to what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). I am not one of the lawyers to whom she referred.
I speak for myself as a member, and as a former coal miner, among other things. I certainly think the hon. member has a case and I would plead with Your Honour and your advisers to think carefully about her presentation. There are others who have been brought before the appropriate committee of this House. Frankly, I get fed up with some of the actions of the flunkeys, lackeys, and pseudo intellectuals who are appointed to some of these boards and then act as they did toward the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I hope you will give this question every consideration.


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, and I will not take too much of the time of the House. I just want to make sure that my understanding of the point being made by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), is as I believe Your Honour understood it.
What the hon. member is saying, in essence, is that in our duties as members of parliament we are obliged to attend here and to participate in debates, and that were someone from the outside to prevent us from participating freely in debates, that would be an affront to the rights and privileges of members of parliament and to parliament as a whole. I suggest that the same is true in an extension of that rule to committees. We are obliged to attend at committees and to do our work in committees, and were someone to prevent us from freely undertaking our duties in committees, that again would be an affront to parliament and to individual members of parliament.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway put her case before the House at some length, and 1 do not blame her for that because she was closely and emotionally involved in the incident. If I might telescope the matter, what I think the hon. member is asking Your Honour to find is that our rights and privileges as members of parliament should extend beyond this chamber and beyond committee meetings to meetings which may take place outside parliament at which we are called upon as members of parliament, on behalf of thousands of constituents, to put forward points of view on their behalf. It becomes physically and in many cases geographically impossible for thousands of our constituents to go to one meeting and to

October 31, 1978
Privilege-Mrs. Holt
present in one voice a coherent platform, feeling, or point of view, and often as members of parliament we are called upon to attend on behalf of our constituents before a committee and to speak with our voices for all of them.
I think what my hon. colleague is asking Your Honour to find is that there is an extension of the privileges and rights of members of parliament so that they are able to go before the CRTC or other board or commission to present argument, without hindrance, and without insult. My hon. colleague is asking Your Honour to find that members of parliament should be able to do so freely. I think we would all ask this for ourselves. I think we would all ask that any member of parliament be allowed to go before a board on behalf of his constituents without having to face insults, preventive measures, whatever they may be, or obstruction. I think that, in short, is what the hon. member is asking Your Honour to find.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not intend to get into this until my friend raised a very interesting point, and I think it is very important that we understand the parameters of the case being put by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). As I understand the parameters of her case and what she is asking Your Honour to look to, the hon. member raises the question of her right to appear in an unhampered way before a federal board or commission which gets authority from this House of Commons.
The reason I rise with respect to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Young) is that there was an implication that it might be considered that Your Honour might have authority to go beyond that point, but I do not think that is so because breaches of the privilege which is enjoyed by members of parliament can bring penalties. I think there is a line which must appropriately be drawn, and I want to make sure that Your Honour is considering this matter within the fine distinction made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. We are dealing here with federal boards and commissions.
Members of parliament are not special creatures when they appear before, for example, provincial boards or commissions. I suppose they are entitled to good manners, a reasonable hearing and so forth, but a question of privilege cannot be invoked with respect to any other matter, if there is a question of privilege at all, except matters relating to an appearance before a board or commission of the federal government, created by a federal statute and responsible to report ultimately to the federal parliament. I hope Your Honour understands the distinction I have tried to make.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that I understand the distinction very well. It seems to me that we have three problems to deal with in the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). The first is that the behaviour, described by the hon. member, of a member of a federal commission is distasteful in respect to any person appearing anywhere near a hearing of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. That directs itself, however, to those who

are responsible for appointments and presumably, therefore, for the conduct of people who are members of that commission. That responsibility lies within this House as well, and therefore it is certainly proper that the matter be brought to the attention of those people to see whether disciplinary action or dismissal results from any member of any public commission behaving in this way.
The second problem is the difficulty of extending the definitions or the parameters of that special privilege which attaches to members of this House because, after all, it has to be remembered that it is a special privilege that attaches to members of this House for one purpose and one purpose only, and that really is to see to it that those who are elected here have the right to do the job which is fundamental to their role as elected members.
The increasingly complex role of members of the House of Commons now draws us more and more into appearances before boards. It draws us into constituency offices and related activities which did not exist only months ago, but to argue that because we have a special privilege in respect to being here, coming here and voting here, and that in addition we have obligations of other kinds and that therefore privileges have to go with us, is an argument which just simply breaks down. It does not follow, and to extend this privilege into other proceedings which are not proceedings of this House would be a step which, I am sure, is not warranted on the precedents as I understand them at the present time.
However, I do not think that relieves us of the third difficulty. The suggestion which troubles me greatly as well as, I am sure, other members of this House, is the suggestion that an elected member of this House, in the circumstances described here this afternoon, was treated in what was obviously a most contemptuous and most abusive manner by a member of a federal public board, and in examining whether this member has been treated with contempt by a person I think we are entitled to take into account the capacity of the member in her appearance there, which was obvious and well advertised, as she argued this afternoon.
In addition, I think we are entitled to take into account the capacity of the person who was delivering what we might consider to be a contempt, his capacity at that time, which surely clothes him with some knowledge and some responsibility in respect to his position. I cannot decide at this moment that there has been in fact contempt of a member of parliament and therefore contempt of the House, but that is an aspect of the argument which I wish to consider, as the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) invited me to do. That is an aspect I want to consider very carefully before coming to a conclusion as to whether the House can address itself to this matter as a question of contempt or privilege, and I will certainly study it very carefully.
October 31, 1978

Privilege-Mrs. Holt PRIVILEGE


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MR. MacKAY-AFFRONT OFFERED TO MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER-KINGSWAY
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief point of order. I think all members of the House were shocked to hear the revelation of the treatment which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) suffered, and without prejudice to the very important question of privilege, on which you are presumably still deliberating, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would not be appropriate for the House leaders to request that you, as our chief presiding officer, communicate with the chairman of CRTC and express the unanimous feeling of the House at the outrageous treatment the hon. member received, so at least there will be an official communication expressing what is, I am sure, the unanimous condemnation of the House of Commons of the behaviour of Mr. Faibish. In that resolution perhaps it could be suggested that an investigation would take place and that appropriate reprimands or punishments would occur.
At the same time, on a point of order, I would like to remind my friend, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), that, although he sometimes dwells in the past with respect to his thinking on government policy, my constituency is not Pictou, any more than his is Antigonish. 1 hope he can change that on the record, and I hope it is not an indication of the way he is thinking these days.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who has been seeking the floor on a point of order, let me point out that I would want hon. members to reflect on the suggestion of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). It would be inappropriate for me to take action before the House comes to a decision, but members of the House might want to give their consent, if I feel bound by the precedents to find that technically no case of privilege is established here, to a committee of the House dealing with the matter so that in some way the House could express displeasure, without in any way extending the parameters of privilege. But that lies ahead of us, and perhaps after I have had a chance to examine the precedents we might consider that again.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one short point. Like other hon. members, I sympathize with the comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), but 1 want to make one precautionary point.
I would hesitate to move on this until we hear both sides of the story, because here we are dealing with someone who is on a commission and who does not have the right to defend himself before this body. I know the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway very well and I have no reason to doubt her word, but I mention to you, Mr. Speaker, only as a note of precaution, that before we proceed to condemn anyone perhaps we should hear both sides of the story.


MRS. HOLT-AFFRONT BY COMMISSIONER FAIBISH, MEMBER OF CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. Marke Raines (Bumaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, if I might add to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), may I say that I too appeared before the same commission, and in fact I followed the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. While I support her in every way, I would like to add that she was there in her capacity as a member of parliament, as I was, and further, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to keep in mind that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is a member of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts and as such her work will flow directly back to that standing committee and therefore back to this House of which she is a member.
I would also ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take into account in your ruling the matter of privilege I raised a year or so ago which stemmed from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. At that time, Mr. Speaker, you allowed me to bring the matter of privilege but you would not rule on it.
I submit that in the matter brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and in my own question of privilege, whereas she appeared before a federal body where minutes were kept, and I appeared as a member of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, therefore the matters flow once again back to the House of Commons, where my subsequent vote as a member of parliament, for or against the government, might hinge on the information which I would or would not have gained as a member of the House of Commons.
Furthermore, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you take into account the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was there not only, as she says, quite properly in her role as a member of parliament but also in her strong role as a member of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. That might help you in your decision, Mr. Speaker, to show the link that this breach of privilege had in so far as the duties of a member of the House of Commons are concerned.
I ask you, sir, when you bring in your ruling, to take into account once again my point regarding the raising of matters of privilege stemming from a standing committee of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Tabling of documents.

October 31, 1978
Family Allowances



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of section 55 of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table, in both French and English, Volume I of the Public Accounts of Canada for fiscal year 1977-78.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the questions be reserved.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-10, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide for a child tax credit and to amend the Family Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains one of the most significant social policy reforms of the decade in this country.
On August 24 I announced the measures that form the substance of this bill. At that time I said:
These measures represent a major restructuring of our social programs to provide greater benefits for . .. lower and middle income families with children.
The changes are a significant reform of the child benefit system. They represent an improvement in federal social programs in line with current realities. They demonstrate that it is possible to achieve liberal reform even in the context of restraint in government spending. I am proud to be associated with them.
Support for families with children has been a cornerstone of federal social policy for decades. Let me describe the main elements of the child benefit system in place until now.
Family allowances have been paid monthly to mothers since 1945. In 1974 they were substantially raised and indexed to

increases in prices. They became part of income tax purposes, and thus subject to progressive rates of tax geared to income, to ensure that net benefits were higher for low income families.
In addition, the personal income tax system has provided exemptions in respect of dependent children. There has been one for children under age 16 and a higher one for those over this age. This distinction dates from the days when family allowances were paid only for children under age 16.
In 1977 the government introduced the $50 child tax credit. It was limited to taxpayers with incomes below some $26,000. But it was of no value to those who did not pay any federal tax.
In considering reforms to this existing child benefit system, I wanted to accomplish three things. They are: to make sure government resources were directed to families which needed them most, to couple reductions in government spending with reductions in taxes, and to ensure that the total amount of federal support of families with children was maintained. Along with this, I wanted to make certain that the share of support going to mothers was not eroded.
I have indicated my goals. To achieve them, I am proposing a three point program: first, replacement of the simple income tax credit of $50 per child with a refundable tax credit of $200 per child; second, a reduction in the monthly family allowance to $20 per month; and third, elimination, on a phased basis, of the differential in the basic deduction for children aged 16 and 17.
Now I wish to explain the mechanics of these reforms. I am proposing that the current child tax credit of $50 per child be abolished and replaced by a new one. This new tax credit is $200 per child and, most important, it is refundable. This means it will benefit those who have no tax to pay, as well as those who pay income tax. It means a parent eligible for the child tax credit, but owing no federal tax, will be entitled to a payment from the government. Thus, a parent who has already paid all his or her tax through payroll deduction will receive a cheque from the government. Similarly, those with incomes too low to tax will be paid to prescribed amounts.
It means a parent who owes some tax will be able to offset this against the credit which he or she is entitled to receive. For example, a mother eligible for a child tax credit of $400 and owing no federal tax would get a refund cheque of $400 from the federal government. A mother owing $100 in federal tax and eligible for a child tax credit of $400 would receive a $300 refund cheque. If a mother owes no tax and her husband owes $100 in tax, the mother will still receive $400, and the husband would, pay his own tax.
In addition, benefits are geared to income above the $18,000 level. Full benefits go to families with incomes below $18,000. Above that level, benefits are reduced by 5 per cent of the family income in excess of $18,000, or $50 per $1,000. A family with two children and an income below $18,000 will receive $400. At an income of $20,000, they will receive $300. At $22,000 of income, the credit will be $200, and above
October 31, 1978

$26,000, a family with two children would receive no tax credit. This is a tax cut amounting to some $810 million a year. It goes mainly to lower income families with children, and represents a major new social reform. In fact it will create an increase in disposable incomes for families below the poverty line in the amount of $156 million.
This is the first federal refundable tax credit. Many have criticized tax cuts which failed to help those in need. This government progressively has eliminated taxes on lower income Canadians through measures such as tax indexing and federal tax reduction. Now we are using the tax system in order to go further, actually to supplement the incomes of such families directly. This is a responsible measure designed in a humane and careful way to re-order government priorities to help those in need. But I want to introduce a note of caution here. This bill is not the beginning of a round of social welfare measures disguised as tax reductions. The costs of this program will not balloon out of proportion.
In overhauling the child tax credit, I had the benefit of thorough study and analysis. This study goes back several years. It involved finding out how the tax system might better be used to provide social benefits. First it was the subject of careful analysis in the federal-provincial social security review conducted in 1973. The federal government set up an interdepartmental committee in 1976, headed by my department, to study the possibility of integrating social program payments with the personal income tax system. This committee examined the matter for more than a year, with particular emphasis on the child benefit area. It is this extensive review which forms the basis for the measures before you today.
The second major proposal in the bill is the reduction in family allowance payments to $20 per child per month. The savings in federal expenditures amount to approximately $690 million a year. They will go toward partially financing the new credit to which I have just referred.
[ Translation]
The third change is the elimination of the differential in the amount of exemption for children of ages 16 and 17.
The exemption has been higher for these children because originally they were not eligible for family allowances. Now that family allowances are available to children up to the age of 18, I am proposing to rationalize the exemption system under the Income Tax Act. The amount of exemption will be uniform for all children under the age of 18. However, this change will be phased in. Thus, children who are currently 16 and 17 years of age will continue to qualify for the higher exemption.
The changes that I have outlined are virtually self-financing. The reduction in expenditures is $690 million in 1979-80, with a net reduction in revenue of $655 million. The revenue reduction works out this way. First, the new child tax credit reduces tax revenues by $810 million. As family allowances are reduced there is less tax revenue, some $130 million less. The elimination of the $50 child tax credit saves $260 million
Family Allowances
and the phased elimination of the differential in the exemption for 16 and 17 year old children saves $25 million in the first year. The net reduction in revenues is thus $655 million.
Mr. Speaker, the new tax credit will be claimable by and payable to the person who receives the family allowance. This will normally be the mother. Thus, while mothers face a reduction in family allowance payments they are the beneficiaries of the new credit. Essentially, these measures will aim federal child benefits at those who need them most. This is accomplished without increasing federal financial requirements. It is accomplished out of saved resources. The amount of benefits going to families with below-average incomes is increased by some $200 million. And as I said earlier, it will create an increase in disposable income for families below the poverty level in the amount of $156 million.
Let me give you a few examples of what this credit will do for a family. A family with two children under age 16 and an income of $5,000 will receive $400 under the new credit. The same family will receive $480 in family allowances for a total of $880. This is $194 more than under the current arrangements. For families with $10,000 of income the gain in disposable income from the changes is $159. Mr. Speaker, at the end of my speech I shall table the figures showing what the various amounts will be according to families and net income.
I would like to say a few words about the timing of the introduction of the measures. The reduction in family allowance payments, the elimination of the current $50 child tax credit and the changes to child exemptions start in January, 1979. The new refundable credit is claimable at the time of filing of 1978 tax returns early in 1979, and is applicable to children qualifying at the end of 1978. The purpose of timing the credit in this way is to maintain the cash flow to families. Lower and middle-income families with children will receive the new credit before they experience the full reduction in family allowances.
I expect this will create some additional economic stimulus, both from the fact that more money will be received earlier and because more of the benefits are directed to lower-income families, those who naturally spend all money they may receive.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to detail for hon. members some of the major features of the new tax credit. First, children eligible for the credit are all those in respect of whom family allowances are payable at the end of the taxation year. This will be all children who are below age 18 at the end of the year. A child born in the year will be eligible for full credit. A child who turns 18 in the year will be eligible for the higher tax exemption that will remain for those of this age.
Second, the credit will be claimable by and payable to the person who receives the family allowance. In most cases this is the mother. Fathers will claim credit in families where there is no mother. Forms for claiming credit benefits will be mailed to family allowance recipients early in 1979.

October 31, 1978
Family Allowances
Third, the amount of the credit will be indexed in a fashion similar to the current indexing of tax exemptions and brackets. The benefits to lower and middle-income families will not be eroded by inflation. Family allowance payments will continue to be indexed as well.
Fourth, the amount of the credit is related to the family's income. Family income is defined to include the income of both spouses supporting the child. This ensures an equitable pattern of benefits. The computation of the credit has been kept as simple as possible. Income will be net income as already determined on the tax form. Families will indicate the number of eligible children and the amount of family income and will claim the resulting benefits.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about the way the credit benefits will be payable to families. Benefits will first serve to reduce any tax otherwise payable by the person who claims the credit. Any amount of credit left over will be paid in full to the claimant at the time of processing of tax returns.
Mr. Speaker, I have detailed the proposals contained in this bill. I have outlined their effects with some care. I believe this is warranted in describing what amounts to a major overhaul of the child benefit system. This bill is fully in line with the commitments the government has set for itself. These were outlined in the address of the Prime Minister on August 1. The measures are a re-ordering of social priorities to better aim benefits to lower and middle-income families, using only saved resources. At the same time, the measures are equitable. The refundable child tax credit, based on family income, is a response to today's priorities through innovative tax policy. It deserves the support of all members of this House.
I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House at this time to table three tables outlining the way in which the proposed changes will operate and their effect on government revenues and expenditures.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to let the minister table those documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the minister want those documents to be included in Hansard or merely to be tabled?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: To understand the debate, it is important to have them published in Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree that these tables be attached as an appendix to Hansardl


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[Editor's Note: For tables mentioned above, see Appendix "A".]


Mr. Chr6tien:: Mr. Speaker, this concludes my comments. I hope that the committee will take the necessary steps to deal very soon with the bill which will enable us as early as 1979 to pay a substantial increase to low income families. It will also show Canadians that it is possible to be more flexible in our fiscal and social policies and perhaps as we did today arrive at a successful agreement.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is right and fitting, Mr. Speaker, apart altogether from satisfying a legal technicality, that this bill should be introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). I have great respect for the Minister of Finance, but he has not a great liking for honourable gentlemen. He has not had an easy time of it, and I am delighted that he has had this opportunity, the first in a long time, to get up in the House and give us some good news, at least news which will be substantially good for a number of Canadians.
I say at the outset that it is my party's intention to support this bill. We look forward to an opportunity to probe the minister's remarks he has made, and the documents that he has tabled, as we get into committee of the whole. The minister referred to the fact that this was the most significant social policy reform of the past decade. That is an interesting observation, because if you examine the record of this government over the past decade you will find a number of significant social reform measures brought to the House.
Many of the reforms of this government have been presented as the be all and end all, or a kind of panacea to cover the problems of equitable and just income distribution in this country, especially to low income earners. In 1965 there was the declaration by the government of a war on poverty. It was an obvious recognition at the time that something was not quite right in our society, that there were people who were falling behind, and that there was a significant proportion of our population who were living below the poverty line, who were being denied an adequate income to provide them and their families with a healthy environment and an adequately nutritious diet.
Then we come up to some of the later social reforms. The bill now before the House, which is being amended, was brought in, as the minister indicated, in 1974. It significantly amended the universal Family Allowances Act by providing for increases in the amount of the universal family allowance payment, added the youth allowance provisions, and provided for indexing to cope with the inflationary situation. That, of course, was in addition to the new unemployment insurance program which was introduced at about the same time, another significant social reform designed to address this inequitable situation in our society whereby a number of our fellow citizens were falling behind. The gap was widening; the poor seemed to be getting poorer and, in fact, seemed to be
October 31, 1978

getting more numerous. We know what happened to that reform, commendable though it may be.
I understand that later this week we will be faced with further amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. We know what happened with respect to the administration of that act. We know that this is the second time since the new bill was introduced that the House has been called upon to change it significantly, either to curtail abuses or cut down on the amount of benefits or tighten up on the qualifications and method of paying benefits.
The fact is that all of these reforms seem to be brought in as a response to the moment without any means of adequate preparation, any adequate study, any adequate forecasting, any adequate-and I do not apologize to my friends on the left-planning. We just go from one ad hoc significant social reform to another, like the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who goes from one dairy policy to another, so that we never know from one year to the next exactly what the position is in Canada. As far as the production of food in this country is concerned, the result is nothing short of catastrophic.
I state that, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is significant and relevant that this bill is introduced by the Minister of Finance. I would refer the minister and the House to the Senate Study on Poverty in Canada, sometimes referred to as the Croll committee report, which was tabled in the other place in 1971. At page 171 there appears the following statement:
Poverty is not only the problem of the poor it is the problem for all Canadians. If it is not checked vigorously and solved, not only will the poor continue to suffer, but Canada as a whole will suffer, socially and economically.
Of course, that is true. When we have one million unemployed in this country, our productivity suffers. That is just common sense.
The report continues:
To eliminate poverty in Canada, we must recognize that economic goals such as national economic growth are not ends in themselves but means to the achievement of ends. Without sustained and stable economic growth, Canada could not afford to take the steps which will be necessary to eradicate poverty.
In my view therein lies the answer to the dilemma of the government-why we have to be faced with one significant social reform after another in the eyes of the government. The fact is that the government is not able to create the economic climate in Canada which would make social reform successful, which would help to narrow the gap between the poor and those who seem to get welfare.
In 1974, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy stopped growing at a great rate. The 3.7 per cent rate of growth for that year was less than half that of the year before. It fell to as low as 1.1 per cent in 1975, which economists told us was the equivalent of zero growth. We have had a less than 5 per cent rate of growth in the last five years and we are unlikely to achieve the same rate until 1983, according to the Economic Council of Canada. The result, of course, is familiar to this
Family Allowances
House and country-it is continuing rising unemployment, continuing inflation, and an economy that has not kept pace with government expenditures. It seems to me that this government has a penchant for dividing a pie that keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller, and it is the poor who suffer.
One of the first things the government did in 1965 when it declared its war on poverty was to set up a special planning secretariat within the PMO, and one of the first agencies to get the axe in the austerity program that followed was that special planning secretariat. It is the innocent who seem to have to bear the burden and the consequences of mismanagement of the economy by this government. The gap widened, notwithstanding studies such as that of Senator Croll, the various agencies, and the ministers of national health and welfare who come and go, show their concern, then leave the portfolio as they found it without any significant change as far as achieving the objective is concerned.
Most economic commentators, even the Minister of Finance, agree that the potential rate of real growth in Canada is about 5 per cent. At least for the rest of this decade, and possibly for the next five years, the rate of unemployment will not fall unless economic growth approaches 5 per cent. If the potential is 5 per cent, then the Canadian economy has not achieved sustained steady economic growth in recent years, nor is it likely to do so in the future. Since 1971, and including 1978, economic growth has exceeded 5 per cent only twice, almost achieved it once, and has been well below it four times. That record is hardly indicative of the kind of sustained steady economic growth referred to by Senator Croll as being necessary to eliminate poverty in Canada.
I have great regard for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), Mr. Speaker. I had regard and respect, although not to the same degree, for her predecessor. We heard him speak in the House when he introduced the bill that is now being amended, and we heard that the indexing of family allowances was going to solve some of the problems of inflation. It was a commendable move, one that received and has continued to receive the support of the House and the country. I have made the point over and over again in this House, however, that the major reason for indexation, as far as the working poor are concerned, is the fact that it is based on the consumer price index which does not give sufficient weight to food, shelter, and clothing. For the poor, eating out is academic; for them, sirloin steak is an unachievable luxury.
Let us examine the cumulative effect of indexing since 1974. In 1974 the rate of inflation was 10.4 per cent at a time when food prices rose by 16.3 per cent. Coincidentally, figures released yesterday by the Anti-Inflation Board show that food prices are currently running at 16.5 per cent this year. During those four years indexation meant an increase of 28.4 per cent in family allowances, whereas during the same period food prices increased by 46.1 per cent, which is the equivalent of the total increase in the consumer price index. Low income families continued to fall behind; the bill before the House is a painful admission of that fact.

October 31, 1978
Family Allowances
One would think that as a result of the more generous use of the Family Allowances Act, indexation which I have just referred to, introduced at about the same time, and a more comprehensive, generous unemployment insurance program, low income families would be able to catch up. But, sir, the reverse is true. They have in fact fallen behind.
Just a few days ago in this House the Economic Council of Canada tabled its fifteenth annual review and they made reference to the fact that in spite of a generous universal family and youth allowance program-I am paraphrasing- and the revised unemployment insurance program, the poor of this country in terms of government social transfer programs are falling behind. 1 quote from the Economic Council of Canada "A Time for Reason", fifteenth annual review, at page 93:
The combined effect of these and other changes was to increase the share of transfer payments going to members of the labour force and their families from 58 to 63 per cent, and the share going to those with some unemployment from 23 to over 30 per cent. The result has been a reinforcement of the incomes of the non-poor. Over all, the percentage of total government transfer directed towards family units with incomes below the poverty line dropped from 45 per cent to about 29 per cent.
The poor continue to fall behind. This government continues to react with ad hoc measures, which in the economic context of the day are not satisfactory and will not in fact achieve their objective.
Poverty, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare well knows, is everywhere. It is not confined to the so-called have-not provinces, one of which I have the honour to represent in this House, and it is not confined to any region. It is in our small towns and it is equally in our large cities. It is to be found in the rural parts of our country, and, of course, it is to be found in great measure in the northern areas and among our native peoples. It is something in this country which we measure in millions. Indeed, nobody will dispute the fact that given the measurement of poverty by Statistics Canada we have fully one-fifth of our population living well below the poverty line. This is something, sir, of which we should be ashamed.
A few days ago the Anglican Church of Canada tabled a report of a special task force on poverty in Canada. I quote from that report. They refer to the fact that:
Roughly one in six Canadians live in poverty. Almost two-thirds of the poor families in Canada belong to the 'working poor', that is, their heads participate in the work force, and work for annual incomes that are often less than they could receive as welfare clients.
That is something we often lose sight of in this House as we talk about unemployment insurance and about the number of people who are unemployed, that is, the plight of the working poor. I have them in my constituency, and I suspect they are in every constituency in the country.
This report goes on to say:
Of the remainder, who depend on the welfare system, 84 per cent do so because they are not capable of earning a living: the disabled, the female heads of young families-
Here is a group, growing, and continuing to fall further and further behind. You talk about equality in this country! It is a joke when one considers what is happening to female heads of families by comparison to their male counterparts.
I continue to quote:
Poverty is concentrated in certain areas, occupations, and educational levels. In the Atlantic provinces, 45 per cent of all families live in poverty; as do 46 per cent of all rural families across Canada. The incidence of poverty is well over 50 per cent in the case of farm workers, loggers, fishermen, trappers and hunters. 89 per cent of low-income families are headed by persons who have not completed high school.
We are talking about the poor in this country, the working poor, or the unemployed, or those who have to get by on fixed incomes. We dealt with this the other day when we were dealing with a bill amending the Old Age Security Act and increasing the amount payable under the guaranteed income supplement. We think of what inflation must mean to them. We think of food prices which have gone up this year so far by 16.5 per cent, shelter prices, the cost of heating a home, the cost of clothing and the cost to the female parent trying to provide an adequately nutrious diet for her family.
I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare: What happended to the Nutrition Canada survey? That was something undertaken by her predecessor. It was a very commendable move at the time when he was minister of national health and welfare. He is now Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde). That survey was completed, it was national in scope and it cost a considerable amount of money. It identified the problem in so far as the poor are concerned. It also indentified that we have serious nutritional problems in so far as middle income earners are concerned, large families, children going to school without an adequately nutritious breakfast, the situation where both parents are working and where the children cannot be given an adequate breakfast, where there is no adequate lunch preparation and they get by on junk food, soda pop, potato chips, and things that have no nutritional value. All too often when these children get to the first meal of the day it is around seven o'clock, because they have to wait for both parents to return home.
The minister's department made a submission to the Senate committee on poverty with respect to nutrition. It is worth noting because it refers to the impact that nutrition has on poor people. It refers to the impact it has on the learning ability of children, mental illness, and retardation. In fact the whole complex nature of the growing child is adversely affected by inadequate nutrition. That submission was made in 1971 to the senate committee on poverty, and we have heard nothing about it since.
If a poor family cannot maintain a child, and has to surrender the child to foster care, and this is a sad commentary, the government must provide the foster parent with two or more times the welfare allowance, plus the family allowance to care for the child.
I do not quarrel with what the minister is trying to do. I merely say to her that in the context of what this government

October 31, 1978

is doing, by the economic mess we are in today, it is the poor, the voiceless poor of this country who have to bear the greatest burden, whether it is with respect to inflation, or the consequences of government mismanagement, unemployment, regional disparity, or any of the problems that flow from the kind of situation that we find ourselves in today.
The number of families in Canada that are below the poverty line continues to grow at an alarming rate. I referred to the number of families with female heads living below the poverty line. In 1969, 41 per cent of the families with a female head were below the poverty line. In 1976 that figure had grown to 43.2 per cent. Last year, 1977, 44.1 per cent of families with a female head in this country were forced to live below the poverty line. The number of families living below the poverty line in Canada jumped by 10 per cent in 1977.
These figures are startling. If they are not, they should be. The number jumped from 645,000 in 1976 to 712,000 last year. The total number of Canadians living in poverty in Canada last year grew by over 300,000. Is it any wonder that we should concern ourselves with a bill of this nature?
I could talk about what the government is trying to do with regard to negative income tax. We will be going into committee of the whole. There will be ample opportunity to discuss those parts of this bill which cause some of us some problem. The confidentiality of the Income Tax Act, for example, is being breached in a very significant way by this bill. We will have more to say about that when we get into committee of the whole.
In order to arrive at a figure for family income, it is necessary to know the income of the other spouse. However, giving the minister the power to furnish information on the income of one spouse to another would be and is, as I have said, a very significant development.
Hon. members have anticipated what the Minister of National Health and Welfare would say. What would a Conservative government do? What would the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) do if he were the Prime Minister of Canada, and that will be his responsibility in a very short time?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that I look forward to seeing her as the social critic on this side of the House. It is a role to which she is especially well suited.


Miss Begin:: What is he going to do? How much will he do for the children?


James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister of National Health and Welfare is very, very sensitive these days. She knows how spectacularly unsuccessful the government of which she is a member has been in addressing the problem of the growing disparity between the poor of this country and the rich.
Family Allowances


Mr. Martin:: Rubbish!


James Aloysius McGrath: 
James Aloysius McGrath: I do not know what the minister is saying. I am looking forward to her speech.


Monique Bégin: What is your social policy?


James Aloysius McGrath: 
James Aloysius McGrath: That is like the rich homeowner who will participate in the provisions for income tax. Is the minister saying that only the rich will participate? What about the middle income woman who wants to stay home but has no pensionable income and faces poverty because this government would cut off the spouse's allowance at age 60 if her spouse dies? We believe, as did the minister when she was secretary to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, and my party puts this forward as policy, that it is unjust to deprive the female home-making spouse of the right to participate in the Canada Pension Plan. The minister agrees with that.


Monique Bégin: No, I do not.


James Aloysius McGrath: She was the secretary of the royal commission which made that recommendation ten years ago and which this government continues to ignore.


Monique Bégin: You obviously have not read the report.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister of National Health and Welfare-


Monique Bégin: Would you read the report? I wrote it.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister's impetuousness reminds me of a hen in a barnyard on a hot rock. She keeps getting up, fluttering all over, not knowing what to do with herself. She


James Aloysius McGrath: If the minister thinks that that statement is not correct, let her get up and identify the recommendations of the royal commission that have not been acted upon, including the one dealing with eligibility of the home-making female spouse in the Canada Pension Plan. I look forward to hearing the minister speak. Perhaps we might even have the rare privilege of hearing the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Rail-ton), who continues to interject from his seat. I know that hon. member would agree with another very important point in our social policy. I refer to the provision whereby people of this country are forced to retire when they reach that magic age of 65. Where does the hon. member's colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, stand on that particular aspect of social policy?
The hon. member for Welland is probably the most dramatic exponent of how productive one can be when one goes beyond 65 years of age. I hope the hon. gentleman will continue to serve in this House with the same degree of productivity, camaraderie and good nature that has characterized him throughout the years.
I could go on. We are all very anxious to hear from the minister. She is sitting here. She obviously has something to say. She knows where we stand. Let's hear where she stands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before I comment on Bill C-10 I must say I always enjoy these exchanges between the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and various spokesmen for social legislation on the front bench of the official opposition. I notice how friendly they become as they engage in these exchanges, and I notice that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) always has a reply that he shouts out at the top of his voice, but he never gives any figures.
I should like him to tell us how much he proposes should be paid as an old age pension or a spouse's allowance. I should like him to tell us precisely how he intends to provide for home-maker spouses something of the equivalent of the Canada Pension Plan and, in the case of family allowances, I should like him to tell us precisely how much it is intended the payment should be. I should also like him to be more specific as to what he intends should be done in terms of income tax adjustments, not only in terms of the amount by which the poor are to benefit but in terms of the many loopholes which exist in the income tax legislation which redound to the
(Mr. McGrath.]
advantage of the wealthy. Maybe some day we shall get specific answers to questions like that from the spokesman for the Conservative party-


An hon. Member:: Don't hold your breath.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but the advice I am getting not to hold my breath is, I think, good advice.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It will all be in the next Speech from the Throne.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) says it will be in the next Speech from the Throne. Well, whoever brings in the next Speech from the Throne, I hope there will be a lot more in it than there was in the one we had at the beginning of this session.
When the announcement was made in August about the change we are discussing today, the double-barrelled change, namely, adjusting the rate of the family allowance and making certain changes in the Income Tax Act, my first reaction was one of pleasure. It looked to me as though the net result of these changes would be to improve the position of the poor in our society, particularly the position of families living below the poverty line, and that the cost of doing so was to be borne by those in the higher income brackets. Indeed, I indicated to the Minister of National Health and Welfare personally that I thought she had won another of her victories in getting this type of change out of the tight-fisted cabinet of which she is a member. I still commend her on getting the cabinet to face up to social problems. My hon. friends over here think I am so impressed by the speeches the Minister of National Health and Welfare makes around the country that I would readily support anything to which her name was attached.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: He is going soft!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this case, though, the bill is introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), and any affection I might have for the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not necessarily carry over to him. Indeed, the more I study this legislation the more questions I find myself asking, and as I try to answer those questions I am afraid I have come to feel that the heart of the Minister of National Health and Welfare was in the right place when she fought for this in the cabinet but that when these changes are put into effect the result will not be all I thought it would be when I first heard of the legislation in August. I thought, then, that here was a plan which would put more money at the disposal of our poorer families, and cause the rich to pay for it. But as I study the legislation, especially the income tax legislation as a whole, it seems to me that though the changes will put more money into the possession of the lower income families, it is the people in the middle income group who will pay the price.
October 31, 1978

The income tax structure is such that at the higher levels just about every change made in the Income Tax Act results in more money for a fortunate few. It is not a new result of Liberal social policy to make the middle income groups pay for benefits granted to those at the lower levels, and it is for this reason I feel strongly that the legislation should be studied further. I did not like the reduction of the family allowance from roughly $26 a month to $20 a month when I first looked at the proposal and noticed there was to be this $6 reduction. Then, on examining it closely, I found that a noble purpose was being met, not by making those in the higher tax brackets pay the cost, as ought to be the case, but by imposing the burden upon middle income people. This is one aspect which ought to be looked at further.
The bill before us is mostly an income tax measure. It contains ten clauses, only one of which amends the Family Allowances Act; all the others amend the Income Tax Act. We shall have to look at this more closely.
There is one point upon which you and I will agree, Mr. Speaker, namely, that it is five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 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 Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)- Finance-Grants in lieu of taxes; the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher)-External Affairs-Supplying arms to Southern Africa; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Health and Welfare-Policy regarding extended use of social insurance numbers.
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, public bills, private bills, and notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think that the House is willing to give its unanimous consent to proceed with the consideration of Bill C-203 standing in the name of the hon. member
Income Tax Act
for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and that the previous bills be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall order No. 1, in the
name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan), stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall order No. 2, in the
name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams), be allowed to stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West) moved: that Bill C-203, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an amending bill. It is very simple in form. It consists of two clauses. It seeks to delete from the Income Tax Act two subsections of section 234. It calls for its provisions to be retroactive to January 1, 1977, when subsections (5) and (6) came into force.
This bill appears for the second time on the order paper, it having appeared early in the last session when I put it on. This bill arises by reason of the fact that the guillotine was used in passing Bill C-22 in 1976. That bill was an income tax amendment bill arising out of the budget delivered previously, and this provision was one of those little provisions which was sneaked in. It is purely bureaucratic policy. It has nothing to do with government policy except to this extent: in the period since 1964 when the concept of the social insurance number was introduced the concept has been moving step by step toward a total identity card, and a total requirement for an identity card.
The way the social insurance number is applied is very unfair. It is fortunate in one way, and yet unfortunate that this House got to clause 65 of Bill C-22 when the guillotine fell, but when clause 75, which contained subsections (5) and (6) of section 234, came along, there was no question of any debate or discussion. However, fortunately some of us here who were aware of what was happening called out "on division", and so therefore we are not hemming and hawing when I present this bill.
What do subsections (5) and (6) of section 234 of the Income Tax Act provide? I will read them as follows:

October 31, 1978
Income Tax Act
(5)	Where an amount is to be paid or credited to a resident of Canada who is an individual, other than a trust, in circumstances where an ownership certificate referred to in subsection (1) is required to be completed, and the ownership certificate does not contain a social insurance number assigned to the individual by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the debtor or other person paying or crediting the amount shall deduct or withhold therefrom an amount equal to 25 per cent thereof and shall forthwith remit that amount to the Receiver General of Canada on account of the individual's tax for the year under Part I and shall submit therewith a statement in prescribed form,
(6)	Where an amount has been deducted or withheld under subsection (5) from an amount paid or credited to an individual, it shall, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to have been received by the individual at the time the amount was paid or credited to him.
That has certain implications too. My colleague, the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis), told me today about a constituent of his who is a mother of a young child who some years ago was given a $50 Canada Savings Bond. The bond matured this year. The mother went to a bank or trust company to cash the Canada Saving Bond. The child does not have a social insurance number, and it cannot qualify for one. The mother does not have one either. Why should she? She does not seek unemployment insurance. She does not have to be registered. However, the bank or trust company held back $12.50, to be credited to whom, the child, who is not a taxpayer, or to the mother, who is not a taxpayer? If the bond is cashed, 25 per cent of the face value and of the coupons can be claimed back only in the following taxation year. In the meantime, the government will have had the benefit of the funds. The individual concerned has been denied the value of the Canada Savings Bond which was sold by the government.
Whenever anyone bought a bond, he was told that he would be entitled to the face value at the sale of the bond. Now there is talk about a social insurance number, but millions and millions of bonds are outstanding. Incidentally, over four million people here in Canada do not have social insurance numbers, nor do they need them. Children and young married women who do not work have not applied for social insurance numbers. They are nowhere near being in a position where they might want to apply to either for Canada Pension or old age security.
Social insurance numbers were introduced in the first place so that people could get social security at age 65. Let us go back to the days of Mr. Pearson, who introduced the concept. He was questioned by the then leader of the opposition, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and I have the quotations here. It was categorically asserted by the then prime minister that social insurance numbers would not be used for income tax purposes, but here we have the introduction of a use of the social insurance number attached to a penalty. There is now a requirement. Every T-l or T-l short form filed by personal taxpayers has a space for the social insurance number, but there is no penalty faced by taxpayers filing returns because none is provided. Taxpayers need not be registered for social insurance. There is no law which says that an individual has to be registered. Many of the wives of hon. members do not work and never have, that is outside, in order to qualify for unemployment insurance.

People must have social insurance numbers for purposes of unemployment insurance, but that is a social security purpose. However, millions of people in this country have not worked under those circumstances, and they can file income tax returns without having social security numbers. But now we have this amendment to the act which says that if a person cashes a Canada Savings Bond and that person is not the possessor of a social security number, the bank, trust company or other cashing agency shall deduct 25 per cent. There is no deduction from accumulated interest, but in some cases 25 per cent of the capital is sequestered. That is sheer confiscation, and I say it is unjust.
It was put forward by bureaucrats in the Department of National Revenue and, by God, they would never have got by me if I had been that department's parliamentary secretary, as I was in the past. I can assure you that, if you are a good parliamentary secretary, you ensure that that sort of thing stops when budget books are being prepared. At that time budgets were brought down in the early spring, so therefore budget books were prepared in the early winter months when proposals were put forward from all sides and considered by the interdepartmental committee on finance and national revenue, and other interested persons were called upon to discuss any particular proposal.
[DOT] (UI2)
This looks fine administratively, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the more use is made of the social security number, the more cheating there will be. It is rather strange, but when my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) raised a question the other day, I must confess that I was deeply disappointed in the answer given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) who has become completely the tool of the bureaucracy when it comes to expressing views with regard to the use of the social security number, and likely her parliamentary secretary is too.
This gave rise to some newspaper articles. I will only refer to one in the Globe and Mail and one in the Gazette which appeared today indicating how far the use of the social security card has crept in by agencies which have no blessed business using it, particularly now that there are computers which store and compare data. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said that with a program of millions of dollars she had to have a computer so as to prevent cheating. Has she seen the statistics on the types of cases involving cheating of unemployment insurance, such as cases of people holding 50 or 60 cards? Why is that? Because with the insistence on the social security number, the value of the card increases, and greater and greater reliance is placed upon it as the true means of identification. Then it becomes an absolute sinecure to cheat the UIC in any manner that can be devised.
Certainly today trust companies do not ask the holder of Canada Savings Bonds whether they may see his social security card or the ownership certificate or that the redemption form be filled out. So long as there is a nine digit number that is reasonable for the area, they say, "Thank you very much,
October 31, 1978

madam, that is perfectly fine". It does not mean a thing because, for the purpose of the Income Tax Act, this is supposed to be a cross check. Someone might have Canada Savings Bonds which they should not have, and they are trying to cheat.
I do not know what promoted this because we were not able to question the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) on the reasoning for it, but all I say is that this is a nefarious subsection in the Income Tax Act. I do not know whether members in the House have considered how unjust it is when, in other cases, they say there is a withholding of 25 per cent of the dividends to a foreign owner, or income which you are paying to a former resident and you withhold 25 per cent in order to ensure that your money is covered for a potential income tax. But it is not that, it is 25 per cent of the capital value as well. Therefore, the Department of Finance is lying in its teeth to the public of Canada when it says that people will be repaid the face value of the Canada Savings Bonds they purchase. Now they have added this kicker, "provided you have a social insurance number." That was not a condition of the purchase of those bonds.
Very few bonds that were subject to this condition are being presented for cashing now. This bill only came into force in
1976.	As a matter of fact, it became effective on January 1,
1977.	How about all those bonds that are held by individuals, that were purchased prior to that date and were not subject to that condition? There are hundreds of millions of these bonds, possibly billions of them, a high proportion of which are owned by people who do not have a social insurance number and have no need for it.
I would like to make one last point on this. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that there are many senior citizens in Canada who drew their old age pension before 1964, before there was a requirement for a social insurance number, and they have never had to file for one? These people are over 80. Does anyone want to know what forms of proof of identity you must put forward in order to get a social security number? You can get a passport just as easily. You need a birth certificate identifying you here in Canada, in addition to which you need a marriage certificate, if you are a female, and a secondary form of identification. Incidentally, all those people who were born abroad-my goodness, how many do we have here in Canada-will find that a birth certificate from a country other than Canada is not valid as primary identification. There has to be a marriage certificate, and then something like secondary identification or a tax notice on which a person's name has appeared, or some such silly thing. You ask elderly persons of 85 or 86 to go through this rigamarole to get a social insurance number so that they are able to cash in their savings without having 25 per cent of them confiscated, until they can file an income tax return in the following year, which they are not required to do any way!
To that extent, I ask that the House approve Bill C-203 and give it second reading.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend a few minutes making
Income Tax Act
some comments on Bill C-203 proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I will preface my remarks by saying that I do not in any way profess to be an authority on the tax system or to have the kind of legislative background that the hon. member for Edmonton West has, but having read the bill and after listening to him, I thought I might offer a few comments.
I was perplexed as to the reason why he was so exercised by the subject matter of the bill. I noticed the outpouring of emotion, and it seemed to me rather odd because in my constituency, for instance, the minor hockey league requires that all children have social insurance numbers before being allowed to play on any of the teams which represent the municipality outside that area, and so do indeed some of the other minor leagues, even for house league play, as do some schools for their records. So it seems to me that if this is acceptable, it is not because those organizations have any legislative authority to enforce it, other than to bring some pressure to bear on both the parents and the children who may or may not be able to play in those leagues.
But when we are dealing with a measure which is designed to improve the efficiency of the tax system, I have some difficulty in understanding the hon. member's indignation. During oral questions hon. members opposite have indicated with great moral indignation that apparently the efficiency of government is not as high as it should be. They have asked what ministers are going to improve administrative procedures, so that money can be recovered or at least not lost. If it is acceptable to parents and a large number of other people to have social insurance numbers for minor league sport, it seems somewhat peculiar that such a requirement in the Income Tax Act to improve its efficiency would be wrong.
I should like to respond to some of the points raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. When social insurance numbers were introduced in 1964 by the previous prime minister, the government of the day made commitments regarding the new system. The commitment made was that information contained in application forms for social insurance numbers would be processed and maintained in Ottawa for government purposes, including unemployment insurance and the then proposed Canada Pension Plan. A further commitment was made that the confidentiality of this information would be protected.
No commitment was made then, or at any other time, to the effect that social insurance numbers would not be used in order to identify individuals for the purposes of a common system of government record keeping, such as that recommended by the Glassco commission. The hon. member indicated that the present minister had violated an undertaking by a previous government and prime minister. Perhaps that is not in accordance with the facts. The confidentiality of material on application forms is guarded very carefully. At that time it was stated that the information would be used for unemployment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan and other social measures,

October 31, 1978
Income Tax Act
but no commitment was made that it would not be used as an extension into the common system of government record keeping.
The introduction into the Income Tax Act of the provision for withholding tax respecting ownership certificates which do not bear individual social insurance numbers does not make it mandatory for any taxpayer to produce his social insurance number, or indeed, to acquire one if he has not previously applied for the assignment of a social insurance number because of some provision in the law. If a person chooses not to apply for a social insurance number, and for some reason feels it would be uncomfortable to have one, because of some moral objection against it, there is no requirement that he must. As I understand it, the law requires that 25 per cent of the interest coupon value would be prepaid. It would be credited to the tax system, and it would be refundable if no other tax was owing.
Also I wonder if the hon. member for Edmonton West was correct when he suggested that 25 per cent of the face value of bonds would have to be deposited. I question that. Perhaps I am not the financier the hon. member is, but my understanding is that it would be the coupon value. I am sure the hon. member would agree that the principal of the bond is not taxable, but the coupon value is. In fact the current issue of Canada Savings Bonds do not have coupons attached to them. Much of what he raised in his argument will disappear as we go forward.
At this point in time, I question that there are four million Canadians who do not have social insurance numbers. Obviously that number will decline dramatically if substantial numbers of school children are required to have social insurance numbers for school and minor sports purposes. The most commonly purchased bonds in Canada are Canada Savings Bonds. If those bonds do not have coupons, the use of this procedure would be considerably less.
I hope the hon. member was not implying in his remarks that the 25 per cent was a penalty. It is a clear requirement to prepay in order to have on record that a certain amount of money was cashed. Further, there is a liability on the part of the person who cashed the bond to prepay an amount to his income tax account, not forfeit it. The hon. member referred to one inequity in a system where money is credited to the account of a taxpayer. If there is a refund owing to that taxpayer, that money may be in the system for a period up to a year. I suppose it could be argued that essentially there would be no interest rate, whereas if the money went to the taxpayer it could be reinvested or used for some other purpose. That is the narrow aspect of it, in terms of people cashing bond interest and not being in the category of owing some type of income tax.
The alternative to the existing social insurance number requirement would be the withholding of tax on all payments of interest. Recently the United States Treasury proposed a mandatory withholding on all interest because of the extent of under-reporting of income in this category by taxpayers in the United States. While this would resolve the compliance problem, it would cause some hardship for a large number of

taxpayers. This should be considered only if experience reveals that existing procedures are inadequate.
I apologize to the House and the proposer of the bill that I did not have time to do the amount of research I would like to in terms of an estimate regarding the amount of bond interest not reported. I think in some cases non-compliance with the act is fairly significant. It was rather interesting that an hon. member opposite would set out his argument in great flowing terms that we should not use modern methods to increase the efficiency of the tax system, and therefore perhaps operate the system less inefficiently. Surely any hon. member who has listened to questions directed to ministers involved in social programs, finance, employment or manpower programs, will realize the theme of the questions was efficiency of administration. If the opposition is sincere and believes what it proposes in question form, then such an argument is not terribly consistent.
I am not aware of income reporting slips being issued for bank interest, or any other type of investment, without social insurance numbers being included on them. Some tax forms without social insurance numbers are mailed to elderly senior citizens who have never had such numbers allocated to them. But I am sure approximately 90 per cent of all income tax forms mailed to taxpayers include social insurance numbers.
I find it a little bit strange that in an effort to improve the efficiency of the tax system the hon. member for Edmonton West would argue so vigorously against a practice that is accepted apparently in minor sports, in schools, in all the business transactions involving every other type of investment and, indeed, I would venture to think in well over 90 per cent of all the income tax forms filed in Canada in any one year.
Those are the comments I wanted to make, and for the reasons I have given, 1 would find it very difficult to support Bill C-203.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: There is no question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that I would support this bill. It would be ridiculous to do anything else, if an individual has any knowledge of what takes place in some banking companies.
There are thousands of senior citizens in this country who have not applied for social security numbers and have not been asked to apply. These are people who in fact and in practice have to redeem bonds. One of the reasons why they must redeem their bonds is the high inflation rate, and they have to keep up their standard of living because they are not getting enough support from the government.
The situation which this bill is attempting to correct can arise particularly where a spouse attempts to cash in the bond of the deceased spouse. I had a situation only yesterday that brings this act very much into play. I went to the bank with a widow in our community to cash a bond. The bank asked her if she had the social insurance number of the deceased. The spouse had died at 93 years of age and had never applied for a social insurance number because it was not necessary to do so
October 31, 1978

when he purchased the Canada Savings Bond. Despite that, the bank took off 25 per cent of the principal and interest on that bond.
At the time the bank officers had this very act in front of them and they quoted from it. I was flabbergasted that this type of thing would take place in this day and age. That woman had to forfeit that money, temporarily though it may have been, which could have helped to pay doctor's expenses, ambulance bills and, of course, funeral costs. She will not get the money back for some time, and she will lose her discount on the funeral expenses. It may seem like very little, but to this lady it was a lot.
It is bad enough that the bank take 25 per cent of the accrued interest, but as the hon. member has said, it also takes 25 per cent of the principal. The situation I have just related is not the first time that I have run across such dealings. I think that the hon. member, instead of being ridiculed by members on the government side, should be complimented on bringing in a bill of this nature. I support him fully.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make a few comments and take part in the debate on Bill C-103. First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for having raised this matter.
Mr. Speaker, this concerns once again some type of regulations established by our bureaucratic dictatorship, which is greatly concerned with technological efficiency, but very little with reality and even less with human dignity.
As was explained by my colleague, there are many people who, for various reasons, do not have a social insurance card. This included senior citizens and younger people. It seems to me that a deduction of 25 per cent is a somewhat unfair penalty for someone who has neglected to take the necessary steps to obtain a social insurance number. Many people do not have a social insurance number simply because they never needed one. As my colleague from Moncton (Mr. Jones) underlined earlier, many Canadian wives do not have their own social insurance card. And such cases as those mentioned by the hon. member are really quite unfair to those people.
Of course, the majority of Canadian citizens have this little red and white card. It seems to me that it would have been more realistic, fairer and no more complicated than necessary to ask the banks and the financial institutions where savings bond interest coupons are cashed in to give an application form to their customers who do not have a social insurance number and to urge these customers to complete these forms for future use. It seems to me that this decision was made rather arbitrarily and with no period of transition. I have in my office an employee who used to work for a Canadian chartered bank. He told me recently that quite often, nearly every day, people would go back home very frustrated and angry at the fact that they could not cash in their savings coupons because they did
Income Tax Act
not have a social insurance number and the bank deducted 25 per cent from their interest.
These are the few comments that I wanted to make about this unfair situation. If we are to require this card to deal with the government, it seems to me that the government should launch an advertising campaign to tell each citizen to obtain it. Let us distribute application forms in public establishments and advertise on television, but for God's sake, let us not take some money away from a poor man who does not have a card; let us give him this card instead. It seems to me he should be given a chance to get his card before being penalized.
What I am thinking of here, Mr. Speaker, is a publicity campaign. Some people will tell me that publicity campaigns are expensive. Perhaps, but recently, last month in fact, in one of the shopping centres in Hull, the information centre on national unity set up a puppet show praising the bounties and virtues of the federal government. The people did not stop shopping for all that, and I can understand them. There was a din of background music. It reminded me somehow of the swan's song of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), as my colleague from St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) likes to remind us.
So, Mr. Speaker, once again I thank the hon. member for having pointed out that injustice to the House, to which I trust remedies will be found in the very near future.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: In reference to the remarks, Mr. Speaker, made by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), it may be of interest to note that on the passing of Bill C-22 it became the responsibility of Revenue Canada to administer the provisions of the amendments, and in that connection it carried out a publicity campaign by placing ads in papers across Canada as well as having counter displays set up in banks, trust companies and other institutions that cash coupons. Since this legislation applied to all coupons, not just Canada Savings Bonds, it was directed specifically to Canada Savings Bonds holders. The publicity campaign was carried out in 1977.
Personally, in my own constituency I have had very little problem with people not being aware of the terms of this particular legislation. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and I am sure that it was quite unintentional, used the word "principal" several times regarding the 25 per cent deduction. Yet I note his own bill, Bill C-203, says in the explanatory notes:
-that required all holders of bonds, especially Canada Savings Bonds, to have social insurance numbers, failing which 25 per cent of the bond interest would be retained at source.
I hope that will lay to rest the fact that we are not dealing with principal but are dealing with interest.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would like to draw to the hon. member's attention, Mr. Speaker, the practice that exists

October 31, 1978
Income Tax Act
in some places where the cashing authority is insisting on taking 25 per cent of the capital as well.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, if cases of this kind are brought to the hon. member's attention, I trust he will report them immediately to Revenue Canada. In their operating brochure it is stated that if an individual does not want to show the social insurance number-and I do not know why that would be-the alternative is to have 25 per cent of the interest deducted, file an income tax return and then claim a refund if no tax is payable.
What we have here today would sound very unreasonable to anyone who wandered in here and heard that a social security number is required in order to obtain interest on bonds or coupons. But what was the purpose of the amendment in the first place?


Mr. Ellis:: Sheer bureaucracy.


Hugh Alan Anderson: That is stupid thing to say.


John Raymond Ellis: It may be but it is a fact.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Obviously people were collecting interest on bonds and clipping other coupons but were not declaring them as interest. When the hon. member says it is sheer bureaucracy, it shows he has not paid much attention to the original legislation. Its purpose was to correct a problem. Members of the official opposition have told us time and time again that it is the responsibility of this parliament to run an efficient government.
Just the other day the government was severely criticized for having paid $142 million to recipients of unemployment insurance funds which the Auditor General said should not have been paid. Various members of the official opposition were indignant that this government could be so negligent as to pay $142 million to people who did not deserve it. The fact that they might have had a job but in the meantime a cheque had been sent out was not considered.
The hon. member opposite is saying that this is a bureaucratic administration because it is attempting to gather revenue from people who have obtained income from bonds and who have not reported it to Revenue Canada. I think they should also show wrathful indignation at those people who over the years have collected money from bonds and coupons but have not declared it on their income tax report. Apparently the hon. member is saying it is all right for them to collect money and not report it, but it is terrible that money should be sent out to recipients of unemployment insurance funds who for one reason or another are disqualified. I find that a strange attitude.
I think hon. members on both sides of the House would agree that in order to run an efficient government, in order to collect moneys owed to us-because revenue from stocks and bonds must be declared on income tax returns-the fact that we use the social security number as a cross-check should be

applauded and not condemned. If tomorrow a newspaper headline said the Government of Canada was failing to collect $300 million in interest on bonds because it was not declared as income, I am sure there would be an expression of wrathful indignation and an accusation that we are not running an efficient government. I know hon. members opposite would be the first to say so. Instead, we are told that this is a bureaucratic mess.
For these reasons I oppose the bill brought forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West, though not in a spirit of anger or confrontation. If there is to be an accounting of payments to recipients of social welfare and UIC, by the same token there should be an accounting of revenue derived by people who clip coupons to make sure that income is declared. 1 have no vendetta with them, Mr. Speaker-I have no bonds-but I think it is fair to ask that an accounting take place. The hon. member for Edmonton West has much more financial experience than I and he knows that not all our taxpayers are honest all the time. It is easy for the tax department to see how much a person earns in a year because they get a slip from the employer, but it is not always easy to get an accurate accounting of interest on bonds.
I think that Bill C-22 and its amendment merely do a bit of housekeeping to prevent abuses that have existed heretofore and make things fair for all taxpayers in Canada. For that reason I support the amendment and Bill C-22, and I regret that I cannot support the hon. member's bill.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, if it were not that 1 considered the source of the remarks, 1 might have got upset by a stupid comment made a few moments ago. Having given due consideration to the source, however, I am going to let the matter go by.
Surely some members of the government realize that the social insurance number-not the "social security number"- is being used as a sheer bureaucratic measure and nothing else. It is iniquitous and it is oppressive. The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) spoke of a case he had, and I intend to outline the case of a widow of many years who tried to cash her Canada Savings Bonds. The bank told her that she must have a social insurance number in order to do so. This particular bank did not give her the right to give up 25 per cent of the interest-which she would likely never get back anyway. Being a very law-abiding lady, she applied for a social insurance number.
One of the things that my colleague the hon. member for Edmonton West did not mention is the fact that the method of issuing social insurance numbers by itself is ridiculous. When the request for a number goes into that behemoth of a computer, all records of that input are destroyed and if nothing comes out no one ever knows what happened to them. If the application form does not arrive there-and goodness knows, with the mail system recently there is a good chance of that-no one ever knows what happened. This poor lady consulted my office and we were told the next issue of the computer would be available today, October 31-my birthday. If that did not come out of the computer today, Mr. Speaker,
October 31, 1978

this lady is in trouble again because we do not know whether her application for a number ever went into the computer. We know she put the application in the mail but we do not know what happened after that and we have no way of knowing. Neither have we any way of speeding up the process. She could put in another application for another social insurance number and perhaps end up with two. That does not seem to make much sense, Mr. Speaker.
This inefficient, iniquitous piece of nonsensical legislation was forced upon us through closure. It would not have been so bad had we had a chance to debate it at the time, but we never got to it; the guillotine fell and we did not have a chance to do anything about it. It is a particularly objectionable example of bureaucratic bungling.
I suspect such things are happening in other ridings throughout Canada. The banks, because they are not inhuman, are quietly advising people who come in to buy Canada Savings Bonds to buy something else. This is something I deplore but it is happening simply because of an overriding bureaucracy.
It is getting close to six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Martin) to substantiate the reason for talking this bill out, as I am sure the government will. This bill deserves the support of the House. It would repeal at least one iniquitous clause in the Income Tax Act.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think many of the comments I would like to make were made on this side of the House in defence of the legislation that was passed a year or so ago and against the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I have worked with the hon. member for a number of years on finance committees and other committees, and I know that he has put a lot of thought into a bill of this nature. Everything he does is always done with a great deal of care and thought.
However, it seems to me that before we complain about people, being asked to identify themselves by means of a social insurance number so that tax compliance can follow when cashing coupons, should we not take a look for a moment at the young girl or boy who has a temporary job in the summertime? For example, I had a young girl working in my riding office recently but I was not able to pay that girl even so little as $10 or $15 until I informed the House of Commons payroll division as to what that individual's social insurance number was. I am not against that procedure, although it is quite a nuisance especially when one employs temporary help for a few weeks. However, all businesses face this problem.
Why is this requirement necessary? It is required for one reason only, and that is to assist in the compliance procedure within our income tax system. As hon. members know, our system is based on self-assessment.


An hon. Member:: It is done for other reasons too.
Income Tax Act


Alan Gray Martin: It is done for other reasons as well. It is done for unemployment insurance purposes, etc. Social insurance numbers are recorded on tax returns and T-4s so documents can be matched, all as part of the compliance procedure. For us to say that we do it for high school students, or whoever they may be, who are earning small sums of money for a short period of time and then to say it is unfair to do it for people who have more substantial means and have managed to acquire bonds but are upset when cashing their coupons on finding that they are required to show a social insurance number-


John Raymond Ellis: Widows in their eighties.


Alan Gray Martin: -I do not think is a complaint that is really justified.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All rich people?


Alan Gray Martin: No, I did not say rich people, but richer than a young high school student who has taken his first job.


John Raymond Ellis: Not by a long shot.


Alan Gray Martin: We are living in a computer age whether we like it or not. There are many credit cards today; oil companies have them, the major department stores have them. Banks have had account numbers for ages and ages. Everybody works by means of identification of accounts through a number system. This is simply done to ease administration, to facilitate the handling of thousands and thousands of accounts, and to simply make things easier in terms of the administration of many thousands of documents.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Invasion of privacy.


Alan Gray Martin: For us to talk about a tax system that is based on a self-assessment system, as is the case in this country, and to say to our tax authorities, "Look, for goodness sake be careful how you respect this compliance; don't tread on anybody's toes, don't ask people for too much information"-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is a penalty.


Alan Gray Martin: There is no penalty involved, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Edmonton West refers to a penalty. There is no penalty whatsoever. What is being done is withholding money at source, a procedure the hon. member is familiar with. This is done with all kinds of payments. The money is returned to the individual when he or she files an income tax form.


Mr. Johnston:: Breaks the contract.


Alan Gray Martin: That is what happens. If the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) wishes to participate in this debate, assuming there is sufficient time, I will be glad to hear his comments. But indeed that is exactly what happens. Just as is the case with income tax, the deduction is made at source.
Why is income tax deducted from salary at source?

October 31, 1978
Income Tax Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It does not have to be.


Alan Gray Martin: No, they do not do so in France, and I believe in some other European countries. But what happens? There is a great game at the end of the year chasing after people to get them to pay thousands of dollars worth of tax. Deduction at source makes a lot of sense for a number of reasons. Once that deduction is made then the identification of the person from whom the deduction is made is very important. That is where the use of the social insurance number is of great assistance.
People in my riding have not been coming to my constituency office with this matter. They have many matters of concern to them but I have not had one person come to me making an honest case or complaint about how they have had great trouble when cashing bearer coupons by having someone ask them to supply a social insurance number.


John Raymond Ellis: Wait until this is over.


Alan Gray Martin: Otherwise they might have tax deducted at source. It is not a point that has been brought to my attention at all. I honestly think it is a little unfair that in the case of the person earning minimum wages, or wages for part of the year, we insist on reporting and checking standards. Why not be equally insistent in the case of people who are fortunate enough to be obtaining money through the medium of bond coupons?
This is a problem which really will not exist in the future as far as Canada Savings Bonds go, because they will not have bearer coupons. So we are talking about a problem that is phasing itself out so far as Canada Savings Bonds are concerned.
I do not want to carry on very much longer, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. parliamentary secretary that his allotted time has expired.
I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-10, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide for a child tax credit and to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the few remarks I made in the debate on second reading of Bill C-10 just before five o'clock, I tried to make the point that there are some aspects of it which I think should be studied further. If my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) looked a bit worried and wondered where I was proceeding in light of what I was saying, I would like to tell her that my purpose was to try to make her realize that this bill is not perfect.
This bill launches out in a new area by using the Income Tax Act not only for the purpose of collecting taxes from Canadians, but for making payments out of income tax collections to those who need them. Although it is new in that it moves into that area and is therefore to be welcomed, no one knows better than the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the Income Tax Act is still full of many loopholes, many opportunities for the rich to profit. If those loopholes could have been plugged, she would not have had to agree to reducing the amount of the family allowance from $26 to $20 a month.
From time to time we have had a good deal to say about the unfairness of the Income Tax Act in terms of what it does for the wealthy. I have two or three statistics here that have been given on previous occasions by members of my party, and I think they make the point.
In 1972, there were 92 Canadians with incomes of $50,000 or more who paid no income tax. They managed to take advantage of the escape clauses and the loopholes in the legislation. In 1973 that number rose to 156. I point out that the situation is getting worse, because in 1974, the last year for which I have this kind of statistic, 252 persons in Canada with incomes of $50,000 or more paid no income tax whatsoever. The average income of those 252 persons was $92,000 and 17 of them made over $200,000.
It is because of that sort of situation in the Income Tax Act that I wish the Minister of National Revenue had had a little more influence with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). It is good what is happening in that a $200 refundable tax credit is being established. As I say, the Income Tax Act is not only being used to take money from persons, but to give money to certain people. A lot more money would be available for the equalization of incomes if the provisions of the Income Tax Act could be tightened up.
October 31, 1978

One of the discussions in which we take part around this place has to do with whether or not we are making progress. One of the persons who has documented very well the continuing discrepancy in the amount of income received is the Minister of National Health and Welfare herself. I would point out that according to Statistics Canada the distribution of income as between the bottom 20 per cent of income earners and the top 20 per cent has changed very little. In 1951 the bottom 20 per cent received 4.4 per cent of total income earned. The figure fluctuated a bit from 1951 to 1975 when it was down to 4 per cent. In 1976, it was 4.1 per cent. So it may be said, as was said by a member at the foot of the government side the other day, that in terms of dollars the poor now have more than they used to have. But in terms of their percentage of the national pie, they have scarcely moved at all. On the other hand, as opposed to the fact that the bottom 20 per cent received about 4 per cent of the earned income, the top 20 per cent got around 42.8 per cent-the figure went up and down a bit-and in the last year for which I have statistics their share was around 43 per cent.
It is this I had in mind when in the few minutes for which I spoke before five o'clock I said that for all the good there was in the bill now before us there was room for a completely new look at the income tax legislation. I realize this bill is in the name of the Minister of Finance and that I seem to be speaking about it as though it belonged to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I feel it is more hers than his though, because it does deal with a change in the way in which family allowances are provided.
The other day in the course of another speech I was making, the Minister of National Health and Welfare made an interjection which I did not hear at the time but which I enjoyed very much when I got to the Hansard office and read what she had said. I had suggested that if she made certain improvements in the old age pension she would improve the stock of the Liberal party at the next election and might even become leader of the Liberal party. Her interjection, which I did not hear but which was on the record, was: "Minister of Finance would be okay." In light of the statements she has been making in speeches around the country, and in light of what she has said about loopholes in the Income Tax Act to which I have referred tonight, I would be quite happy if she got that portfolio and pushed to the limit the possibilities there are for equalizing the distribution of income by making changes in the Income Tax Act.
In saying, as I did a moment ago, that if the Income Tax Act were applied on a fair and equitable basis there would be sufficient money for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to have instituted a $200 cash credit without cutting back on the basic amount of the family allowance payments, 1 implied, and I hope the implication was clear, that in our view this is what ought to have been done. We approve the refundable tax credit idea; it is one we have proclaimed from this part of the House for a long time. But we do not think it is necessary to reduce the basic amount from $26 to $20.
Family Allowances
I am aware of all the arguments about people in the middle and upper brackets not needing the money, but I believe many families will notice the difference, especially in the face of rising prices, when they are confronted with this reduction of $6 per child, especially families whose incomes are such that they will not get the $200 tax credit in March or April. We know the reason the minister could not get through the kind of program we would like to see. It was because of the inequities and loopholes that are still present in the Income Tax Act.
Having said all that as an indication of our attitude toward Bill C-10, I should like to say a few things about elements in this measure of which we approve. We note with respect to the family allowances program that universality is being maintained. It is true that the amount everyone will get is reduced, but the program is still to be applied universally. That is the way it was brought in in the first place and that is the form in which it has survived over the years.
There was a time in the parliament of 1968-72 when the government tried to bring in a program bearing the name FISP. It almost got approved but the measure died on the order paper as that parliament ended. The result of the program would have been to destroy the universality of family allowance payments. In the succeeding parliament when the government was in a minority position FISP was thrown out the window and universality was maintained. Despite any shortcomings the bill before us may have, it is continuing the principle of universality and we welcome that.
We welcome also the fact that the principle of indexation is still alive. It may not be well this year, or in 1979, but it is still alive. The basic amount of the family allowance will be cut back in January from $26 to $20 a month, but in 1980 it will be escalated or indexed according to the rise in the cost of living.
It is also a fact that the $200 tax credit is to be indexed annually and that the $18,000 cut-off is to be indexed. I am glad to see the minister nodding her head to confirm that the things I am saying are true. What worries me about this assurance that indexation will continue is that this minister may not always be in her present portfolio and that under another minister it may have less value. We remember how the indexation of family allowances was suspended for a year-the government cancelled it-and now it is being cut back for the second time. So who can be sure that the guarantee of indexing in 1980 or 1981 will be honoured when the time comes? Nevertheless, if there are enough of us here who believe in these things, let us hope universality of social payments and the right of indexation will survive.
I am looking forward to the speech the Minister of National Health and Welfare is going to make tonight, and I hope she will take the same stand with regard to the indexing of family allowances that she took the other day with regard to the indexing of benefits under the Old Age Security Act. If we can have that kind of assurance from her, well, we will have to

October 31, 1978
Family Allowances
count on it, but down the road I suspect that these things will still have to be fought for time and time again.
That is something I have learned from experience around this place. No battle ever really stays won. I remember how long and hard we fought to get rid of the means test and to get pensions on a universal basis and when it happened there was really great rejoicing and satisfaction, but after only a decade, or a generation at most, some people were talking about the means test as though it was something that might be employed again.
I am conscious of the long battle we have waged to get the government into our economy for the benefit of all the people the government represents. I am conscious of those years when we were aware of how little the private sector and the free enterprise economy did for our people, but today, when we have many government programs which have made life better in Canada, "privatizing" has become a word which both Liberals and Tories like to mouth in this place. We are aware of the fact that battles which have been won have to continue to be fought.
I welcome the battle that the Minister of National Health and Welfare fought inside the cabinet, even at a time of restraint and cutbacks, not to have a total cutback in the family allowance but to get the kind of program we have before us tonight. It is a fact that although people in the higher middle and upper income brackets will be receiving fewer dollars for their children in that they will get only a $20 a month family allowance, in the case of those where the family income is $18,000 or less there will be, in return for that $6 a month they will lose, a $200 credit in March or April of the succeeding year. That is good. We welcome that, but we think that the principles underlying it must not be forgotten.
We think also that this beginning of the use of the Income Tax Act to make payments to people should be pushed a long way, and the way to push it is to plug some of the loopholes which make it possible, as I have already said, for 252 people in 1974 to make $50,000 a year or more and 17 of them over $200,000 but not pay one cent of income tax. We are reminded of all the various escape clauses there are. If ever a sentence in the Bible was true, it is that one about things being given to those who already have. The income tax seems to be very biblical in that respect.
Before I sit down, and because the Minister of National Health and Welfare is on the list to speak, there are one or two points I hope she might deal with when she gets the floor. I wonder if she will be able to tell us of any discussions she has had with the provinces about these matters. I have two points in mind. On the one hand, when persons have their allowance cut from $26 to $20, does the minister know whether any provinces are likely to make up the difference?
The other side of the story relates to the $200. What is going to happen in March or April of next year when some families get $200 per child? In some cases that will amount to a total of $600 or $800. What will that do to the position of those families which are on welfare or benefiting from any social program in any of the provinces? I realize that this is

totally federal legislation, but still there is hardly anything left in this country which does not become the subject of discussion between Ottawa and the provinces.
Then there is one other matter which I hope the minister will have something to say about tonight. I believe reference was made to it this afternoon. 1 refer to the consumer price index. I welcome the fact that the minister has stood firm and won the continuation of indexation of family allowances as well as pensions, but the recently announced change in the way the consumer price index is made up gives some of us cause for concern. I refer in particular to the downgrading of food as an element in the basket, particularly at a time when Statistics Canada tells us that the cost of food is rising. I believe this month it rose more than in any month for a very long time.
This will affect pensioners and those who depend heavily on family allowances very severely. There is already the feeling, if not the fact, that indexing is always behind and never seems to keep up with rising costs, but if the consumer price index is being revised in a way which will result in even less accurate increases under indexation, that is something which is very serious.
I do not recall whether I have had discussions with this minister during the time she has been in this portfolio on this issue, but certainly 1 have discussed it with previous ministers of national health and welfare. I refer to the desirability of having a special index for senior citizens or for families. After all, the consumer price index is made up by Statistics Canada on the basis of the Canadian population as a whole, but senior citizens have special needs on which they spend their money, and mothers of families, especially those who are having a difficult time, also have special needs. I realize that the consumer price index is tabulated under the aegies of another minister-it does not come under this minister-but as I recall, at least some of her predecessors have expressed an interest in looking at this, and I wonder if she will tell us whether she has tried to get Statistics Canada to come up with an index which would be appropriate to those who depend on family allowances and to those who are in receipt of old age pensions.
Those are our views respecting this bill. As we have said several times, it is good that in this time of restraint, which we think is false, uneconomic and turning the country the wrong way, one minister has been able to bring about some progress, and in that sense we welcome this bill. It will have our support, but we shall keep on pressing for the changes which ought to be made in the Income Tax Act to get rid of those loopholes so there will not be so much leakage and there will be more money for distribution to those who need it, whether we are talking about senior citizens or about families.
We are also glad that provision is being made for the $200 per child to be given to mothers in the spring. We will go along with the technical arrangements which are necessary to make that possible. We heard some explanation of that this afternoon from the Minister of Finance, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister of National Health and Welfare tonight. I hope she will deal with some of the points I have
October 31, 1978

raised, and I hope she might even go so far as to make the commitment that, if she ever does become Minister of Finance, she will do something about the gross inequities in the Income Tax Act.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I am pleased to participate in this debate.
We are now studying a bill to reduce from $25 to $20 the family allowances paid for every child. This bill also proposes to grant a tax credit of up to $200 for every child in families whose income does not exceed $18,000 a year. In addition, any family with earnings of up to $46,000 a year and at least seven children under 18 years of age could also claim tax credits to be indexed annually, according to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin).
That new program is, of course, a positive step towards the redistribution of wealth among the middle class who are always the first to bear the brunt of the economic problems we have had to face in the last decade. Through this new system of tax credits, we are getting away from the situation where family allowances existed for all families. Their purpose was to encourage demographic progress in the country and, in addition, to give substantial financial assistance to large families.
Naturally, with the new system based on the redistribution of wealth, many families will lose that financial aid. In addition, the new measures, which the people do not understand too well, will surely create a nightmare for our bureaucracy. Let us just imagine, Mr. Speaker, all the confusion that will arise in the income tax returns. Many interested parties have pointed out that millions of women who have no income, and consequently do not file income tax returns, will now have to change their habits.
It also appears that everyone qualifying for tax credits will have to file a separate income tax form, which means that in a single income family where the breadwinner is the father or the husband, the wife or mother will have to send in her own income tax form. And what about the problems of separated couples and the incomes of dependent children? It looks like it is going to be an absolute administrative mess. Revenue Canada will have to check over two million additional income tax forms, make sure that all statements filed by husbands and wives agree, scrutinize all enclosures, income adjustments and required documents.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy I do no work in the Department of National Revenue because I am sure several people in that department will have a big headache next spring. I also expect a full scale publicity campaign will be necessary to inform the public about these changes. All in all, I think I would rather work in a publicity agency than in the Department of National Revenue. Maybe these agencies will pull the big buck out of this mess.
Family Allowances
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that benefits from family allowances decrease as income goes up since they are taxable. The tax credit granted until now, $50 for each child, does not help the poorest families since they do not pay income tax nor the more affluent ones since they can accumulate that credit in the form of a tax rebate not exceeding $500.
We must not forget that families in the poorest category depend upon family allowances as a substantial source of income and that with these new provisions they will now be forced to wait for the payment of the tax credit which will be paid, presumably only once a year. The tax credit will not be paid automatically, as it is now. That will therefore result in the poorest families being even more dependent upon provincial social welfare, thus increasing the provincial burden in that area. So the cost of providing for our children will no longer be used as criterion, but the family income level will.
I think the proposed provisions are somewhat premature because their consequences have not been cleared up. This measure has been widely criticized because of the difficulty to. implement the system and of the administrative costs which will be incurred. Also, we should not forget that those funds come from the unemployment insurance cuts which were announced and which will deprive some 250,000 to 300,000 unemployed of the benefits.
Mr. Speaker, on September 14, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said in a speech in St. John's, Newfoundland, and I quote:
It should be clearly understood that these benefits are directed towards those people who have immediate needs.
Mr. Speaker, I am terribly surprised because if the government is really aware of the fact that the needs of many persons and families who find it terribly difficult to make both ends meet are immediate, why did they change the family allowances program so that those families will have to wait for one whole year before receiving the new tax credits?
In the same speech, the minister added the following, I quote:
Finally, we must define the new measures in light of our economy; the formula should encourage people to work and stimulate our productivity.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us how we can encourage somebody to work when we have the highest unemployment rate ever seen and when our economy is very weak? Why this relentlessness to make a scapegoat of the small earner?
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I must establish clearly that the bill before us is creating a certain ambiguity with respect to the term "family income". On what criteria is it determined? On the income of one spouse, of both spouses, of both spouses and their children, of separated or divorced spouses? I think this point should be clarified. In order to solve the problem of family allowances, it would be in the best
670
October 31, 1978

Family Allowances
interest of the government to consider as an alternative the abolition of tax deductions and an increase in family allowances.


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak tonight in this House of what I also believe to be the most fundamental reform, and I would like to correct the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who suggested this afternoon that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) was exaggerating when he said this afternoon, in introducing his bill, that this was a most important reform. He did not say that it was the only reform undertaken by the government in the last ten years, but rather that it was the most significant social policy reform that this House had seen in at least ten years, if not more.
This reform is directed towards Canadian children. It appears to me most important and appropriate that we study this legislation immediately after a bill which considerably increases our senior citizens' share of the national income. These are the two most vulnerable ages in periods when economic restraint must be imposed more strictly than we would want.
In Canada, in the year and two months since I have been responsible for the national health and welfare portfolio, I have noticed, and I think it is important to indicate this to the people of this country, that it is as easy to mobilize public opinion in favour of our senior citizens as it is difficult to mobilize the same public opinion over what should be done to ensure that the children of this country, who are the number one human resource of a nation, receive their rightful share in the government's social policies and income distribution schemes. I will say a few words about that later in dealing with two issues raised by the official critic of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), concerning the universality and the indexing of family allowances.
It is a great pleasure for me to speak, as a minister whose mandate is in part to ensure that poverty in Canada is eradicated, if at all possible, or at least decreased. This bill is in fact, let us not deny it, a redistribution proposal.
If one studies the bill proposed by my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), one must face the fact that this project, which is the most fundamental reform in social policies of the last decade, basically is a project which touches upon redistribution. Therefore, it will hurt some Canadians and it will help others. Why did we do that, who are these people, and in what order of magnitude was the reform conducted, are questions which should be answered in the House tonight.

I should like to direct my attention to a few points made by the two opposition members who spoke this afternoon and tonight. If we speak of redistribution, we speak of poverty. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for St. John's East making a grand, general speech about poverty in Canada. His speech was full of wrong statistics. As he said, the Conservative party is against poverty. My party is against poverty, and so is every Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: We asked him how much money he and his party would attach officially to the children of Canada, but he never answered that. He did not answer that question because the Conservative party is split down the middle, still discussing whether it is in favour of universality of family allowance. We on this side know where we stand; we favour the right of every child in this nation to receive family allowance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: We have decided to correct some of the injustices of the socioeconomic system vis-a-vis families by adding to the basic universal family allowance a special new cheque, an annual one in the amount of $200 per child. That cheque will go to all families below a certain income. That is what we are proposing. In other words, we decided to put together the best of selectivity and universality.
The hon. member for St. John's East also mentioned that the number of poor in Canada had not decreased. That is not true. The social programs which were devised in the sixties have decreased the total number of poor in Canada. The total number has not been decreased enough, but there has been a consistent fight against poverty. He said that approximately 20 per cent of Canadians are poor. In order to correct the record, let me indicate that 20 per cent of Canadians share 4 per cent to 5 per cent of the wealth, but of that percentage, half of them are really poor.
If the hon. member wants to talk about poverty, he should refer to a few more of the facts rather than just generalities. He did not tell Canadians that it is not fashionable to talk about poverty today because there is no longer visible, flagrant poverty in Canada. People no longer really suffer from malnutrition as they did when I was a teacher 20 years ago. People no longer suffer from the effects of unacceptable housing conditions. Poverty is far more difficult to fight. It is far more difficult to sell to Canadians the fact that poverty should be put on the map of urgent problems to tackle because it has gone underground and has become less apparent.
The usual criteria used to define a certain neighbourhood or certains quarters of cities as being poor areas have changed. It is more difficult to use the usual criteria. The hon. member for St. John's East did not acknowledge that at all. He repeated that Canada was in an economic mess. We on this side believe in Canada. We do not believe Canada is in a mess at all. In the last ten years the income of the average Canadian has increased by 25 per cent. This is in constant dollars, which means that I am taking into account the inflation which has
October 31, 1978

existed over the years. Our wealth, incomes, the goods to which we have access have increased by 25 per cent, as evidenced by improvement in the physical environment of our homes. Increased standards have been passed on to everyone, including the poor in Canada. Their hopes and aspirations have naturally increased. If a list of the basic goods a poor family possesses today was produced by a social worker, it would be quite different from what it was in the past. I hope it would include such things as television sets. Of course, television sets would not have been included in such a list back in the sixties, because total wealth, hopes and aspirations were not at the level they are today.
Also the hon. member referred to the fifteenth report of the Economic Council of Canada. He quoted figures in an attempt to prove the total number of families living in poverty has increased tremendously. They have not increased, they have decreased, especially if we refer to statistics in proportion to the total population of Canada. I should like to refer to the fact that the incidence of poverty has declined from 1971 to 1975, the period referred to by the hon. member as the one in which poverty increased. That illustrates and provides us with points of reference when we talk of social policy and poverty in the country.
I should like to refer to the social policy budget of the government. Approximately 15 years ago, that budget was roughly 12 per cent of the total budget of the Canadian nation. The Department of National Defence received the biggest share of all federal government expenditures. The social portion of the national budget for 1978 amounts to 33 per cent. So when the hon. member says that the share which goes to people in need has decreased, that is not so. It has increased tremendously.
I would also remind the hon. member that if the total number of poor families and people on welfare decrease in Canada, of course the total number of welfare payments will decrease. Although the hon. member may have made his speech in good faith, his erroneous assertions regarding poverty do not demonstrate where the Conservative party stands regarding family allowances and child benefits.


Some hon. Members:: October 31, 1978
Family Allowances
bution. And poor families who do not pay taxes because they will be receiving that cheque which is not taxable and will be sent directly to mothers or the person having the legal custody of the child come up a great deal but will not be the ones benefiting the most; it will continue to be the middle-class people, but they will come way up in the redistribution graph. So it is not perfect but it is not being carried out on the backs of middle-class people. I want to insist on that. It is rather important because middle-class people do represent the majority families in any society and they have the feeling that is it very difficult to make ends meet, so I want to explain that quite clearly.

Now, there are many things we could have added to this reform, the first fundamental change to child benefits in our country since family allowances were introduced in 1945. Despite the tripling of family allowances and their indexation a few years ago, there would be lots more to say about what needs to be done for children and what this program is all about; but I think the committee of the whole will permit us to discuss these things in detail.
Permit me to make one point, Mr. Speaker.

I will say it in French. I want to say to all hon. members of this House and to Canadians that when the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) raises a scarecrow, namely that with this bill we are going to break the rather strict confidentiality of the tax system, I say to him that he is dead wrong.

The only thing the hon. member said that had anything to do with the bill was very simple but so untrue. I want to make it clear. I do not know how to put it in English, but he was using the illustration of the false man you put in a field-


An hon. Member:: A straw man.


An hon. Member:: A scarecrow.


Monique Bégin: Yes, a scarecrow. He was scaring people by saying this bill had something significantly dangerous in it; that we are going to introduce a breach of the confidentiality of the tax system. He then went on with an incredible statement which makes me wonder if he ever saw poor people in his life. He asked about the man who will have to declare the money he makes to his wife. That is a bit strange, Mr. Speaker, for usually in poor families when there is $200 per child, non-taxable, ready to go to mothers at the beginning of the year at tax time, people are not going to play games with each other. In any event, these people do not make enough money to start hiding it. When husbands hide money from their wives, usually they make good money. With my common sense, I know that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: So the comment about breach of confidentiality does not make much sense. If he wants to be technical and really maniacal about the sacrosanct confidentiality of the Income Tax Act, I can tell him there will be a one-page form included with the family allowance cheque in January which in most cases will go to mothers. This form can be filled out by the father or mother. If the father does not want to tell the mother how much he earns, she can sign the form and he can fill it in and send it. That should satisfy the breach of confidentiality charge. The hon. member must be surrounded by very wealthy people. In ordinary social classes, especially in poor families, people know what money they make. They also know what they make when they work on the weekend as waiters in hotel bars or whatever sideline it is they find to make ends meet. Everybody knows approximately what they make when they are poor. The hon. member is just raising a problem that does not exist for poor Canadians, those of whom we are speaking tonight.
My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked for my views on universality. I have already spoken on this earlier tonight. He also asked me about indexation. I regret that to create the bank of money needed to start the new annual cheque for mothers, we would have to add to the "pot" the indexation of 1979. That is really what we did. We put in that bank all the money we could because we knew Canadians would not agree to pay more taxes and that there was no other source of funds than shifting benefits within the existing system, making it more fair and equitable.
I regret that the indexation for this year has gone but I am very pleased that full indexation will be on the books for the new benefit, the ceiling at which a family can claim that benefit, and for the family allowance as well. I want to make it clear that indexation is provided for in the future.
Referring to the CPI, Mr. Speaker, and to a more proper measure of the increased cost of living, the only thing I can say tonight is that I will look into it and hope to be ready to answer questions during committee of the whole discussion. But I do not have anything to say that would help the debate at this point.
I should like to speak now of a few practical aspects of the new child tax credit. Some have said it is just unacceptable that the poor would suddenly get a huge sum of money once a year when they do not know how to spend $10. I am sure that is not true. I am not sure that mothers of good, wealthy families know how to spend money better than poor people.
Another fact about which I want to speak is the possible budgeting problem of families with an annual benefit versus several monthly benefits or benefits given through several instalments. I want to say to the House that this new benefit will use the tax machinery. This is the first time that the tax system will be used to deliver benefits to people. That is why we give it that funny name-the refundable child tax credit, although it is a cheque sent to mothers. It goes through the tax system and because of that this machinery has been set up only for annual deliveries. In future years it will be important to monitor what is best for, and what is wanted by, mothers.
October 31, 1978

In 1979 when the program is introduced it will work this way. In January a form will be sent to mothers along with the first reduced family allowance cheque. By the end of January all Canadian mothers will get $20 per child per month. Mothers in need, mothers on welfare, mothers in receipt of mothers' allowance, will, of course, be entitled to the new tax credit. It is they who will need it most and need it most urgently.
During January, February and March, the time at which the cheques will start being delivered to families, there will be a relative loss in the family allowances. For families in need with more than three children, this may be a practical problem but not for other families. This bothers me a great deal but there was no other way to introduce the system at a given point in time. So this is the loss we have to live with in order to gain much more.
The Minister of Finance gave the amount of these net gains. They are huge gains-gains for people in provinces as wealthy as Alberta, with its rapidly growing economy but where there are 43,000 poor families who will benefit from money that now goes to the richer families of Alberta and coming from all Canadian taxpayers, to the extent that about a $5 million net gain will go to Alberta in 1979. This takes into account the reductions in family allowances. This is very significant. In Ontario I think the reductions and the redistribution between families will offset each other. In other words, the poorer the provinces, the bigger the transfer payments, for we are now talking of the equivalent of a new transfer payment to individuals.
I was speaking of the real problem of family budgeting which may arise for the two first months of this year. 1 do not know of any solution to it. If hon. members have some solutions to suggest I would like to hear from them. As for the future, I do not foresee any problem because mothers will be receiving the $600 or $800 cheque. If they have three or four children, they can put aside a certain amount for monthly budgeting and spend whatever is needed for a down payment or repayment on a fridge, a washing machine or whatever might be needed in the home. Purchases like this ultimately benefit the children.
I acknowledge that problem and we will monitor it to see if the bill will need to be amended in the future or the idea of instalments introduced. We will be able to see what will be the most helpful to those in need. I say to hon. members, let the people concerned tell us what they want. I think it is important to listen to them. They are not well organized and their voices are not usually heard by politicians. Mothers of families are a segment of our society that is not represented by pressure groups. We do not know what they think or want.
It is important that the universality of family allowances be established once and for all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Family Allowances


Monique Bégin: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me that question. In all honesty I think members on the other side could agree with me that family allowances, no matter the economic circumstances of a family, are a right, by which the government shows that the nation is responsible for the well-being of all children who, after all, are the best of all its natural resources. That right is not well established in Canadian philosophy, if I may use that word. I have travelled across the country many times. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is always astonished when she discovers she is not the only one who talks to people. We all pretend to be close to people, and we try to be. It is important to discuss with various groups what Canadians want in terms of universality. Universality is established right now, but I point out to Canadians that family allowances, as a program of child benefits, are the weakest element of our social policy, I suggest, in the eyes of those who have economic interests to defend above and before all others. I say this to the House in order to assist and to raise the consciousness of my colleagues, and through television of the Canadian public, to ensure that we continue to see the merit of a universal family allowance. We will add whatever reforms are needed to be certain that in addition to the basic family allowance whatever is required for those in need will be available.
No doubt many other questions will arise. I will conclude by outlining what the prospect will look like for mothers in 1979. By the way, I am very pleased to say that mothers or fathers when they have legal custody of their child or children, will receive the cheque. It may seem strange to always refer to the status of women in this way, but for so many years women did not have their voices heard adequately in this House. I think that all hon. members will realize that every one of the provincial advisory councils on the status of women as well as the federal Advisory Council on the Status of Women recommended that the tax exemption for children be abolished and replaced with a tax credit. The federal Advisory Council on the Status of Women made it known publicly that it was very pleased with the new tax credit. A few other women's groups in Canada also approved of it, but I must admit that most women regretted the small cut we had to make in order to create the new program which, in the final analysis, is an important plus for all Canadian mothers in need, including mothers on welfare, and the Indian mothers who do not even exist as such under the Income Tax Act right now. It also means a great deal to the mothers of the poor families, in other words the working poor, who work but cannot make enough to live above the poverty line. Altogether it will mean an additional $300 million redistributed to Canadian families living below the poverty line, and this is worth quite a fight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Harquail:: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) be agreeable, with the unanimous consent of the House, to have the draft which she referred to included in today's Hansard!
674____________________________________
Family Allowances


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed and so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For document above referred to, see Appendix "B".]


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I presume that some time later on if the parliamentary secretary wishes to make a speech and make a brilliant addition to Hansard, that will take place. I also look forward to the minister of sports and whatever activities she is pursuing making a speech in this debate. The minister seems a bit ruffled over there and I can understand why. I think it is perhaps more than a little appropriate that this particular item is being debated on Hallowe'en because we have just been treated to a trick or treat presentation by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin).


An hon. Member:: That is a cheap shot.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: 
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: 
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: If the minister is prepared to listen, as I was quite prepared to listen to her, she will learn about some of the weaknesses and misconceptions in the presentation she made. It is regrettable that a Minister of National Health and Welfare should make such an incredible speech. The minister, who is responsible for many who are faced with extreme poverty and hardship in this country, told us in concluding her long statement that there is no poverty or serious housing problems today, as once was the case, that in fact poverty has gone underground. That is merely an indication that the minister has gone underground and has missed the whole point. In some areas a growing hardship exists for people in terms of poverty and housing.
We should not be too surprised at the minister's attitude with respect to housing because the same attitude has been displayed by this government in recent days. The minister talks consistently about a model family consisting of four children. I am not sure how many of these model families the minister is personally acquainted with, but it seems to me that her presentation was naive. Obviously she is not worried about the confidentiality of the tax system being violated. She is not even worried about the social insurance numbers and the way in which they are used and abused by this government, or about the commitments made by previous governments to

October 31, 1978
protect the right to privacy that is part and parcel of the allocation of the social insurance numbers.
It is obvious that this minister has not only lost contact with people who are facing extreme hardship; she seems to have lost contact with those people who could tell her what in fact is going on in this country today.
When she refers to this reform as helping everybody and hurting no one-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That was part and parcel of what the minister was saying. If she wants to rewrite the speech she just presented, I am sure she will be given equal time to do so.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is impossible to debate in this House. Words are not twisted, but the opposite is said. I just said that if it is going to help a lot of people in need and not cost more taxes, it is going to hurt other people. That is what I said and I want Canadians to know that.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I appreciate these interventions, Mr. Speaker. I am more than willing from time to time for the minister to bob up in her place and make further little points. If she wants to be assured of the serious problem this has created, let me speak specifically on one aspect of the legislation. The minister only briefly touched on it in her concluding remarks. She presented a very distorted report from groups having to do with the status of women.
Frankly, I am shocked that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would come into this House this evening and give the kind of partial reports from the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and other women's groups in terms of their satisfaction with this bill, as if everything is fine and well done by it. If she has read any of her mail or listened to any of her telephone calls, she knows there is a large body of women in this country who are seriously concerned about the initiatives the minister is taking in this legislation and the impact it will have on women in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: If the minister wants to reply to that, I will be delighted to give her the opportunity to do so. I want to read one brief section from the report of the Economic Council. Perhaps the minister has not had the opportunity to read it. This is found on page 92. It deals with the section having to do with the present unemployment and financial hardship of Canadians and refers specifically to women. I quote:
The difficulties confronting women, particularly those who are the sole supporters of their families, are manifest. They constitute a growing proportion of the poor. Not only do they lack a complementary source of income, but in most cases they earn substantially less than men. This in turn means that, when unemployed they usually draw proportionately lower over-all insurance benefits even though they face longer periods of unemployment than mates. In 1975,


Monique Bégin: I said the exact opposite.
October 31, 1978

unattached males in the labour force received about one-third more total income than did their female counter-parts. Among the male-headed families who experienced unemployment, the average family income in 1975 was nearly $5,000 higher than the income of female-headed families with unemployment.
That is just one recent report from an independent advisory group to this government indicating the severe and increasing plight of women in the work force today. If the minister does not recognize in the legislation that she has had a hand in introducing to this House the serious impact it will create for working women in this society, she had better resign and give her office to someone who will recognize the realities of today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Just in case the minister did not have an opportunity to review some of the events of the past few years in this country, she might want to refresh herself with one committee that was appointed at the end of World War II. In fact, it was during the period of the war at a time when the participation of women in the work force had increased very rapidly, for obvious reasons. In 1939, just prior to World War II, 24.4 per cent of the work force was women. By the end of 1945 it had risen to 33.2 per cent. However, within a period of one year the work force dropped back to 25.3 per cent.
A subcommittee was appointed called the advisory committee on reconstruction, post-war problems of women. It had to do with this very question of the rapid increase of the number of women in the work force and what was likely to take place with respect to their continued employment. Interestingly enough, one of the members of that committee was later a New Democratic Party member of parliament, Grace Maclnnis.
The report said very clearly that some steps would have to be taken with regard to the training programs and unemployment insurance benefits. Interestingly enough, a recommendation was made in terms of a family allowance program. I quote from one of the recommendations of the subcommittee:
It was felt that the addition to the family income from children's allowances paid to the mother and by her spent for the welfare of her children may well be an alleviating factor in the mental attitude which may result from the surrender of the double income.
This scheme obviously was to work as an incentive to create more opportunity for some women to provide household care for children under certain kinds of informal day care programs, and for other women who had decided to participate more fully in the paid work force to continue to do so.
The sad fact is that through the introduction of those child care benefits more than 30 years ago, the participation rate dropped in one year from 33.2 per cent to 25.3 per cent. None are so deaf and dumb as those who refuse to learn from the lessons of history.
If the minister does not think that this initiative which she herself describes as being revolutionary today is not going to create a very serious situation for many thousands of presently employed women, she should give very long serious and sober second thought to it. It is obvious that the kind of incentive the
Family Allowances
minister has built into this tax credit program could in fact create a very serious problem and growing hardship for a number of Canadian women.
In 1978, 48 per cent of all adult Canadian women were in the paid labour force. According to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), speaking to this House some months ago when presenting his budget, one of the immediate problems that confronts the Canadian economy today is the growing number of Canadian women who are working. I quote from his statement on the evening on which he presented his budget:
An important reason for the growth of our labour force has been the growing number of Canadian women who are working. Since 1970 the number of adult women in the labour force has increased from 1.9 million to 2.7 million, a rise of more than 40 per cent.
The Minister of Finance went on to point out that the surge of young people as well as the increased participation of women has created a problem. He did add on that occasion that this surge would not last as there was a growing number of empty desks in the classrooms. What the minister was saying in a kind of code language and what other ministers have said before and since is that there are too many women who want to work outside the home.
One would think that a government which introduced a bill having to do with human rights legislation, advocating fair and equal opportunity for both men and women to participate in the work place and be given equal access to employment and to be given equitable rates of pay, would introduce legislation not to discriminate against women and make it more difficult for there has to be an adjustment in the work place, in concert with the change that has taken place in the complexion of the work force in the last few years.
What do we find? We find a government that has done the reverse. There is a move afoot, certainly in this legislation, to take women out of the work force and to ensure that if women work at all, they will work only in what can be described as the job ghettos. If she earns any kind of a reasonable salary, augmenting a possibly moderate salary earned by her husband, we know what will happen. That family will lose its $200 tax credit, or most of it, the one the government is touting will be of such great assistance, the one the minister has assured us gives us no need to be concerned about the confidentiality of income tax. She said in rather naive language that everybody knows how much money so-and-so is likely making. I wonder what kind of responsibility this minister exercises when she makes this kind of superficial statement.
I am both shocked and disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the minister could have passed off the whole situation of the impact upon working women in such a cavalier fashion. Furthermore, under the proposed amendments to the act, even if a woman presently working in a low income position decided to improve her over-all skills and gain access to employment at a higher rate of pay and with greater recognition, we know that the minister's colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), has taken steps in concert with the Minister of National Health and Welfare to reduce the train-

October 31, 1978
Family Allowances
ing allowance for women who decide to take an upgrading program or a program of training under the Department of Employment and Immigration.
What do we find today? Instead of the equitable training allowance that existed until this past year under which men and women were effectively treated the same in terms of the training allowances available to them, we now have a program introduced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration which is related to unemployment insurance benefits. I certainly do not have to draw a large picture to let the minister know that, by and large, women receive less benefits because they have been in lower paying jobs. Therefore, women taking retraining programs are going to receive a much smaller training allowance.
If she were to respond at this point, I am sure the minister would say that the exception would be those women who have more than four children. The minister has a great time with her model families containing four children or more, but like so much that she says, they are more of a mirage that a reality. The government feels these people should receive additional funding, but what it does not realize, and what the minister does not realize, is that the day and age of the family with four and more children is virtually over. There are 7.2 million children in this country today belonging to 3.6 million families. Those are the figures for families receiving child allowances last year. I would point out that this is an average of two children per family. If the minister wishes to use examples I hope she will stick to those that are relevant to the greater part of the experience of most Canadians.
I would like to turn to another aspect now because it seems to me that what is happening here this evening, and what has been introduced this afternoon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), cannot be viewed in isolation from actions which are being taken by the minister's colleagues. It seems to me we see quite consistently now from the Minister of Employment and Immigration, from the Minister of Finance, and now sadly and tragically from the Minister of National Health and Welfare, a concerted effort to take women out of the work force and put them in the unenviable position of being increasingly dependent upon their husbands for income. I see this as really trying to turn back the clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: This afternoon one of my hon. friends was asking the Minister of Employment and Immigration about the Outreach program. We know-because a memo was circulated to the various manpower offices in the month of September-that the government has decided to eliminate women as one of the special groups for consideration in terms of making extra effort to ensure they have an equal opportunity to gain employment at the present time. The minister circulated the word to as many offices as there are around the country that women will no longer be a part of the target group. In addition, specific programs, such as Women Power, which were making a particular point of dealing with situations where women had special problems finding employment,

affording them an opportunity to obtain skilled training and satisfactory employment and incomes, are to be substantially reduced or cut altogether. The government is clearly attempting to lay the burden of unemployment on women to divert the public's attention from its own mismanagement and lack of planning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I think the problem here is that the minister and the government are indulging in old-fashioned, reactionary thinking. There is an assumption basically-


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Everybody in this country knows where the Tories stand!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am glad to hear the minister is listening to this speech because it is good for her to get some real information. She spends too much time with the wrong people over there, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to know I have her attention. She ought to know about these things because she ought to be concerned about them. The old-fashioned thinking of the government of which she is a part has somehow or other clung to the idea that a woman is an extension of her husband and that a woman's income is just an extension of her husband's income. If the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) refutes this contention, I hope she will get up and say so. I hope she will explain-


Iona Campagnolo: It has been explained. You just closed your ears to it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That is the weakest refutation of anything I have ever heard in this House, Mr. Speaker. The minister does not even know or is afraid to express what the real opinion has been in the past few weeks-ever since the program was announced in late August-by various women's groups across the country which are extremely concerned about the impact of this legislation on the progress women have been making in terms of their full integration and acceptance into the modern day work force of our country.


An hon. Member:: And the minister just laughs.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: If the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) is not concerned about that, she has more problems than the ones she is personally administering under her own jurisdiction.
The suggestion that the computation for the purposes of this tax credit is to be based on family income is bound to be of disservice, bound to be a setback to the right and opportunity of women to participate fully in the work force of this country. What we are arguing is not a woman's right to work but rather her right to be independent and equal. The government has yet to accept the fact that, under the terms of this bill, a woman could be just as helpless with a husband whose income is $50,000 as with one who earns $5,000 if he doesn't support her. There is no reason a woman should lose any of the $200
*
i-

T!
October 31, 1978

tax rebate because, for instance, her husband makes $30,000 and she makes $5,000 and a bit more.
What about the actual mechanisms of the tax credit itself? We know that on December 1 family allowances would have increased from $22 to roughly $28 at the end of the year. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) talked about a $26 figure, but it would have gone to $28, as I understand it. This means that if the bill is passed, as I assume it will be, the figure will be rolled back to $20, which will mean a loss of $96 per child next year.
Who will receive the full benefit of the tax credit? Certainly not the poor alone, as was implied by the minister. Some proportion of it-we do not know how much-will wind up in hands of those with higher incomes, in the hands of families who have the money to take maximum advantage of their registered retirement savings plans, home ownership tax benefits, you name it. I say this because income is defined as income after deductions, and I would refer the minister to clause 122 of the Income Tax Act.
Again, we have a bill which to some extent will still penalize the poor, discriminate against women and add to the coffers of the rich in some instances-how many we do not know.
From another standpoint the minister is almost advocating a reproach to men and women which one would quite frankly regard as being immoral. I say this because a woman who decides to enter into a partnership with a man outside marriage will not be penalized under this legislation. If a man and a woman want to live together, and I have heard it happens on occasion, and they have children, there is no obligation under that arrangement for there to be any computation of family income. That applies only in the case where a legal marriage is entered into. I trust the minister is not advocating a new and sophisticated form of tax avoidance, but certainly with this kind of legislation there is that possibility.
Why, then, does the government see fit to impose penalties on a woman because she is married? Recently the Human Rights Commissioner, Gordon Fairweather, formerly a distinguished member of parliament who sat on this side of the House, made a statement which I think represents an important instruction for this government. He said, and I quote:
I would be unhappy about a formula based on marriage. You know, we are over the days whether women have a right to work or not. 3.5 million women in this country work, and a quick answer would be that if a formula for eligibility is based merely on marital status, I think it is contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Women have the right to work and marital status in itself should not be used as an excuse for a different formulation.
I wonder if the minister has yet had a chance to read those comments which the Commissioner of Human Rights recently made.
I want also to quote the Advisory council on the Status of Women because the minister made the statement that the advisory council was only a little bit unhappy about a minor matter and had no substantial objection to the legislation
Family Allowances
introduced by the minister. The Advisory Council on the Status of Women has stated, and I quote:
Until Canadian women enjoy full economic equality within marriage, it is very important that no new measure be introduced that will further erode the independent financial position of married women. A joint taxation system would have the effect of reducing the independent financial security of married women who have personal sources of income.


Monique Bégin: Read what they said about this bill.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I hope the minister will read everything the advisory council said, and I hope she will present a fair and balanced presentation of the council's case to this House and not the one-sided and misinformed presentation she presented a few moments ago. I am really quite shocked that in her remarks the minister dealt in such a cavalier way with willingness to seek disclosure of income. I have always thought that that was regarded on both sides of this House as one of the things which should not be violated but should be held as sacrosanct. That is not so with this government and certainly not with this minister.
If we accept the basis of family income which is enshrined in this bill, what will that mean for future legislation? What bearing will that have on such legislation as amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act? What is next? Will Manpower centres soon be policing married women whose husbands are making more than $18,000 or $20,000 a year and telling them that, because their husbands are making that much money, they have no right to come into a Manpower office to seek work? Is that the implication? Is that the direction in which this minister is heading? Is that the kind of co-ordination there will be between the minister's initiative in this bill and that of her colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration?
There are other problems with this legislation as well. For instance, child-placing agencies presently receive family allowance payments for children under their care. Since that is to be reduced-indeed, frozen-these agencies immediately stand to lose $4.2 million as a result of these proposed changes, and unless there is some offsetting measure taken by the federal government, the provinces will have to make up the difference. That approach by this federal government has become all too common.
I want to make one or two other brief comments because I think the minister is getting at least some of my message. It seems to me that the minister has badly misled us by suggesting in one instance that this bill will save an enormous amount of money and that there will be a more equitable spreading of available funds to those who need them most. There was certainly no indication in the charts either minister presented that that is necessarily the case. I do believe that the intervention both ministers have made through this legislation will have a major impact, but it may not be the one which the ministers have outlined to us here today. It seems to me this is a major change in government policy.
This is the first instance, as has been said here, of the use of negative income tax at the federal level. It is a very striking departure, no matter what the Minister of National Health
678

October 31, 1978
Family Allowances
and Welfare says, from the long standing tradition of universality in the family allowance system. We are concerned about these measures. We would like to be as assured as the minister seemed to be in her presentation that the results will be all good with almost no bad; but unless the minister or some of her colleagues can be a great deal more convincing about the impact there will be on hundreds of thousands of women presently in the work force, even though we support this legislation we will be gravely concerned about its effects in that regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, just before the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) began his remarks the House was asked to give its unanimous consent for the production of a chart showing figures with respect to the poor in Canada. The hon. member then said that I should get up and make a speech. I am delighted that I now have the opportunity to speak to maritimers, and I have television aiding me here tonight.
I am sure some of the hon. member's constituents have been able to watch the supercilious attack he made on the character of the minister tonight. That attack had nothing to do with the bill. The hon. member talked about unemployment. He was all over the court. 1 have the impression that somewhere along the line he has come back into the good graces of his leader and has been made official critic regarding the performing arts. He certainly was on stage tonight, and he certainly was performing.
We know that the hon. member has for some time been a man of the cloth, and while I would not be prepared to say he was lying tonight, he was certainly stretching the truth with some of the things he had to say.
The hon. member for Egmont spoke about tonight being Hallowe'en. We suggest that he take off his mask because his performance was really not like him. He was out of character tonight, and I am sure that on reflection tomorrow and after reading what he said tonight he will find that there is egg on his face, he being the hon. member for Egmont.
I should have thought that the hon. member would at least have said "thank you" on behalf of Prince Edward Islanders who have benefited greatly from the millions of dollars which have been pumped into that province through DREE and Manpower. Money has been pumped in to the tune of about 75 cents on the dollar.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I will lend you my fiddle.


Maurice James Harquail: He had nothing to say about farmers' wives who will be receiving benefits through the progressive and modern legislation which our minister has the courage to introduce. She has convinced her colleagues in cabinet to approve these measures. Notwithstanding that, we are faced

with inflation, restraint and cutbacks. The minister has been successful, and we should congratulate her for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: I am convinced that there is not a positive bone in the body of the hon. member for Egmont. He thought he could use this occasion to become a champion of the cause of the women of Canada, but at their expense. He mentioned his former colleague, the chairman of the Human Rights Commission, who is the distinguished former member for Fundy-Royal, Mr. Gordon Fairweather. The hon. member brought everything before us but the facts.
We have just witnessed a provincial election in one of the maritime provinces. In that election the Tories criticized the federal government with respect to equalization. Let us stop and consider that this bill will increase equalization payments to the maritime provinces. The hon. member did not comment on that, which proves my earlier point that he was far from the truth in his remarks. He certainly was not listening when the minister told us that we are now spending more in social services than we are on defence. We have arrived at a significant point in this country, through the efforts of this government. This government has made other progressive moves in terms of assistance to the unemployed and in terms of other social service programs.
Many social service measures have been brought in over the last number of years by this government. Let us remember that 33 per cent of the budget of this government is spent on social services. The hon. member had the audacity tonight to say some of the things he said about the minister. The truth of the matter is-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He is a Tory.


Maurice James Harquail: I suppose we are supposed to excuse him for this. The fact of the matter is that we have a champion for women in the House in the person of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin).


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Some champion.


Maurice James Harquail: Whether or not he admits it or whether or not I have to say it, the fact is that by her actions, her leadership and her efforts what she has been able to accomplish for the women of Canada puts her in that category.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: These are the facts before us tonight. Since he was not interested in putting the facts on the table-some facts with respect to Canada's poor-let me state the following. The population of poor numbers three million and is roughly composed of the following: 50 per cent of the poor are families with children; 25 per cent are elderly; single women represent 55 per cent of the elderly; and 25 per cent are young, single people and couples.
October 31, 1978

Let me put forward some facts on families with children. There are approximately 3.6 million Canadian families with children less than 18 years old; 7.2 million children are under the age of 18, 900,000 are 16 or 17 years old, and 6.3 million are under the age of 16.
Let me also put forward some facts on the current federal child benefit system. The current federal child benefit system consists of family allowances. In child tax exemptions, $25.68 is allowed per child, $460 per annum is allowed for each child under 16 years of age, $840 is allowed for children 16 and 17 years of age, and a tax reduction of $50 per child was added to the federal tax reduction.
Consider the scare tactics which are typical of what we have heard from opposition members both inside and outside the House and across the country, as well as the scare tactics we have witnessed this afternoon from another maritimer, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who did not take the opportunity to say anything positive about what we are discussing here tonight but put up a straw-man and brought forward false facts and information. Who did these people think they were kidding?
I pointed out earlier the number of dollars that have been directed by this government to help Canadians, and in this case in particular to help mothers and families and assist them through increased family allowance payments. Surely members opposite would have enough decency and honesty within them to stand up and say that they appreciate that type of assistance, especially in those provinces which are in the category of have-not provinces from which both members I mentioned come and which they represent. I refer to the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for Egmont. That hon. member made no mention of assistance which will be given to farmers' wives and he had nothing to say about the benefits which the island from which he comes will enjoy. After listening to him speak tonight I wondered where he came from. Is he from Alberta or British Columbia? Whom does he represent? I am sure one thing that will be clear from the performance of the hon. member for Egmont tonight is that he qualifies for some sort of prize in the performing arts, which has more to do with the Halowe'en evening tonight.


Mr. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, before speaking to the bill before us, I wonder if I could take this opportunity first to make some general comments. This is my first speech in the House, and, first of all, it behooves me to thank hon. members on all sides of the House for the kindness they have shown me this past week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: It is great to first join an institution when the river is still running, which allows you time to catch up. So I want to thank a lot of people for throwing me a few lifelines and offering me the odd skiff so I can get across.
Now I should like to take the opportunity, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute to my colleague and friend, the former member of parliament from Rosedale, Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Adjournment Debate
Macdonald represented the riding of Rosedale from 1962 until last spring, when he resigned. He was a friend of people in all sections of Rosedale, and indeed he was a friend of the people in the city of Toronto. During the time I held office as mayor of Toronto there were many times when we had to deal with the quarters of power in Ottawa and we found that we could do so more swiftly when we could make a call to Mr. Macdonald.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Often when that call was made we found that, when the constituency demanded, the service was there.
I should like to make one final comment which might seem odd. I should like to pay tribute to the Liberal candidate in the riding of Rosedale in the last by-election. Yesterday morning I received a letter from my wife which was sent by Dr. John Evans to my son. It is not generally known that during the last week of the by-election campaign my son was hospitalized, which caused considerable distress to both my wife and myself. Although this was not generally known, it was known to Dr. Evans. Dr. Evans did not say anything to me but he wrote a letter to my son. This demonstrated once again, it seems to me, that Liberal though he may be, he is a gentleman with a touch of class.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: It appears, Mr. Speaker, that I have only about one minute left in which to introduce my comments on Bill C-10. What I would like to do now is to indicate that I would be happy if the House and you, Mr. Speaker, would grant me the opportunity tomorrow to speak about two nations. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago, on October 17, I heard with some surprise the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) rise to ask the following question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien):
Is the government considering amendments to the formula for grants in lieu of taxes to the city of Ottawa to compensate for the loss of tax revenue due to vacant office space as a result of moving public servants out of the city?
I say that I heard that question with some surprise because I raised that same question about four years ago. It is an issue in
8006 5 -44 Vi

October 31, 1978
Adjournment Debate
my riding that touches on the administration of the municipality of Surrey where we have a major federal installation, the Fraser River harbour commission, which does not pay taxes or grants in lieu of taxes. So when the hon. member for Ottawa West raised this issue in the House, I perked up my ears and said to myself: here we have another deathbed repentance. Now that the hon. member is in trouble in Ottawa, all of a sudden he has become interested in the core of Ottawa and he wants to do something for the people. The Minister of Finance in answer said the following:
Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion to discuss this problem with the mayor of Ottawa. We are looking at the problem at this time.
It cheered the cockles of my heart considerably to realize that the government was doing something about it, so I rose to ask the question myself a few minutes later, and I quote from page 168 of Hansard as follows:
1 refer specifically to the Fraser River harbour commission in Surrey. Is the minister entertaining an investigation of other federal installations across Canada, and does the government plan to pay grants in lieu of taxes in respect of facilities outside the national capital region?
To which the Minister of Finance replied:
Mr. Speaker, I am looking into this question and will be discussing it again with the government. We will look not only at the properties of the government in the national capital region, but also at all properties across Canada.
That was said two weeks ago. In looking at the problem over the past four years, I realize I am not the only member who has raised this question. It was raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). On February 20, 1978, as reported at page 3046 of Hansard, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said the following:
The promise is not new. On December 20, 1976, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) replied to the mayor of the city of Ottawa by indicating that effective action was being taken.
That occurred approximately eight months ago. We are still looking for that effective action. As reported at page 3047 of Hansard, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton went on to
say:
Two years ago he responded to it by indicating the legislation was forthcoming.
That raised our curiosity level even more. On January 27 the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) said the following:
-my colleague, the Minister of Finance, will be dealing with this question in the very near future.
He went on to say:
-the announcement made by the Minister of Finance will be followed through in the very near future. I would prefer to have him deal with this question when he is in the House.
Looking back a little further, the former hon. member for Ottawa Centre, Mr. Hugh Poulin, who is now a judge, as reported at page 412 of Hansard said the following:
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in correspondence with the mayor of the city of Ottawa, has indicated that the Grants in Lieu of Taxes Act will be amended during the life of this parliament.

Unless the Prime Minister has some strange schemes going for this parliament which we are not aware of, he had better act in a hurry because there is not much life left in this parliament.


Mr. Halliday:: There is not much life left in this government.


Benno Friesen: The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) is dead right. I do not mean to pun on that word.
This is a very serious problem. The government is aware that the national capital region has a problem. In the past few years they have made sure there were office buildings in the city of Hull and that there were vacant ones in the city of Ottawa. That robs Ottawa of business tax. Now that problem has been created, perhaps the government will realize problems exist all across Canada as a result of this particular policy and the failure of the federal government to deal with this important matter.
In the municipality of Surrey there is one federal installation. The municipality reckons that Surrey loses $200,000 a year from an installation which is making money. At present, legislation does not call for that installation to pay taxes or grants in lieu of taxes. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that he plans to bring forward legislation in the life of this parliament to deal with that problem.
I hope the parliamentary secretary has a concrete assurance to give us tonight. I hope he will deal with this so that municipalities providing services, proper roads, sewage and water facilities to these installations also will have the benefit of either grants in lieu of taxes or the taxes. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Martin) will have something to say on this.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) asked in the House on October 17 if the government plans to pay grants in lieu of taxes in respect of its facilities outside the national capital region. He went on to inquire whether the government is examining the status of the property of the Fraser River harbour commission in Surrey, British Columbia.
The government's system of grants in lieu of taxes is a national system which applies in all parts of Canada, and not just within the national capital region as suggested. Payments on departmental property are made under the Municipal Grants Act. This is a 1951 statute which was last amended in 1957. As the Minister of Finance indicated in this chamber on October 17, the government has been giving some thought to a number of issues which, it can be appreciated, exist in a statute of this age. As the statute now stands, it brings considerable benefits to municipalities in all parts of Canada.
In this regard, I might note that total payments to British Columbia local governments and the province itself in respect of property in municipally unorganized territory are expected to reach about $15 million in the present fiscal year. The district of Surrey receives grants in lieu on various departmen-
October 31, 1978

tal properties. The grant for the 1977 taxation year was $147,804. No application has yet been received for 1978.
In so far as the Fraser River harbour commission is concerned, the property which they administer is not departmental property and is specifically excluded from the provisions of the Municipal Grants Act. The government does not contemplate that properties of this kind would be brought within a revised Municipal Grants Act within the foreseeable future because the various harbour commissions are joint, intergovernmental bodies. In many cases, they administer lands belonging to different levels of government.
It would seem somewhat anomalous for the federal government to establish a policy with respect to those lands under a port commission's jurisdiction which are federal, unless the same policy is to apply to the non-federal lands. However, this would raise a question as to why the federal government should establish a policy that would have very direct implications for the other governments involved, be they municipalities or provinces. In these circumstances, the government has decided to leave the matter of future grant policy to each port commission. It is hoped that this will result in the negotiation of arrangements which will be in the best interests of all concerned.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-SUPPLYING OF ARMS TO SOUTHERN AFRICA-POSITION TAKEN BY GREAT BRITAIN
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, the question I put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) yesterday was concerned with Great Britain's involvement in the supplying of arms and munitions to certain African states in high tension areas where such "aid" can only result in further violence and bloodshed. I wanted to know particularly whether the Canadian government has commented in any way to the United Kingdom with regard to this volatile situation, and the minister replied rather lamely in the negative. This does appear to be a case of silence being consent.
At any rate, the government does not appear to object to Britain involving herself in these African atrocities in precisely the same manner as the Russians and the Cubans, placing modern weaponry in the hands of tribal warriors whose main goal these days seems to be to kill anyone who disagrees with them, or even anyone they suspect might disagree with them.
It is a dangerous game, one which the communists have been playing for a long time in Africa and elsewhere. Britain and, by association, other members of the Commonwealth would be most unwise to get into this lopsided chess game at which the Russians are past masters. In that part of the world today, Britain is sadly outnumbered and it is foolhardy to think that sending a few guns-though in this case it is much more serious because we are talking about surface-to-air missiles and other such pieces of sophisticated equipment-to Zambia is going to thwart any plans being engineered by the communists.
Adjournment Debate
An arms build-up in Africa can only lead to tribal wars and genocide; civil wars, if you like. These in turn can spread across state borders, eventually involving any number of African states. Since Cuba has been highly visible in African affairs for some time-and it appears that our government has co-operated with Cuba in its efforts to get arms and men to that troubled continent in the past by allowing their war materiel to land in this country en route to Africa-and since it is common knowledge that the Soviet Union has been supplying various states and factions with war materiel for years, this is no game for the British who have enough problems at home and in Ireland.
By its commonwealth association and by its silent consent, the Canadian government is involving itself in African affairs along with Britain. This is foolhardy enough in itself, but really foolish when you stop to think of the odds stacked against anyone who confronts communist-backed forces in that part of the world now.
This government has been pouring money hand over fist into African countries, supposedly to feed starving millions of people. How much of that money is feeding the people and how much of it is buying bullets, bombs and back-up material from the communists? How much of that money is killing the very people it was intended to keep alive?
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the World Council of Churches has been giving aid to these terrorists. I was amazed on Sunday night to see the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada on television admitting that he was only going by his conscience and was not concerned with what was actually going on. He had not made any effort to visit the area. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that 95 per cent of the people killed in Rhodesia by the guerrillas invading from Zambia are black people.
The minister said earlier today that he would need more specific information on Britain's involvement in African affairs. All he needs to do is read the same newspapers we all have access to. But he prefers to sit, wait for word from London, hoping and praying nervously all the while that these nasty things will pass away and Africa will settle down to a peaceful, pastoral picture once again. It seems to me he is proceeding in a very naive way.
I say to the minister that African people, in one part of that continent or another, have not known true peace in this entire century. There has always been some big nation from Europe sticking its thumb in to see what it could come up with. And Britain is back into the act, not as the empire builder she once was, but as a relatively minor member of a gang of misdirected moderns who will achieve nothing there but the building of a gigantic powder keg.
We must not forget that the Middle East problem also involves part of Africa-a big part of Africa in the north. So it is all part of the same grandiose chess game and it becomes increasingly and dangerously unstable every time one more non-African nation tries to get into the act.

October 31, 1978
Adjournment Debate
If Canada is seen to approve, silently or otherwise, British involvement in African affairs, then this country's position is jeopardized, whether we are seen as aligning ourselves with communist aggressors or simply doing nothing to persuade Britain from doing just that. If his government, as the minister says, really believes this kind of arms escalation must be brought to an end, then let us have some action on at least some strong words on the subject, not just a mouthful of excuses.


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) stated in the House on October 30 that he had had no conversations with the British Foreign Secretary regarding Britain's decision to send military supplies to Zambia. We would not, indeed, expect the British government to consult us on its transactions with a sovereign fellow member of the Commonwealth concerning its defence needs.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs added that, when he had more specific information, he would consider whether it was useful to the House to give a more detailed response. We are seeking confirmation of press and other reports that the military equipment sent to Zambia is for Zambia's defence needs, particularly air defence. According to reports, the supplies have included communications equipment, mine detectors and anti-aircraft guns, with the possibility of ground-to-air missiles to follow, and they have been supplied on condition that they are not handed on to the guerilla forces.
We also understand from reports that Dr. Owen has stated that there was no question of stationing British troops or aircraft in Zambia or of sending any equipment that could be used for any purpose other than the protection of Zambia.
As all hon. members will realize, the actions of the British government are related to the vexing Rhodesian question. For too many years the repressive Rhodesian regime has illegally exercised power in defiance of the international community and the situation has been in the forefront of unsolved international problems. The unacceptability of the illegal regime's policies and its intransigence in the face of international efforts to find solutions have through the years severely affected the neighbouring states. Incursions such as took place in recent weeks and particularly the raids into Zambia point up the need for all parties to get together to discuss peaceful ways to settle the affair without delay. Zambia is particularly vulnerable, both militarily and economically, to Rhodesian actions. It is unable to protect itself from the operation of the illegal regime's security forces. In addition, it has had to open its border to permit transhipment of vital supplies of fertilizer through Rhodesia.
It appears from all reports that the military supplies are indeed of a defensive nature and intended only for Zambia's defence should it be attacked. Until we have confirmation of the reports, however, we can make no further comment.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-POLICY REGARDING EXTENDED USE OF SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on the face of it the social insurance number appears to be a simple and innocuous number to be given out as casually as you would give out your name. Unfortunately, the SIN number has become much more than that; it is becoming more and more a national identity number and the card a national identity card.
Think of all the occasions, sir, when the SIN number is used. It is used for registration at hospitals, schools, libraries, banks, insurance companies, and indeed it is now being used by the army as a regimental number. Youngsters playing pee-wee hockey are asked for their SIN numbers for the National Hockey Association's computer. Canadians must provide SIN to cash Canada Savings Bonds and SIN are a must on income tax returns. The school systems of Saskatchewan and Ontario use SIN for record keeping for students in senior grades. Motor vehicle drivers' records in Quebec, and hunting licences in Manitoba, are recorded by SIN.
Due to the ever-growing use of social insurance numbers in different agencies and departments at all levels of government and in the private field, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) on October 27, 1978, the following. I asked her what the policy is regarding the extension of the use of social insurance numbers in a variety of ways so that they have now become glorified identification cards and numbers.
The question is important to Canadians for several reasons. First introduced in 1964, the Pearson government gave repeated assurances that numbers would not become national identity cards but would be used solely as social security numbers. Yet through the years, notwithstanding this firm undertaking, there has been extension of the system to most government departments.
My objections are twofold. The use of SIN has been so extended as to become a de facto national identity card, despite government assurances to the contrary. Secondly, this policy, whether overt or covert, has been adopted without a full examination and public debate of its merits and consequences. That is really the substance of my complaint in this matter. Maybe we will get to a single identification number in this country, but I suggest that the government has broken its word, broken the commitment made by Prime Minister Pearson and others not to let this policy be extended without first having a full debate on the implications of having a single identification number.
Closely related to these concerns is the problem of safeguards and laws to protect the confidentiality of the information in the computers. Information given for the purposes of one program, for example old age pensions, should not be transferred to other computers dealing with another program. Because of the increasing compatibility of the latest computers and their ability to communicate with each other, our social insurance number could then become a key which would open up our lives to the unscrupulous data bank manipulator.
October 31, 1978

Secondly, the access to the information in a file should be closely regulated to guard against abuse by government or other agency.
These concerns about our privacy in the face of new computer technology and increasing government are not abstract musings, in recognition of today's realities. I will give examples of some things that have happened according to testimony given by the assistant commissioner of the RCMP, Hank Jensen, to the McDonald commission into RCMP activities in June of this year. He gave some interesting information. He said that 50 per cent of all cases of false pretences made use of SIN cards. He pointed out that the problem relating to this false pretences percentage was due to lack of security surrounding SIN.
He illustrated the case of a Calgary man who had 109 SIN cards, 59 UIC claims and a monthly income of $33,000. He also told of a Montreal duo who used 60 SIN cards over a period of two months to collect $32,867 from the UIC and who had projected earnings of half a million dollars from their gainful unemployment had they not slipped up. Then there was the Winnipeg man who parlayed 25 SIN cards into $92,000 over 4'/2 years.
The minister missed the point of my question. We must have a public debate. Parliament must give its mandate to the expansion of the use of these numbers or we fail our responsibility in this House as individual members. The parliamentary secretary can take a message to the minister. I intend to pursue this matter until we get a satisfactory resolution of this very difficult and ominous problem.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, it has several times been suggested in this House that the government intends actively to promote the expanded use of social insurance numbers outside of social service programs by all levels of government. Such is not the government's policy, nor did the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) at any time say that it was. As she did say, however, the government
Adjournment Debate
is concerned to maintain tight control of the very large program of expenditure for which she is responsible as minister, and to that end the social insurance number is an indispensible tool.
As I said, the government is not trying to promote the extension of the use of the SIN outside the federal government. I am not saying, however, that the government will prohibit such use, or refuse to co-operate if a private sector organization, or one in another level of government, decides to make administrative use of the SIN. The holder of a social insurance number is at liberty to divulge it to those with whom he or she transacts business. Whether he or she does so or not is essentially a matter of negotiation between the parties. Any attempt on the part of the government to control or influence such negotiations would be intrusive, and probably ineffectual.
The use of the SIN in connection with the administration of unemployment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, and the income tax is sanctioned by statute. In the context of those very large programs involving millions of Canadians, effective administration is impossible without a unique identifier for each citizen involved. Large business firms, other levels of government and, indeed, other departments of the federal government doing business across the country experience the same administrative need. It should therefore occasion no surprise if these organizations ask a person with whom they deal for an identifier which distinguishes him or her from all others of similar name.
As to the use of the social insurance number within the federal government outside the area of "social service programs", such use has, of course, been recognized since parliament amended the Income Tax Act in 1967 to provide for the use of the SIN on income tax returns. Other departments also use the SIN as a matter of administrative practice, in the same manner as do firms in the private sector.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m., without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

October 31, 1978


APPENDIX &quot;A
[Stage Direction]
Table 1
Change in Disposable Income Resulting from Child Benefit Changes, 1979
Married Couple-Two Children under Age 16
Wage or	Refundable	Reduction	Total change in	Salary	Child	In Family	Other Tax	Disposable Income	Income	Credit	Allowance	Changes*	Amount	Per Cent<$)	($)	(S)	($)	(S)	m5,000	400	192	-	208	3.88,000	400	192	14	194	2.310,000	400	192	49	159	1.615,000	400	192	41	167	1.320,000	306	192	38	76	0.525,000	57	192	28	-163	-0.830,000	-	192	-62	-130	-0.6
Married Couple-Three Children under Age 16
Wage or	Refundable	Reduction	Total change in	Salary	Child Tax	In Family	Other Tax	Disposable Income	Income	Credit	Allowance	Changes*	Amount	Per Cent(S)	($)	(S)	(S)	(S)	(%)5,000	600	288	-	312	5.38,000	600	288	-21	333	3.810,000	600	288	75	237	2.315,000	600	288	63	249	1.820,000	506	288	72	146	0.925,000	257	288	54	-85	-0.430,000	-	288	-97	- 191	-0.8
* A positive number signifies a tax increase; a negative number a tax decrease. The Change in disposable income is the amount of refundable child credit less the amount of reduction in family allowances and less the effects of other tax changes.
The refundable child credit is $200 per child, reduced by five per cent of family net income in excess of $ 18,000. Family allowances are reduced to $20 per month per child. Net income is wage or salary income less deductions for employment expenses and CPP/QPP and UI contributions.
Other Tax Changes include the elimination of the $50 per child portion of the federal tax reduction and decreased taxes resulting from the decrease in family allowances. The amounts shown are changes in federal and provincial tax.
Each family is assumed to have one earner under age 65 receiving earned income. Family allowances are added to H income in calculating tax payable. CPP/QPP and UI contribu- H tions as well as the employment expense deduction, calculated	H
at current rates, are deducted in computing tax. Provincial tax	H
is calculated at the rate of 44 per cent. As provincial tax rates H
vary from province to province the value of other tax changes			
will differ somewhat, depending on the province of residence of			
the taxpayer. No account is taken of provincial tax cuts and			
credits.			
			
Table 2			'
Child Credit Benefits Payable, 1979			, -
Number of children			
Family Net Income One Two	Three	Four	' [DOT] '
. '
(S)			
Under 18,000 200 400	600	800	20,000 100 300	500	700	22,000 - 200	400	600	24,000 - 100	300	500	[DOT]IS26,000	200	400	28,000	100	300	30,000	-	200	32,000	-	100	34,000	-	-	Benefits are those payable in 1979 on the basis of 1978 incomes.	Table 3	Federal Fiscal Impact of Child Benefit Changes	1978-79	1979-80	Item	Expenditures Revenues Expenditures Revenues	*(S millions)	Refundable tax credit Reduction in family	-	- -	-810	allowances	-170	-40 -690	-130	Elimination of cur-	rent $50 child tax	credit	-	+35	+260	Modification of	exemptions for 16 and 17 year old	children	-	+5	+25	TOTAL	-170	0 -690	-655	Effect on financial	requirements	-170	-35

[Stage Direction]
oo
[Stage Direction]
10 000
20 000 INCOME
[Stage Direction]
30 000
40 000
[Stage Direction]


vyi

[Stage Direction]
COMMONS DEBATES	October 31, 1978
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 1, 1978