1978-11-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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 namely, that the railway companies are engaged in a national propaganda campaign to abolish the statutory Crowsnest freight rates which have been in existence since 1898 and which have been a cornerstone of benefit to the western wheat farmer and to tens of thousands of farmers who otherwise would have been unable to carry on.
Should the railways be successful in their objective, a body blow will have been struck to western farmers. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House declares there shall be no interference with these rates and that they should be continued in full force and effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 permits the introduction of such a motion for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The announcement by the government of the removal of the per bushel subsidy on the price of domestically consumed wheat will mean an increase of seven cents in the cost of a loaf of bread. First the turkey; now the stuffing. I, therefore, move:
That this House directs the government to implement the recommendation of the Auditor General to effect economies in government spending, rather than increasing the price of a loaf of bread, a move which will place a heavy burden on low income families.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUBSIDY ON DOMESTICALLY CONSUMED GRAIN-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has announced a reduction of the subsidy on wheat used by millers for bread, which will result in an increase in the price of bread by five cents a loaf, and in view of the great hardship this will impose on people on low incomes, particularly old age pensioners, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House directs the government to cancel this decision and restore the full subsidy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUESTED FIRING OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to propose a motion under the same Standing Order. In September, 1973, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board told the special food prices committee that the cost of wheat used in a 24-ounce loaf of bread, "is now fixed and firm at 71/2 cents a loaf for the next seven years".
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That this House remind the Prime Minister that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is about to break a promise he made to the Canadian people and that we therefore request that he be fired.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vegreville.

November 29, 1978


S O. 43 GRAIN CALL FOR INDUSTRY MEETING TO IMPROVE GRAIN MOVEMENT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of Canada's continuing loss of grain export sales and the forced decision by the Canadian Wheat Board to withdraw from the monthly Japanese market because of the failure of Canada's transportation system, and noting that the current atmosphere within the grain industry is rapidly deteriorating, to the point where the parties involved are engaging in verbal warfare and exchanging accusations rather than addressing the issue positively, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the Minister of Transport provide leadership by immediately convening a grain summit which would bring together representatives of all components of the grain handling, transportation and marketing system to deal with and arrive at solutions not only to resolve the immediate grain and transportation crisis but also to develop a comprehensive plan of action for the expansion of the system to meet the challenges of the eighties.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of public and scientific concern about an expeditious solution to the problem of the 1,500 gallon spill of PCBs in Regina, and taking into consideration the apparent inability of the governments involved to find adequate storage space for the highly toxic pollutant, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton):
That the House instruct the federal environment minister, in co-operation with the Saskatchewan department of the environment, to pursue the option of transporting the contaminated soil to a special incineration facility, perhaps the germ warfare incinerator at Suffield, Alberta, or an appropriate site in the United States where the chemical could be destroyed by high-intensity heat.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST HOUSE COMMITTEE STUDY GRAIN HANDLING SYSTEM-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Uake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter which is obviously urgent because so many members have become involved. My motion arises out of the worsening situation in grain movement which prevents the Canadian Wheat Board from increasing benefits for Canada and its grain producers. Railway service is so bad that ports do not receive sufficient carloads of grain per day to allow terminals to operate at maximum capacity, and since it is obvious that railway management is conducting a campaign to bog down grain movement and to sabotage the Crowsnest pass grain rates, which is costing farmers millions of dollars, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House requests that the government introduce an order of reference which instructs the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to hold hearings on an emergency basis concerning all aspects of grain movement to Thunder Bay, Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Churchill; that the committee be authorized to travel, hear witnesses and. where necessary, to subpoena witnesses; and that the committee report back to parliament with recommendations for government action no later than December 15.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to seek the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion. I have handed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a copy of this motion, and he says he will not say no to it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cecil Morris Smith: In view of the harsh economic conditions suffered by the many Indian people of this country, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be included in the new super ministry responsible for economic development in Canada to ensure native peoples' concerns are represented in the over-all economic development of our country.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has now left the chamber.
November 29, 1978

Mir. Speaker: Order. Presentation of such a motion for debate would require the unanimous consent of the House, is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Hare (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a mattter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that there exists among the auto dealers of Canada a current inventory of automobiles amounting to close to $2 billion, and that this inventory will not be subject to the 3 per cent discount in manufacturing tax, which means that the auto-buying consumer will have to pay $60 million to cover this inventory, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the government immediately initiate steps to rebate the 3 per cent tax differential on the present automobile inventory, and it should be not only for the auto industry but for any industry where purchased inventory contains a significant dollar value.


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.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the training allowance for married women and young, single people has been decreased from $45 to $10 per week, in view of the fact that the deputy minister of employment said in committee recently that this was in response to a direct order from Treasury Board, and in view of the fact that this is most discriminatory toward married women and young, single persons living at home who should be receiving an increase, rather than a decrease, because of the rise in the cost of living, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That Treasury Board immediately restore the allowance to these groups to at least the original $45.
Oral Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport, in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In 1973, the government responded to an anticipated five-cent increase in the price of a loaf of bread by putting in place a subsidy on domestically consumed wheat. That program was to last for a period of seven years. The Prime Minister said at that time:
In present world conditions the most urgent task of the government is to ensure that those who are least able to defend themselves against the effects of inflation are protected.
Since this will make little or no difference to wheat producers, why is the government now moving to cancel the subsidy and pass a large percentage of the burden to low income families in Canada who have to rely to a very large extent on bread and pasta in this period of rising food prices?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the arrangement made in 1973 was an arrangement with wheat producers that for seven years there would be a certain range within which the returns to them might move in connection with wheat sold for consumption in Canada. That range was originally set between a floor of $3.25 and a ceiling of $5. What we are now proposing is to raise the floor to $4 having regard to changes in the costs of production, and to allow the price to float in that range.
In 1973, because there had already been a very rapid escalation in the price of wheat to the $3 level and through that figure, the government decided to cushion the immediate impact of the rise by paying a consumer subsidy effective on everything over $3.25. That has gone on for some five years, to the benefit, I believe, of consumers to the extent of some $385 million. Now the government has decided that its spending restraint program requires this to be reviewed. Therefore, the cost-which perhaps would have been a cost to the treasury of $100 million this year-will now be changed in terms of a non-spending item and the Wheat Board will be free to make such a charge as the world price would indicate between the $4 and $5 range, which is a continuation of the old agreement.

November 29, 1978
Oral Questions
While there will be an unfortunate, but necessary, increase in the price of bread, it should be recognized that it follows five years of complete stability in the part of the bread price which represents wheat. Other factors have gone up, of course, and the price of bread has continued to rise over that period- but not because of wheat. Now an adjustment is being allowed in relation to wheat which in total will have, I am told, approximately a 0.1 per cent impact upon the cost of living index compared to, say, 0.5 per cent to 0.7 per cent that the oil price increase would have meant.


James Aloysius McGrath: Surely the minister knows that that 0.1 per cent increase will lean most heavily on the group in society which needs protection most, that is, low income earners. When that policy was introduced, bread was 36 cents a loaf; it is now 60 cents a loaf. As a result of the government's move, it will go up to 70 cents a loaf by June of next year.
1 ask the minister, why did the government, if they felt it was absolutely necessary as a restraint measure-I think the House and the country would seriously question that-not ease it in over a period of years, as it has done with oil prices, to offset the impact on consumers? Why is the government not doing this in the case of bread, given the impact it will have on poor families in the country who are finding it hard enough as it is to get by?


Otto Emil Lang: Lack of action in 1973 would have meant a very high proportionate increase in the price of bread, because bread was priced lower and wheat prices went up to $5.50 at that point. This shows the reason for the change today. As a proportion of bread prices, the increase will be far, far lower than it would have been if that had been allowed to happen in 1973.
However, the answer to the over-all question is that we have to exercise restraint in government spending from the point of view of the over-all impact on the economy of dollars spent by the government, whether through a deficit or through additional taxes. That was an essential program. As part of that program, we are transferring large amounts of money through improved social programs to those who need them most, and hence we put before the House recently the proposal to increase the guaranteed income supplement to older persons. Also, of course, we have the tax credit for families with children under the $18,000 bracket. These people will be helped substantially by these measures.


James Aloysius McGrath: I would remind the minister that we also have before the House the Auditor General's report. Perhaps he could look there for a way of implementing restraint, instead of on the backs of the poor.
1 ask the minister whether he consulted his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, before implementing this move, given the fact that we have already removed this year the consumer subsidy on powdered skim milk in Canada-again, a move which will lean heaviest on low income earners. Did the minister consult the Minister of National

Health and Welfare, and did he satisfy himself about the social impact on low income families in this country of this heartless, Marie Antoinette move which he is now taking?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Resign.


An hon. Member:: Callous.


Otto Emil Lang: I am not sure Marie Antoinette would have been satisfied either, because the price of cake might go up as well.
Some lion. Members: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: The fact is that the government as a whole had to take this decision, although not gladly because we are never glad to see a price increase. The government took the decision after having arranged, through our policies, to transfer a significant amount of money to families most in need, families with incomes under $18,000. 1 need not remind the hon. member that those families will be receiving in the new year a tax credit, even if they do not pay tax, of $200 per child; so that a family of five will be receiving $1,000 in the next few months.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Stevens:: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Simcoe on a supplementary.


INCREASE IN PRICE OF BREAD-TWO-PRICE SYSTEM FOR WHEAT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it follows on the questioning of my colleague.
In responding to questions, the minister indicated that this was a kind of floating price plan. Does the minister not recall, when the plan was brought in, that the minister of agriculture at that time said it would enshrine, to use his words, the two-price system for wheat for seven years? He went on to say that it was "a measure to help keep down the cost of bread to Canadians by freezing the price of bread wheat to millers at a maximum of $3.25 per bushel." Would the Minister of Transport now indicate why that word has been broken by defreezing the bread wheat price from $3.25 to $4?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of defreezing it from $3.25 to $4. In fact, if the hon. member would check the legislation, he would find that the legislation itself requires a review of the minimum price in the seven-year arrangement having regard to costs of production. Accordingly, last year we increased the minimum from $3.25 to $3.55. This year we are increasing it to $4, much in
November 29, 1978

line with the suggestions made to us by farm organizations about the costs of production.
In 1973, at the same time as we introduced the program of two-price wheat, we introduced a consumer subsidy. We had to change that decision to have a consumer subsidy in relation to bread and wheat, in light of the exact fiscal situation. Surely hon. members will recognize that two-price wheat traditionally has been a program designed specifically in relation to the needs of producers. It is a program for which we from Saskatchewan and other parts of the prairies fought for years until we finally achieved it. It should be seen as a producers' program and not anything else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, when we take the rhetoric away from what the minister has said, once again the government has broken its word to the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Dealing with the question of the supposed saving of $100 million-which is a nice way of loading an extra five cents to seven cents on every loaf of bread for Canadian consumers-would the minister indicate if he considered cutting back on some of the losses which are being incurred at Mirabel: $51 million, as pointed out by the Auditor General, and an accumulated loss of $119 million since the airport was opened in 1975? If he considered somehow eliminating those losses, did he not feel that would be a more suitable restraint than to take it out on those in the country who have to eat such a basic commodity as bread?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what kind of extraordinary suggestion that is, coming from the hon. member who purports to know something about financing. We have an existing airport. He might wish that it had not been built, but it will prove that it is very badly needed over the next number of years. He might wish that it had not been built, but since the only loss on the airport, effectively, is the carrying of the actual interest charges against the original investment, nothing we do now will change that fact.
The fact of the matter is, money does not appear easily, in terms of savings, for the whole financial account. This government knew, when it was going about the cost-cutting exercise, that it would be cutting a lot of good programs. Even though hon. members opposite always made it sound as though programs could be cut easily and painlessly, we knew that would not be so. We do not like cutting this particular program in relation to the price of bread. But we had to make choices to keep our over-all financial position in order and to avoid the spurring of inflation, which is a very important priority for the government. Therefore, we had to act.
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


INCREASE IN PRICE OF BREAD-SUGGESTED PROFITEERING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my questions were for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but in view of his absence I will direct them to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council. They also concern the Christmas gift of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to the Canadian people.
The cost of wheat in a loaf of bread will rise by 3.3 cents as a result of the subsidy being withdrawn by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, but the Bakery Council of Canada indicates that the price of a loaf of bread may rise by as much as seven cents. Why does this 3.3-cents increase in the raw material result in a seven-cent increase in the price of a loaf of bread for Canadian consumers? Is that profiteering? If it is, will the minister look into it?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, 1 want to assure the hon. member that the events following this policy announcement will be monitored to ensure that no profiteering will take place.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In other words, what he is saying, Mr. Speaker, is, "Let them eat crackers".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Salted?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to bring to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister, again in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the fact that profits of the food companies went up by some 63 per cent in the last 18 months. Maple Leaf Mills, for example-one of the largest bakeries-had a profit increase of 28 per cent in 1977, over 1976.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that the milling and baking industry will not take advantage of the withdrawal of the subsidy to artificially mark up the price of bread higher than it need be? If he can give that assurance, what will he do to make sure the promise is carried out?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, going back to the first question which the hon. member asked me, namely, whether it was the intention of the government to monitor any unjustified price increases that might result in profiteering, the answer is yes, the government will undertake that type of supervision.
In answer to the question put now, the government has received assurance and I am informed that the millers and others will not take advantage of this situation in order to realize windfall profits.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the minister in charge of the Canadian

November 29, 1978
Oral Questions
Wheat Board. The Deputy Prime Minister has said the millers will not take advantage of the situation. Since 1973, of course, the price of wheat to millers has been frozen but the price of bread went up by 56 per cent and the price of flour went up by 66 per cent. Can the minister explain to the House this large increase in the price of bread and the price of flour, when the price of the basic raw material has been frozen?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that has been explained to the House and to the people of Canada by various investigations into the question surrounding the price of bread. 1 believe the Food Prices Review Board, for one, made an exhaustive examination of the question; also, other bodies have done so. Obviously, other costs, such as the cost of labour involved in the milling process and the cost of packaging and distribution, have been rising even while the price of wheat has remained the same. I think that is really the proper perspective to put on this last increase in relation to the price of wheat. Other price elements in the price of bread have been going up along with inflation; only wheat has been held absolutely stable.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
On November 10 I moved a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 concerning a serious problem which exists, at least in my province, because of rules which apply to and paralyse certain Canada Works projects. Later on I asked the minister whether he intended to have a talk with the Quebec labour minister to try and find a solution so that work may resume on certain projects and not be stopped on others. In his reply the minister stated that he would contact his Quebec counterpart about this as soon as possible.
Could the minister advise us today whether he has had discussions with the Quebec labour minister? If so, have there been any tangible results and can we expect that the work will continue to be carried out normally on the project I mentioned and not be paralysed on other projects?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, because of the technical terms I must use,
I shall reply in English.

I did look into the particular project the hon. member raised with me, because I wanted to discuss it with Mr. Johnson, the minister of labour, if that should be necessary. The program was travaux modifies. Upon examining it. we found that
[Mr. Nystrom.)
project had gone outside the terms of reference of the Canada Works project; in other words, beyond the criteria. They had engaged workers in laying a concrete or cement floor. That was not an activity allowed for in the Canada Works contract. Because they had gone beyond the contract, they required a carte de competence. That matter has since been resolved and the program is proceeding on course.
With respect to requirements under regulations established by the provinces, of course we expect the people participating in the Canada Works operations to abide by those regulations. We have indicated to them some of the problems they may run into as a result of the carte de competence and it has not become a massive problem. Projects are proceeding apace. If the hon. member has further projects that might be applicable, I would be happy to hear from him.
[ Translation]


CANADA WORKS PROGRAM-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBILITY OF CHANGING ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I see that no solution has been found and that the situation will continue to create problems. At any rate, 1 have a question for the minister which arises from a communication from the first ministers' conference. It says: "The Canada Works program will be used primarily in areas with a high rate of unemployment". Given the present circumstances and in order to obtain results and so that the local authorities of these regions choose projects which will really serve the community, could the minister tell the House whether it is possible to change the criteria in order that projects will not only be announced, but also implemented without excessive difficulty? Moreover, given the fact that the workers who are on unemployment are not all skilled workers, would the minister be willing to change the criteria in order to allow these people to earn a living by working on the development of Canada Works projects?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we are making some changes to tilt the benefits of Canada Works into the areas of high unemployment; we are looking at modifying some of the criteria. For example, where a concern may start up an operation that will employ people and result in a small profit, not a windfall profit, we are prepared to look at that kind of enterprise because it does create jobs and meets the needs in particular areas. We hope, through either ministerial advisory boards or through hon. members themselves-who I think know the ridings better than anyone-that the selection process will be followed. As the hon. member knows, we listen very carefully to representations from members of parliament.
November 29, 1978

In the final analysis, 1 must accept responsibility for the projects that we approve, but I lean very heavily on ministerial advisory boards from local areas and, most assuredly, on members of parliament to see that the projects in place are the ones that should be in place and do the most good for the area.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with reports made today that officials of his department are involved in some way in arrangements which might facilitate the return to Canada of two members of the FLQ who were exiled from this country in 1970.
Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to confirm or deny those reports; and if they are correct, could he give the House of Commons details as to why these two members of the FLQ are returning to Canada? What is the role of the Government of Canada in facilitating their return?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I could give the one-word response that the hon. member has asked for in the phrasing of his question, by simply denying it. There has been no direct contact or, in any sense, interviews or anything of that nature between representatives of the Department of External Affairs or, so far as I know, of the federal government abroad.
The rumour which had some credence with one story this morning, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition may know, has this afternoon been diminished substantially in the substance of it, and we can only go by what we read in the papers or hear on the radio. There has been no contact with any officials abroad.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. It relates to an understanding given in this House in 1970 by the then minister of justice-the Hon. John Turner-who, in relation to the War Measures Act said, as reported at page 215 of the October 16, 1970, Hansard'.
It is my hope that some day the full details of the intelligence upon which the government acted can be made public, because until that day comes the people of Canada will not be able fully to appraise the course of action which has been taken by the government.
To this point, eight years later, there has not been any publication of the full or, indeed, even partial details of the intelligence upon which the government acted, so there is a state of ignorance in the Canadian public. Does this Minister of Justice have any intention of following the word given parliament by his predecessor in 1970?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, my predecessor expressed a hope at that time. As far as 1 am concerned, 1 see no reason at this time to get involved in rehashing these events, if there are particular allegations or
Oral Questions
particular problems relating to the situation, I will be very happy to try to answer hon. members when they have questions.
If there are elements that should be examined by the McDonald commission, it has a completely free hand and access to all documents, including those relating to the 1970 crisis.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Justice tell us for what reason or policy this information is being kept from parliament and the public of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the Parliament of Canada and the public were as fully informed as was possible and advisable at the time. 1 see no reason why intelligence collected at the time or since should be released to the public.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On November 8, after a meeting between the minister and his counterparts in the provinces, the minister spoke to reporters, including those of Canadian Press. As it is outlined in the Citizen of November 8, 1978, he told them that-
-his grand design for industrial development during the next few years is to prepare Canadian companies to be ready for the major developments ahead. He offered the Alaska natural gas pipeline and the hydroelectric power project on the lower Churchill as examples.
When asked how he knows his new approach will work, he replied: "Because I am in charge."
Now that the minister is no longer in charge-as we have seen from the announcement of November 24 on the formulation of a new board of economic management what guarantees do we have that this new approach of the minister's will work?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, 1 intend to set up very soon a task force from the private sector, composed mainly of businessmen involved in engineering and in these types of projects, to examine all the projects so that we can maximize Canadian benefits those projects will provide for our industrial sector.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder how the minister can say that when, surely, his proposal will have to go to the board of economic management. The Prime Minister has said, "The board will have the responsibility of reviewing and approving all programs and policies directly affecting economic development, secondary industry, resource industry, such as tourism, not only co-ordinating but also approving the delivery of federal programs." In view of these pronouncements by the Prime Minister, what does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have left to supervise, except perhaps the metric

November 29, 1978
Oral Questions
commission? Does he now like the metric commission? Could he tell us what is left for him?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is still my responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It has about 2,700 employees working on thousands of projects to assist industries right across Canada. The minister of economic development, the other ministers of the committee and I will work very well together, and we should see greater co-ordination of greater efforts to help industry in this country.


CALL FOR INDUSTRY MEETING TO IMPROVE GRAIN MOVEMENT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. The grain movement in this country is continuing to deteriorate. It appears that no visible action is being taken to improve the situation. There seems to be some degree of uncertainty in identifying problems, isolating them and taking the necessary corrective action. The parties involved in the movement of grain are engaged in verbal crossfire.
Would the Minister of Transport undertake to exercise his leadership responsibility by convening an emergency meeting of all components of the grain handling, transportation and marketing sector of the grain industry, to bring all parties together in an attempt to resolve the current problem and lay the groundwork for increasing the capacity of our grain handling system to meet the challenges of the 1980s?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that it is not very useful for one sector within the grain handling system to point the finger at another sector. That has happened in the past and we are trying to minimize it.
Meetings of the type to which the hon. member refers have taken place and have been attended by expert management consultants. At an early date they will be in a position to make recommendations to me of specific action for improving the system. That action may require some change of position, whether on the part of the railways or the grain handling companies. At that point I may require the co-operation of all hon. members to make sure that all the pressure possible is brought to bear upon such a sector in order to act according to the recommendations.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Since the matter is so urgent, in the minds of producers and all concerned at this time, and nothing appears to be taking place to improve the situation, could I prevail upon the minister to

call for such a meeting immediately? If he has had such a meeting, I am sure it is not known to this House or to producers and all those engaged in the grain handling industry. Because of its importance right now-and, I am sure, as a result of the study that has been undertaken he has some facts and figures before him-can he not immediately convene such an emergency meeting so that all the facts can be laid on the table and we can arrive at a solution before it is too late?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really contradicting his earlier position, because such a meeting would only have a tendency to organize finger-pointing by one at the other-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What about your leadership: you have not exercised your leadership?


Otto Emil Lang: What we have had, instead, is leadership in terms of making sure that working meetings were going on which would produce results and sound recommendations upon which we could act. Many people in the west know that these sessions have been going on, and I expect to have results from them.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL CONTRIBUTE FINANCIALLY TO RECONSTRUCTION OF EXPERIMENTAL WINDMILL AT 1LES-DE-LA-MADELEINE, QUEBEC
Mr. Albert  Becliard@Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in his new position of Minister of State for Science and Technology, but in his absence, 1 will put it to his very efficient parliamentary secretary.
Following the deplorable accident which occurred last July at the experimental windmill built at Iles-de-la-Madeleine by Hydro-Quebec, with a contribution of over 90 per cent from the National Research Council, and following the recent decision to rebuild this generator, can the parliamentary secretary tell the House, as well as the population of Magdalen Islands, of Quebec and of Canada as a whole if NRC, and therefore the federal government will support financially this reconstruction project?


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to reply in the affirmative. This project, the wind turbine vertical axis generator, the Darrieus type, will be negotiated as a joint project between the province of Newfoundland and the province of Quebec for an even larger type, when it will be reconstructed.
November 29, 1978

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I might mention that Dr. Schneider, Director of the National Research Council, will be appearing tomorrow morning before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and will be available to answer any further questions that members may have with respect to that project.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday's Economic Council of Canada report stated that the rapid increase in food prices can be attributed to soaring profits for food and beverage manufacturers. Since I have received a secret cabinet document dated June 20, entitled "Possible Response to Food Price Increases", may 1 ask the minister if he can indicate to the House why the government has reneged on its responsibilities, as indicated in that document, to take action to prevent rising food prices and profits?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no way of authenticating the source of the hon. member's question. I will draw it to the attention of the minister so that he can deal with it when he returns to Ottawa.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Perhaps I might ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question that will not require any authentication.
In view of the fact that, according to the council's report, over-all profits in the food industry increased 63 per cent in the last six months, and since individual food companies such as Weston's, with a 113 per cent profit increase, and Burns Foods with a 199 per cent increase in profit, are profiteering off the Canadian consumer, will the minister request these companies to rescind their food increases?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has already made a statement to the effect that he has been taking a keen interest in these developments and reviewing possible action that could be taken. I should like to refresh my memory on the policy point.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wished to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, but in his absence 1 will direct it to the Deputy
Oral Questions
Prime Minister, as the fishing industry is one in which he has considerable expertise.
According to Mr. D. A. MacLean, director of the federal fisheries department, planning and co-ordination branch, some 1,000 tons of swordfish-representing a multi-million dollar industry-have been caught this year by Nova Scotian fishermen and sold to United States buyers at sea, which is reminiscent of the prohibition era when Nova Scotians delivered good cheer to their thirsty friends below the border.
In view of the fact that Canadian fishermen are obviously selling swordfish at a fraction of the real value, is the minister aware of any steps that have been taken recently to legalize this fishery in order to make possible direct shipments from Canada to the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such steps.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it is obvious, from the tonnage I have mentioned, that the United States is no longer concerned about the level of mercury in swordfish, and since Canadians are obviously geared to catch this particular species, would the Deputy Prime Minister consult his colleague with a view to initiating the immediate opening of the swordfishing industry for Canadian consumption?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment has demonstrated his interest in following up all possibilities with respect to increasing the income of fishermen, including swordfishermen. All I would hope, in concert with the hon. member, is that the prosperity that was yielded to Nova Scotia in the earlier era to which he referred might be renewed at the present time.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Rob Parker (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications which is related to the policy of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission that proceedings of this House shall not be carried on the community channels of Canadian cable television companies, which effectively restricts access to those proceedings.
Considering that funds to generate television coverage were provided from general tax revenues, and that restriction of viewership to those who own a converter amounts to a viewing licence, will the minister tell the House whether it was the purpose of this policy to restrict first-hand exposure to the government's incompetence, as revealed during question period, to Canadians wealthy enough to own a converter; or was it, rather, the purpose to delay that exposure in the same manner as it has delayed an election, trying to put off the date-
1620

November 29, 1978
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. One of the restrictions the hon. member will have to get accustomed to is that against asking argumentative questions.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of National Defence? Would the minister advise the House whether he agrees that social insurance numbers shall be a condition prerequisite on all mail addressed to servicemen so that it may be delivered to them; or is it just a matter of a quirk in his department that this is now being requested and that mail not bearing the social insurance number is being returned? The social insurance number concerns social insurance.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am looking into the question of social insurance numbers. As I am sure the hon. member knows, it replaces the old regimental number. It is required for overseas mail and for ships at sea because of the great difficulties experienced if there is not specific identification. We may have a number of "A1 Jones" on a ship or in a Middle East force. It is necessary in that system: in my understanding that it is not required for any base in Canada. It has been brought to my attention that some mail has been returned, and I am checking into that now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In view of the fact there are ever-decreasing numbers of servicemen involved in the armed forces, perhaps the danger of duplication is more apparent than real.
What justification is there for using the social insurance number, rather than the regimental number, for purposes of the Department of National Defence? Social insurance numbers are for the purpose of social insurance.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I have had no complaints from those in the service with reference to this matter. It seems to be a logical application of the social insurance number as a replacement for the regimental number of the past. It is for easy identification. I am a little astounded about all the fuss that is made about this. I have never had any objection to it myself. In fact,I would be happy to have my thumbprint on it, if it would help in identifying me.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries I would direct my question to his colleague-if they are still speaking-the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns

the fate of the beluga whale population in an area over which the minister exercises jurisdiction. Is the minister aware that this particular breed of whale is in danger of extermination as a result of fishing practices?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, if I may comment on the gratuitous observation of the hon. member as to whether I am on speaking terms with my colleague, I want to assure him that not only are we on speaking terms but we are working very closely together to resolve some of the problems in which we are mutually involved.
As to the beluga whale, I will have to take that question as notice.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare: it is based on an interview she recently gave outside the House. Is it now official policy to redistribute wealth via the method of the negative income tax? I base this question on her interview.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the hon. member is very hypothetical and theoretical. I do not know to which interview he is referring; he did not state that. However, as an ideal goal of redistributing revenues in terms of achieving the most dignity for those in need of assistance, in reaching all those in need and in keeping the incentive to work, surely a negative income tax is excellent.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs: it arises from the answer he gave our leader in which he said the veracity of the story had somewhat diminished. I would like to ask him just a plain, ordinary question. Can the minister, on behalf of his government, department or any other department, deny categorically that there are any negotiations proceeding at the present time with regard to the return of the two FLQ people mentioned in the newspapers?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think that is what I said, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member wants a straightforward answer, yes, I deny it. I said there have been no contacts made through our embassy or our consular offices. In that sense, obviously that is the case.
November 29, 1978


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Secretary of State could tell us why the National Film Board has decided to cancel from the regionalization program the French production centres of Toronto and St. Boniface and to freeze the budget of the Moncton centre while almost nothing has been cut from the budget of the English regional production and almost nothing from the French regional production in Quebec? Has the cabinet approved such decision?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet is not responsible for that matter but the decision was taken by the National Film Board. There were obviously some cuts in the budget of the National Film Board but these did not reduce proportionally the funds available for the production of French films outside Quebec for the regionalization program. Two offices were closed, I think, one in Winnipeg and the other in Toronto, however, to have more money available for operations. They kept the Moncton office. It was a matter of using truly professional people. The program in Winnipeg and Toronto was for training purposes. As in the past, the board will continue its efforts to maintain the same ratio in the allocation of its funds taking into account that total National Film Board resources have been reduced. It is also true that the same ratio will be applied in the allocation of funds for that purpose.


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAM
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday, at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the Minister of Agriculture confirmed that the sale of skim milk powder is continuing to drop.
Given the fact that in some Canadian cities, including the city of Montreal, there are now operating very successful school nutrition programs which have contributed very much to the better health of children attending those schools, has the minister's department, either by itself or in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture, given any consideration to the establishment of a national school nutrition program which would go a long way toward using up some of our surplus foods such as skim milk powder, cheese and powdered eggs and would help to improve the health of young Canadians?
Oral Questions


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the question is fundamental and has been put to me repeatedly outside the House because of the current American practice in the matter. What the hon. member is suggesting here is that we distribute our surpluses of nutritional food such as cheese and milk in the schools. To begin with, though it may seem attractive, we are not in favour of free distribution of nutritional meals in schools as a solution to the problem of poor nutrition because studies made in the United States now reveal that the children were more poorly fed at home, at the other two meals, that is breakfast and supper, than before the program was set up. Still, I have not given up the idea completely, but I want to give an idea of the general trend of my department.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Canada's severe denunciation of human rights atrocities in Cambodia are among the most severe of any ever made in the United Nations. In spite of this documentation and the potential threat to international security that could result from escalating the China-Vietnam and Cambodia-Vietnam conflict, Canada has not attempted to bring the IndoChinese situation before the Security Council. Does the minister intend to undertake such an initiative in the near future before Canada's Security Council term expires?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, we had considered it but concluded, after canvassing the situation, that the initiative would not have any chance of success. Incidentally, that was the same conclusion arrived at by the United States. Therefore, that is not the route we have followed. I understand, however, that in so far as Cambodia is concerned, the Secretary General has received an invitation to visit personally in order to examine the situation from a human rights point of view. I believe he is now considering ways through which he might be able to carry out that mission.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: In spite of Canada's specific recommendation to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva with respect to the gross violations of human rights in Cambodia, no response has been forthcoming from that commission. What iniatives will the minister be taking to have the Geneva commission address the Cambodian issue?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think the meeting to which the hon. member refers will take place on December 11 and 12. We shall be fully represented there and we shall, of course, be
80067-3 \'h

November 29, 1978
Order Paper Questions
making the most vigorous intervention we can, which, by the way, will have considerable credibility in view of our recent action in taking some 600 refugees from their unfortunate situation in Malaysia.
It is pleasant to be able to report that the United States announced yesterday, that it will be taking some 23,000 refugees, in total, from that part of the world. Mr. Vance and I discussed these matters when he was here last week, and we shall be working in concert at the Geneva meeting, taking all the steps we can possibly take.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table in both official languages Canada's host policy-Sport Event Guidelines.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-8, an act to revive J. H. Poitras & Son, Ltd., to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 262 and 420.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Ministry of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and what amount was each paid per year?


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned, none.


Mr. Howie: 1.	On what date did Miss Anita Szlazak, Commissioner of the Public Service Commission, join the Public Service, and (a) in what department was she first employed (b) what rank and classification did she carry and what was her salary range?
2.	What were Miss Szlazak's subsequent appointments in the Public Service and, in each case, what (a) departments were involved (b) were the ranks, classifications, salary ranges and dates of her appointments?
3.	Did Miss Szlazak travel on official business outside of Canada and/or was she posted abroad and, if so, in each case, what were the cities abroad which she visited officially, or to which she was posted, and what were the dates of each trip or posting?


Yvon Pinard: 1. Miss Anita Szlazak, Commissioner of the Public Service Commission, joined the public service on April 10, 1967.
(a)	She was first employed in the Department of External Affairs.
(b)	She held the rank of foreign service officer at the classification level of FSO 2, and her salary range on appointment was $7,282-$8,570.
2. Miss Szlazak's subsequent appointments in the public service, each of which was the result of her having been successful in a competition, were:
(i)	Foreign service officer, Department of External Affairs, FSO 3, salary range $10,473-$11,972, April 1, 1969.
(ii)	Foreign service officer, Department of External Affairs, FS 2, salary range $13,700-$19,800, January 1, 1971.
(iii)	Deputy Director General, International Telecommunications, Department of Communications, PM 7, salary range $19,400-$24,200, October 1, 1972.
(iv)	Director General, International Telecommunications, Department of Communications, SX 1, salary range $23,500-$30,000, May 1, 1973.
Note: In each case above, the salary range given is that effective the date of the appointment and in all cases there were one or more salary revisions before Miss Szlazak was appointed to her next level position.
November 29, 1978

3. Miss Szlazak's travel on official business outside Canada is listed below:
Department of External Affairs
(i)	sNew York-United Nations General Assembly, October 1967.
(ii)	Washington, D.C.-Canadian Observer, Chilean Review, Inter-American Committee on Alliance for Progress, November 1967.
(iii)	New York-Adviser to Canadian Delegation to 23rd Session of United Nations General Assembly (Second Committee: Economic and Social Affairs), September- December 1968.
(iv)	Washington, D.C.-Member of Canadian Delegation, Meeting of Canada-U.S.A. Joint Working Party on Immigration, September 1969.
(v)	Washington, D.C.-Member of Canadian Delegation for two meetings: Canada-U.S.A. Air Negotiations and Intergovernmental Meeting on Aircraft Hijacking, December 1969.
(vi)	Bridgetown, Barbados-Member of Canadian Delegation, Canada-Barbados Air Negotiations, January 1970.
(vii)	Ocho Rios, Jamaica-Member of Canadian Delegation, Canada-Jamaica Air Negotiations, April 1970.
(viii)	Washington, D.C.-Member of Canadian Delegation, Canada-U.S.A. Air Negotiations, June 1970.
(ix)	Jerusalem and Tel Aviv-Member of Canadian Delegation, Canada-Israel Air Negotiations, August 1970.
(x)	Rome-Member of Canadian Delegation, Canada-Italy Air Negotiations, November 1971.
(xi)	Pittsburgh, Pa.-Inauguration of Nordair service between Hamilton and Pittsburgh, September 1971.
(xii)	Peking-Member of Canadian Delegation, Canada-China Air Negotiations, May 1972.
Department of Communications
(xiii)	Mexico City-Canadian Representative, Permanent Executive Committee of the Inter-American Telecommunications Conference, October 1972.
(xiv)	Washington, D.C.-Meeting with U.S. Federal Communications Commission on UHF spectrum utilization, March 1973.
(xv)	Washington, D.C.-Meetings with U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Office of Telecommunications Policy and State Department, July 1973.
(xvi)	Torremolinos, Spain-Deputy Head of Canadian Delegation International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference, September-October
1973.
(xvii)	Washington, D.C.-Alternate Canadian Representative, Intelsat Assembly of Parties, February 1974.
Motions for Papers
(xviii)	Washington, D.C.-Canada-U.S.A. Joint Planning of Space Systems, March 1974.
(xix)	Geneva-ITU World Administrative Radio Conference for Maritime Mobile Telecommunications, May
1974.
(xx)	Geneva-Canadian Representative, ITU Administrative Council, 29th Session, June 1974.
(xxi)	Cape Kennedy-Launch of Telesat satellite, May
1975.
(xxii)	Stockholm, Paris, Geneva-Meetings with Swedish and German Administrations, ITU Symposium on Space and Radiotelecommunications, and Canadian Representative ITU Administrative Council, 30th Session, June 1975.
(xxiii)	Geneva-Head of Canadian Delegation, ITU World Plan Committee Meeting, and ITU World Telecommunications Exhibition, October 1975.
(xxiv)	Rio de Janeiro-Canadian Representative, InterAmerican Telecommunications Conference, November 1975.
Public Service Commission
(xxv)	Washington, D.C.-International Conference on Public Personnel Administration, November 1976.
(xxvi)	London and Sunningdale (U.K.), Brussels, Bruges, Geneva, Paris-4th British-Canadian Cultural and Information Consultations, and discussions concerning employment of Canadians in international organizations and special development programs abroad for Canadian public servants, October 1977.
(xxvii)	Charlottesville, Virginia and Washington, D.C.- Discussions with U.S. civil service commission and other senior officials, February 1978.
(xxviii)	Salzburg, Brussels, Bruges, Paris-6th International Symposium on Public Personnel Administration, and follow-up to October 1977 discussions, September 1978.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 4 for the production of papers is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 4 be agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 29, 1978
Health Resources Fund Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports relating to the assumption of fisheries management responsibilities by certain Indian bands in British Columbia.
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motion be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 28, consideration of the motion (Miss Begin) that Bill C-2, to amend the Health Resources Fund Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 54, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole on Bill C-10.


INCOME TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 9, consideration in committee of Bill C-10, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide for a child tax credit and to amend the Family Allowances Act-Mr. Chretien-Mr. Turner in the chair.
November 29, 1978
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose on Thursday, November 9, 1978, clause 1 was under consideration. Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Chairman-


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I suggest that hon. members pursue their conversations behind the curtain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, a good deal of the discussion that has taken place on this bill has had to do with the desirability of its benefits being passed on to the families of this country. In that context, quite a bit has been said about the desirability of the provinces not cutting back on any of their benefits because of the benefits provided under this legislation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said on two or three occasions that she has made a very strong plea to the provincial governments in that respect, and I hope that by today she may have something to say to the House as to what assurances she has received from the provinces.
Before she rises to comment on that aspect of the matter, I should like to ask her to comment on something else which is in the same vein. As we all agree, it is very important when old age pensioners receive an increase in their pensions that they receive the full benefit of it. The same should apply to any improvement in family allowances, whether it is in the amount of the allowance itself, or in the form of a tax credit which is to be received in April or May of each year.
Today concern has been expressed in the House regarding the rise in the price of bread. This has led to reminders of the rise in the price of milk and other foodstuffs. In view of the desire of the Minister of National Health and Welfare that this money be of benefit to families, a desire which she has expressed by making appeals to the provincial governments, did she do her best to persuade cabinet not to drop that subsidy and let the price of bread rise? If she did not get into that battle with all her clout and influence, I hope she will do so even yet.
There is not much point in granting an increase of a few dollars a month by the provision of the child tax credit and the changes in family allowances if the cost of bread, milk and other basic necessities rises and, as a result, the families of this country lose the benefit before they receive it. That is precisely the situation. The families of the country will find their family allowance cheques reduced in January; they will not receive any money by way of tax credit until April, but in the meantime there is a rise in the price of bread, as there was in the price of milk. What part has the minister played in attempting to get cabinet not to make the unfair decision announced today by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I hope the committee will give me a chance to explain the exact state of affairs regarding the
Family Allowances
guaranteed income supplement and the child tax credit. As to the child tax credit, it is time to review the situation. It is an important matter, as has been indicated by hon. members of all parties during the debate.
On October 20 I sent letters to my provincial counterparts urging them to pass on the child tax credit, and clarifying that the credit could be ignored for CAP cost-sharing. On November 16 I sent telexes to all of them. I made further representations and had discussions with them in Toronto at the November 20 and November 21 meeting of welfare ministers. On November 27 I telexed the provinces clarifying that CAP asset guidelines could be waived as required, to permit a full passing on.
At the federal-provincial conference last week, five provincial colleagues officially indicated to me their cabinets are in the process of recommending that their governments pass it on fully. I am referring to the provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. I have received no official word from the other five provinces, although every one of them is concerned and understands the problem fully.
I have not received the final approval from any province. I have not received word that their cabinets have approved the recommendation. It is time for groups representing the interests of mothers, underprivileged citizens and families in general to request a clarification of the positions of the provincial governments on this matter.
As I have said, it is good politics at no cost to the provinces. It is federal taxpayers' money which will be transferred to individual Canadian families by a program similar to family allowances. We do not think it should become an additional transfer payment to provinces. That viewpoint and philosophy was expressed by all parties in this debate. I invite voluntary associations interested in the development of social policies or my colleagues in parliament to make their views known to their provincial governments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the minister is able to report some progress. She has reached the point where she knows that in five provinces the mills are grinding in the right direction. I hope she will stay with it, and that in the end no Canadian family or child will lose the benefit of Bill C-10 because of cutbacks by the provinces.
However, I should like to hear the minister's comments on the other point I raised. I realize she was busy discussing things with her officials so that she would be ready to participate in this debate and perhaps missed my point. This must be a pretty sad day for her. She is the co-pilot of a bill which provides for increases in family income, and on this very day we received an announcement that the price of bread will rise five to seven cents per loaf, on top of increases in the prices of other foodstuffs.
Every time there is an increase in old age pensions, all of us receive letters from pensioners indicating that rent increases or other cost increases are greater than the actual increases they

November 29, 1978
Family Allowances
receive every three months in their old age pensions. In January the cheques mothers receive will be down to $20 per month, and the tax credit will not be in their hands until April or May. In the meantime, the prices of bread and milk as well as other costs of living rise for these people. The entire exercise in which the minister has been engaged can be brought to nought by these other increases.
I am not attempting to persuade the minister into saying that she disagrees with her cabinet colleagues, such as the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board; but we have the right to know whether she has made any effort to persuade cabinet to take other steps, or refrain from taking the wrong steps, so that the benefit of this legislation will not be wiped out before it is on the books.


Miss B6gin:: I would not say that it is a sad day for me. Measures taken by the government in fields other than my own, but having consequences for the same Canadians, always concern me. However, it would not be fair to the Canadian producers of wheat or milk to freeze the prices of these two commodities. That is important. The role of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is to make sure that Canadians who may suffer a bit ultimately are equipped to fight back and accommodate themselves to the new prices by receiving more than the increase in the cost of commodities. The increase in the price of bread which may result, some say in one or two cents, and the hon. member said maybe five cents-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or seven cents.


Monique Bégin: Nobody knows that yet. But nobody necessarily makes an illegitimate profit between the farmer on the one hand and the consumer on the other. It is only the price that is in question. It will be a few cents a loaf, and that could not amount to more than $10 a year for a family.
We are effecting a net additional amount of $140 per child, and I am pleased about that. I am watching the scene for any measures that may erase or cancel out the benefits of this new child tax credit. I cannot honestly accept that this updating of the price of wheat in Canada will cancel out the benefit to Canadian consumers of this new child tax credit. I want to say that, of course, I care, like everybody else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I realize it is difficult for one minister of the cabinet to express disagreement with a stand taken by another minister, but I point out to her that today the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, in defence of his announcement, referred to the increase in the GIS and the increase in the family allowance as an excuse for what he had done, which will produce an increase in the price of bread.
I hope I did not give the impression that I thought the increase in the price of bread by itself was going to wipe out the net increase being made available to families through Bill C-10. However, when you take one thing after another-an increase in the price of bread, an increase in the price of milk,

an increase in the price of turkeys, an increase in the price of beef and in everything down the line, including rents and so on-the good move that she has won could be wiped out.
We are getting a little tired of listening to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board giving us excuses like this, and we are getting a little tired of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs telling us that these things are being looked at and monitored. The grand assurance given by the Deputy Prime Minister today was that the increase in the price of bread will be monitored. In the meantime, the benefits that are supposedly being granted by this parliament, on the initiative of the government with this bill, are being cancelled.
I suggest that most of us in this place appreciate the hard battle the minister has waged in the cabinet in this time of restraint to win anything at all; but we call on her to keep up that fight, to keep using her clout and influence to protect the interests of families in all ways. It is not good enough just to give them a net increase in family allowance and then let the government, by action or by inaction, bring about an increase in the cost of living to the medium and low income families of this country, so that in the end they are no better off, if not worse off.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, maybe I should add one thing. Special measures with special consequences, such as the increase in the price of a loaf of bread as a result of the readjustment of the domestic wheat price, are of special concern. However, generally speaking, the increase in the cost of living is met by the indexing of our programs. I am sure the House knows and regrets, as I do, that indexing could not take place for family allowances in this year, and that in addition there is a slight reduction. However, the child tax credit has been indexed and that is a major feature of this bill of great importance. According to the financial projections the child tax credit next year will be $218 per child.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is in 1980.


Monique Bégin: The first cheques to go out in a few months will be $200, and the year after they will be $218. The ceiling in respect of a family's income, that is the take-home pay, which is now $18,000 for a family with one child, is also indexed. That seems to me to be of great importance, and I would say we have to fight to keep indexation. I do not want to backtrack from the basic idea of keeping the full or as close to the full value of this child tax credit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I really just want time for one more question, for I notice that other hon. members are trying to get the floor. When the minister first stood up this afternoon she said she hoped soon to have information about the guaranteed income supplement increases in relation to the provinces. I know that is not in relation to this bill, but it is awfully close to it. If she now has that information it would be useful if the committee could be given it. I am referring to-
November 29, 1978


Stanley Howard Knowles: Saskatchewan?


Monique Bégin: No, 1 don't think so. Those provinces have agreed to entirely give back to the old age people, through their fiscal benefit program, which is usually called Gains, the increase in the guaranteed income supplement. Elowever, as I have just said, I need the information which my assistants will send me immediately.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I should like to pursue the questions raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It had been my intention to pursue them at the outset, but you went, as opposed to our custom, to the NDP first.
Let me say this to the minister and make it very clear. If she does not know this, it is regrettable. The increase in the price of a loaf of bread as a consequence of what her colleague, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, did yesterday, will be in the neighbourhood of at least seven cents a loaf. I am told that by this time next year, given the ordinary escalation in costs experienced by the bakeries in Canada, it will be up to about six cents-I am sorry, ten cents a loaf. That "six cents" was a Freudian slip. During the great depression that is what a family in Newfoundland had to get by on-six cents a day.
I want to take the minister back to events of 1973. She will recall that the government of the day, albeit a minority government, met here in emergency session to deal with a national rail strike. At that time, in response to the growing concern in the country over the escalation in food prices and the full impact of inflation, which was then beginning to make itself felt in rising food prices, the government came into the House and introduced a subsidy program for the domestic consumption of wheat, the program which the government has cancelled today. At that time a loaf of bread cost 36 cents.
The reason the government brought the program in at that time was to prevent a five-cent per loaf increase in price. The prime minister introduced that program and gave as his rationale the statement that world conditions make it a most urgent task of government to ensure that those who are least able to defend themselves against the effects of inflation are protected. That action was taken at a time when the universal family allowance payment was substantially increased and bread was 36 cents a loaf.
Now, coincidental with another change in the family allowance law, the government does the very opposite; instead of lowering the price of bread, it removes the consumer subsidy. Bread will probably go to 70 cents a loaf, and not only bread. There is also pasta, which is a very important part of the daily diet of low income families. I am referring to pasta in the form
Family Allowances
of macaroni, spaghetti and so on. It is especially important now, given the fact that since 1973 beef prices have escalated considerably.
It is not enough for the minister to try to talk her way around this, as she did in response to questions by my hon. friend. Was she consulted by her colleague about this subsidy program coming off, resulting in increases in the prices of bread and pasta? Has she done studies to satisfy herself as to what this will mean to low income families? My hon. friend has already referred to other price increases, such as the increase in the price of fowl and turkey, which low income people are depending on more and more as the principal source of meat protein due to increases in the price of beef. This whole thing comes at a time when the consumer subsidies on powdered skim milk are eliminated, resulting in an increase in the price of milk. This is a disaster for low income families in this country.
I have great sympathy for the minister. She has been under tremendous pressure since the House started because she has been in the House continuously to deal with her three bills. These bills deal with increases in the GIS, medical funding, which we voted second reading today, and this bill to amend the Family Allowances Act. We have a bill before us which will reduce the number of people eligible for unemployment insurance and a measure which will eliminate the consumer subsidy on domestically consumed wheat.
We also have a situation which was addressed in the House recently whereby the Minister of Agriculture said that there is no way that the increase in the price of turkeys can be justified at this time because there are ample stocks on hand. Yet the price of turkeys is going out of sight. From a survey taken yesterday, I discovered that prices in Canada on turkeys range anywhere from $1.44 to $1.60 per pound. This is a robbing Peter to pay Paul type of situation. I do not understand how the situation has changed.
In 1973 the government responded in a positive way by putting in a program to provide a subsidy on domestically consumed wheat to eliminate an increase in the price of bread. At the same time they brought in a subsidy on liquid milk. These were moves designed to protect the poor against inflation and were coincidental with a measure which parliament considered at that time to change the concept of the family allowance program by increasing substantially the universal amount of family allowance payments.
I repeat, was the minister consulted by the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers? 1 understand that he was the culprit. We are told by the press that the minister responsible for the Wheat Board resisted having his program removed because it would result in an increase in the price of bread, but the president of the economic development board had his way. It seems to me to be patently unjust for the government to be moving in a counter-productive direction to that in which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is trying to move.
I implore the minister to tell the House that she will recommend to her colleagues that they reconsider this move in
1628


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, there were so many cheap shots in what the minister had to say-


An hon. Member:: Well deserved.


James Aloysius McGrath: There were so many uncharacteristic cheap shots in what the minister had to say in response to my legitimate concern that I am tempted to ignore them.


An hon. Member:: What is your concern?


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member opposite interjects. What about the press release you issued a few days ago-


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he should address the Chair.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member for Assiniboia interjects. What about the press release he introduced the other day in which he rejected the suggestion made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding an attempt to bring down beef prices? Unless he is prepared to put up I suggest he shut up.
The Minister accuses me of urging the government to tighten up on the unemployment insurance program. I have urged that they tighten up on the sloppy administration of the unemployment insurance program. The Auditor General has shown that $145 million has gone out on overpayments. Every time there is that kind of sloppy administration it is the legitimate unemployment insurance recipient who has to bear the consequences, because it is then that the screws are tightened.
The minister talks about getting on with this bill. We are anxious to do that, but why did the government not continue with it when they had it in committee of the whole? We did
November 29, 1978

not ask the government to suspend committee stage of the bill. They elected to do so and have to take full responsibility for the delay, not the opposition.
With regard to the question of consultation, the minister has been able to satisfy us that only five provinces have agreed not to deduct the amount of the child tax credit. That is some improvement, but what about the other five provinces? The minister asks us to use our influence in our own provinces. Why does she not use her influence with her counterpart in Quebec to get some kind of guarantee that they will not deduct the amount of the child tax credit from their welfare programs?
The hon. member for Churchill has raised legitimate questions with regard to native people. That is a matter within the control of the Government of Canada, but we cannot even get a guarantee from them that they will not deduct the welfare that they administer to native people from the amount to be paid out under this child tax credit bill.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has raised questions with respect to orphans, and the hon. member for Egmont and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands have questioned the discriminatory provisions of the bill regarding the position it places the unmarried person in as opposed to the married person. These are all legitimate questions.
The minister is obviously not used to this phase of parliamentary procedure. Before we get into the bill clause by clause it is traditional that the minister satisfy us on general questions. These are general questions and we will have questions of a specific nature when we get into the bill.
I want to ask the minister if she can tell the committee exactly why she could not get agreement from all her colleagues when she met them in Toronto last week instead of from just five. I should like to ask her if she intends to take into account the ceilings to be imposed under the new Canada Assistance Plan regarding transfer payments to the provinces.
There are other questions we want to ask. If the minister wants to get to clause by clause consideration, I would have no objection to reserving clause 1; but until we have answers to our questions, we have no intention of passing clause 1.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, for Christmas I will give the hon. member for St. John's East a short text by Aneurin Bevan; he may not read his writings as he is a former labour minister in Great Britain and the high priest on procedures. I just want to say once and for all that I am never like the high priest on procedures because that is to keep things from moving. It is against life.
This being said, I cannot, of course, obtain from provincial ministers something that is purely of provincial jurisdiction. I want to make it clear that we are now talking about a federal bill which will operate through the federal income tax system. It is difficult for a federal minister to obtain a deal from a Pequiste minister whose government wants to break away from Canada. It should be easy for a member who is supposed to know politics as well as the hon. member opposite to accept that. I made representation to Dr. Lazure-a man who usually
Family Allowances
has his heart in the right place-and I hope he will obtain permission from his cabinet to pass on to the mother on welfare all of the new child tax credit. I have taken every opportunity to invite the provinces to take that course of action. Until a few months ago I did not want to provoke provinces into unnecessary confrontation, but I think the time has come for people in the province of Quebec to ask their government for an accounting. That is the spirit in which I informed the House of this passing on to mothers on welfare the full child tax credit.
I should like to take the opportunity the hon. member has given me to answer a few outstanding questions.
On the question of the supposed discrimination against women on the ground of marital status put forward by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Egmont, I have answered that already and it is recorded in Hansard. I confirm again that there is no discrimination against women in this bill other than the fact that the cheque goes to the mother instead of to the child or the father. That is a very important feature of the bill and I am very proud of it. It will put in the hands of mothers of poor families $120 million additional cash. That may be discrimination but I do not go for philosophy, I go for the practical realities of life.
As to the second possible discrimination which, if I understood the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands correctly, is the possibility of discrimination against people living common law, I have answered that. If there is discrimination, it should be addressed in the income tax bill as such because it is a basic feature of the bill. I have said that often.
I do not know if it is part of the rules and regulations that I should repeat something ad nauseam. I do not know who this helps, surely not my throat. However, I will repeat this and maybe the hon. member for St. John's East and I will then understand each other.
Common law situations are not recognized for any purposes under the Income Tax Act. That may be right, it may be wrong. The fact is it would be very difficult to control the situation of common-law marriages in many cases, especially in a society where the standards of behaviour have changed, as they have in all of the western world, toward more trial marriages and so on, which is good. However, how do you control such a situation if time is not an element of it?
I am a bit surprised that the hon. member for St. John's East would advocate a change in the sense of a rejection of the family unit as a basis for policy development. I do not know what he has in mind when he suggests that; he did not explain his reasons.
As to the other outstanding questions, I have been able to obtain answers which I will provide through the hon. member for St. John's East to his colleague.
The hon. member for Provencher asked about the administrative cost of family allowances. The total administrative cost of family allowances is $6.25 per family per year, or 52 cents
80067-32'/2

November 29, 1978
Family Allowances
per family per month. In other words, it is one dollar of overhead for $100 of benefits. As far as I know, it is one of the best if not the best administered programs with regard to keeping the administrative cost as low as possible.
The hon. member for Provencher and the hon. member for Churchill, who is presently in the chamber, asked for clarification of the consequences of this child tax credit on Indian children and Indian mothers on welfare. I can confirm to both hon. members today that the department of Indian affairs will fully pass on the new credit to native people on welfare. I think that clarifies that situation.
1 have met, as I said I would, with the National Indian Brotherhood. We have already had two meetings at which time we spoke of the program. I of course asked for their co-operation in helping to train volunteer women who in turn can help mothers on reserves fill out the form. Indeed, an education program may be needed for every Canadian so that they will not be the victim of tax discounters and so on.
A question was asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, who is also in the chamber. The question is rather fundamental and does not necessarily touch on this bill. It has to do with a cause which the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain has been putting forward for years. That is what I understand from the investigation that I promised. It involves the case of an orphan where the child's income is too high to qualify for family allowance. At present the situation is the way the hon. member described it. In other words, this bill does not change the regulation that family allowances are not paid in respect of children whose income exceeds $2,780 per year.
My personal philosophy is that because the family allowance is universal in nature, it should go to all children in Canada. However, that is not the situation now. There are exceptions made for children with income. I want to satisfy myself that their income, by way of estate or otherwise, is taken care of by Revenue Canada the way it should be, not by the loss of their family allowance. I undertake today to take this up with my cabinet colleagues so that orphans with income will be included in the universal program of family allowances in the same way as every other Canadian child.
With regard to orphans vis-a-vis the receipt of the child tax credit, which is a selective program by nature meant for children of families in need, this question is too difficult to settle today on the floor of the House. It is not a question of principle. The principle is for children in need. The income may be adequate to meet the need. On the other hand, the method of income could be discussed.
With regard to orphaned brothers and sisters who have been separated, should the family situation be taken into account? How should that be tackled in order to give the child tax credit to orphans with income?
The second part of the question regarding the relationship of orphans to eligibility for the child tax credit requires some study. I have instructed my department to carry that out as part of the review which will take place in 1979 on the

functioning of the new child tax credit with a view to making amendments, corrections or improvements.
I do not know if I have made myself clear enough to satisfy the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. To sum up,
I will undertake to raise with my cabinet colleagues the question of orphans with income under the universal family allowances program. As to their eligibility in relation to the child tax credit, this question has to be studied.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I begin by saying that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is a good minister who appears to be on top of her department. She is a progressive minister who is going in the right way. We have said that many times.
The comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for St. John's East have been very relevant. While the minister is trying to do something for the ordinary poor people, other arms of government are doing things that will nullify some of the benefits she is trying to bring about. That is a real tragedy.
There are one or two matters I would like to have clarified. The minister knows that between January 1 and April 1 there will be a decrease in family allowances from $25 and some odd cents to $20. There will be a natural decrease despite the fact that some commodities people are buying for their children are going up in price.
There is something the minister said that should be corrected. She does not appear to know the Wheat Board operation very well. She said the withdrawal of the subsidy meant the farmers would be better off. The subsidy does not have anything to do with the farmer. What we are talking about here is a subsidy to the millers. It is part of the two-price wheat legislation that was introduced and became law in September 1973. It was to cover a period of seven years. As the minister in charge of the Wheat Board said, the law would ensure that the price the millers paid for their wheat would stay at $3.25. He gave a commitment that the price would be frozen at that level, which amounts to seven and a half cents for a 24-ounce loaf for seven years, up to 1980. Today he reneged on that promise in the name of restraint.
Some of the things we are saying today are very relevant indeed. While the minister is doing some really good things, and we compliment her for them, her colleague is doing exactly the opposite, making it more tough for the ordinary citizen.
As the hon. member for St. John's East said, and as I said earlier in the debate, the bakery council of Canada has stated that the average price of bread will increase by about seven cent a loaf. This is despite the fact that withdrawal of the subsidy would put the price of wheat up by only 3.3 cents a loaf. The sum of 3.3 cents a loaf in terms of the cost of the raw material will equal 7 cents a loaf in terms of what a person is going to pay for it retail. That is a big increase.
November 29, 1978

The minister said it means only about $10 per family per year, but I would like to have her ask her officials to check their arithmetic. With respect, I think they are wrong. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board said the subsidy was worth $100 million this year, Mr. Chairman. And as I said, you are not just looking at the cost of wheat going up; you are looking at what the miller, the baker, the retailer and the wholesaler are taking in between-up to 7 cents a loaf. The rise will be not 3.3 cents but 7 cents. So if the subsidy at 3.3 cents is worth $100 million, then an increase of 7 cents is worth over $200 million. If you divide the Canadian population into $200 million you come out with about nine dollars for every man, woman and child, or $36 a year for a family of four. That is going to nullify a lot of the good things which are being done by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I don't blame her for that.
I really got to my feet here this afternoon to defend her and to say I wish other ministers were doing what she is doing in terms of looking out for ordinary Canadians. But because the price of bread will rise by about $36 per year per family, a lot of the good things she is doing in terms of raising the family allowance will be nullified.
We also heard her comment that the farmers need price increases. Of course they need price increases, but this lifting of the subsidy will not increase their incomes. Look at turnkeys, for example. The price of turkeys, as the hon. member for St. John's East said, has gone up, in some cases as high as $1.40 or $1.60 a pound. I'll bet you, Mr. Chairman, that whether they sell for $1.60 or $1.40 a pound, the retailer is paying the same wholesale price for those turkeys. I also know that the Canadian turkey producers received only an extra 4 cents this year over last year. So again you have potentially a rip-off by some of the middle men. The ordinary people the minister is trying to help are the ones who will be buying those turkeys for Christmas. We know that 35 to 40 per cent of our turkeys are bought before Christmas, so we can see the impact this will have on those families the minister is trying to help.
These are the points I wanted to make this afternoon. I think they are extremely relevant to the debate. The situation is hypocritical in some ways. We are trying to do something really good on the one hand, and we are appealing to the provinces to make sure that they deduct from their welfare calculations the additional tax credit bonus for children. There are five provinces now which have apparently decided to make that commitment-three Conservative provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Ontario, the NDP government in Saskatchewan and the Social Credit government in B.C. But there are five which so far have not made any commitment, although I gather from the minister that she is highly optimistic about the province of Quebec where the minister of health is Mr. Denis Lazure. We have gone forcefully to the provinces and said: "Don't count the new family allowance benefits to the kids as income when you calculate welfare payments." We have been able to congratulate the minister for being able to persuade the department of Indian affairs to do the same when
Family Allowances
it comes to the Indian kids on welfare. Yet one of her colleagues, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, is doing the very thing she is asking the provinces not to do, the very thing parliament is asking the provinces not to do. This seems rather hypocritical to me, as I say.
That is not very good planning. It just does not make sense.
1 think my arguments are very relevant with respect to the debate which is taking place in the House today. It is fine and good to do all these great things, but if they are to be nullified it will just create more cynicism out there among the Canadian population.
There are other things I could mention. It is not just a case of bread or turkey prices, but food prices. The subsidy on skim milk was taken off last year as of March 31. The Minister of Agriculture said consumption of skim milk powder had declined since the subsidy came off. One can see from the studies that low income families consume more skim milk than families with high incomes. It is the low income families with children, particularly those with many children, perhaps five, six or seven, who would normally consume the most skim milk powder of all. They are consuming less of this skim milk powder today because they cannot afford it. This is the question the minister will be forced to face with some of her colleagues in cabinet, particularly the new minister in charge of the economic board who was formerly President of the Treasury Board.
I think we need more planning. We need more social and economic planning within the government. If we do not have it we will just create more and more cynicism out there among the Canadian people.
I am sorry l went on so long, Mr. Chairman, but I thought some of these points were worth making, not as a criticism of the minister but, I suppose, in criticism of a government that does not appear to have its act together and which does not appear to be following the same philosophical road as the minister. They appear to be confused about their social priorities, let alone their economic priorities.
[ Translation]


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should hold his horses. He has referred to the few cents increase in the price of bread and to the recent price increase of milk, but I suggest that the new children tax credit which every mother on low or medium income will get early in 1979 will much more than compensate for these price increases for certain items of the family budget. As the critic on consumer affairs for his party, the hon. member made a speech which in my opinion he should deliver in the proper forum, namely during a debate on an allotted day; I think there are two of them coming tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Why should the New Democratic Party not decide to have a debate on that? Surely it is not up to me, not being the minister of consumer affairs, nor to the minister responsible for the decision concerning Canadian wheat prices, to decide to hold a debate on that matter. That is of no help to anybody. The hon. member has taken as an

November 29, 1978
Family Allowances
example the families with five, six or seven children. Thanks to the child tax credit legislation now before parliament, the mother of those five, six or seven children will get a new additional cheque for $1,200 or $1,400 tax-free starting midMarch, and that is what is important, that is what matters.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the committee is fully aware of the significance of the answer the minister gave to my problem of the orphans. I think it is a very historical occasion when the minister corrects a wrong which has been in existence for six years, namely, discrimination against orphans in Canada. The parliament of this nation, with the support of all parties, passed in 1971 legislation that gave to all children, regardless of the wealth of a family, family allowance of $20 per month per child. Yet when the regulations under that legislation were produced, those regulations barred orphans on the ground that they were adults once their parents died. If your parents had both died, it was said that you must have inherited an estate, and if that estate produced enough money to meet the minimum amount under the Income Tax Act, which several years ago was $1,660-for next year it will be $2,780-you did not receive family allowance.
After five years of effort on my part the minister's word today gave me confidence that there is still hope for our parliamentary system of government. Because after the years of protest from 1974 until now I have finally found a minister who has not just listened and examined the facts and the truth of my statements but is doing something about it. Any person who believes in universal programs and in the universality of this program for family allowances, as this minister does, is duty-bound to tell her colleagues that it is going to be enforced and that the will of parliament is supreme, not the will of those nitwits who make this type of regulation which goes against what parliament has ordered.
I think the minister has established a niche for herself regarding parliamentary procedure. She has courage and conviction. That courage is being used to stand up for what she believes and for what parliament stands for. I accept without any question that what she says is the correct procedure, namely, that under this legislation we are discussing. Bill C-10, the proper procedure is not to amend any part of this legislation. The proper procedure is for the government to amend the regulations under the Family Allowances Act of 1971.
Because there is a monetary consideration at stake, the minister will have to go to the Treasury Board, which accepted these changes when they were brought to its attention. The minister will have to tell her colleagues in the Treasury Board that she has stood up in this House and given her word that the legislation she is putting through is universal as far as children are concerned with regard to the $18,000 provision. The minister has given her word, and as far as she is concerned, what she has said will happen will happen. Then if the

Treasury Board fights her, she has no choice but to go to the Prime Minister and put it in his hands, because the Treasury Board will have overruled not only parliament but also the minister's word in this House.
I think the minister has shown great courage and conviction in relation to something about which she feels very strongly. I am sure every one of us thinks so as well. For seven long years families with young children under 16 years of age have had this hanging over their heads, and they have not even known it. If the parents in a family were to die simultaneously or separately but within a short space of time in an accident of some kind or of natural causes, because both parents were dead their children were not given the benefits of legislation this parliament passed.
The minister has promised to correct that situation in the proper way by changing the appropriate regulation under the Family Allowance Act. Then this legislation she has brought in will be fully operative, because under clause 4 the eligibility is the same as the eligibility under the Family Allowances Act. I am sure the machinery the minister is putting into place for this legislation will handle the problem of orphans. If the total income of a family of orphans is greater than $18,000, that family will follow the same rules as other families. If the income is $18,000 or less, they will follow the same rules as other families earning $18,000 or less and benefit from the negative income tax. I think my concern is completely met.
The significance of this is that when a minister does what this minister has done today, we in this House and all Canadians owe her a great debt of gratitude, not only for her convictions but also for her courage in taking the stand she has taken. Even though mothers and fathers will probably not know what the minister has done, the fact is that some of us here do, and I want to make sure the record shows it. I thank the minister very much.


René Bégin: Mr. Chairman, 1 wish I had the right to accept these congratulations. I do not stand alone as a member of the government. I am very pleased that my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, was in the House and heard the presentation of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.
The hon. member is correct in his description of the procedure. The procedure should be to change the regulation under the Family Allowances Act. I am going to recommend that. I must go to the Treasury Board to do that because of the financial dimension of the proposal. I will do that in order to correct what seems to be an injustice to orphans. I should include all children with incomes above the tax threshold; I forgot to point that out earlier. I hope to win my case. I will do everything I can to fight it. I am convinced of the inequity involved.
Regarding eligibility of children with respect to the child tax credit, the proposal made just at the end of the hon. member's presentation might be a route which could be chosen. I consider all the orphans of a given family to be a family unit and judge their income from an estate as if it was the income of the
November 29, 1978

parents; but I continue to submit that this matter requires some study. In this regard I am not sure of the route we could or should take. Eventually an amendment will be brought in at a later date.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I will not take too much time. I know the minister's difficulty, and I trust completely that, working with her, her department will apply the same justice and equity to orphans in the handling of this new legislation as is applied to other children. That is all we are asking for. We are asking for equal treatment for orphans.


Monique Bégin: That is the idea, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to take a moment to make a reply with respect to the guaranteed income supplement being passed on to senior citizens by provincial governments.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why aren't you nice to me like that?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for St. John's East will really appreciate my answer. I will give it slowly so that he can take down the names of the provinces. Top-ups are presently being provided by six provinces. Four provinces have officially announced that they will pass on the new guaranteed income supplement increase in full. Those four provinces are Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. We do not know about Manitoba and Nova Scotia. In order to give a more complete answer, I should say that Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta will pass this on in full to individual senior citizens in receipt of provincial top-ups, but not to people in institutions.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Chairman, I find it rather amusing that the minister accuses us of holding this bill up. The last time the committee of the whole met to consider this bill was on November 7. Today is November 29, so 22 days have gone by. We have been prepared to meet in the committee of the whole and to get this bill passed, but several questions asked in our meeting of November 7 have still not been answered.
At that time I was asking about status Indians living on reserves who are on welfare through no choice of their own. I was concerned about the reduction in income beginning January 1, 1979 when family allowances will be reduced to $20 per month per child. I was referring to a family with Five children. The minister assured me that the decrease in the family incomes of those who are unfortunately on welfare would be supplemented by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by way of additional income. Reference to this matter can be found at page 894 of Hansard.
Now that the minister has referred to the fact that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has confirmed that the full tax credit will be taken into consideration where welfare is involved, I would like to know if it has been confirmed by the Department of Indian Affairs and
Family Allowances
Northern Development that families which will lose their total income on January 1 will receive supplementary welfare.


René Bégin: Mr. Chairman, 1 gave that assurance in very plain English to the hon. member for Churchill on November 7 before the budget debate. It appears at page 894 of Hansard, in the last paragraph on that page.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Chairman, it is made very clear by the minister, but it was not made very clear by officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On November 7 the minister said she had written to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development asking for clarification, but on November 23 I was told in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development that no supplement would be paid to families on welfare because welfare payments were tied to the provincial welfare system. If the minister had that confirmed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, could she table the correspondence? She said she had written to the minister and was awaiting a reply from him.


Monique Bégin: It seems I am not at all understood by the hon. member for Churchill, unless he is talking about something quite mysterious that escapes me. I said on November 7 that I had received a confirmation from my colleague that welfare will be supplemented whenever needed.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Chairman, I think I will have to read into the record what the minister stated, as reported at page 894 of Hansard. I was trying to establish at that time the fact that a family living on welfare would have less total income coming into the household on January 1, 1979 because of the reduction in family allowance. The minister stated:
I have put that exact problem to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I wrote to him requesting the co-operation of his staff in setting up a special information program.
That was one part of it. Then she went on to say in the next paragraph:
In the first two or three months, Indian mothers with large families will suffer to a degree because of a reduction in their family budget. That decrease in budget will be supplemented by additional welfare whenever it is needed from the usual source, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am referring to Canadian Indians on reserves.
I am saying now that the information given to us in committee on November 23 by the deputy minister was that this is not the situation whatsoever and that discussions are going on between the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The deputy minister said that the subject is one that is still under discussion between them and the Department of National Health and Welfare. Although the minister has confirmed this, as reported in Hansard at page 894, we were told six days ago that the matter was still under discussion. Now I would like to have it confirmed again that families will be supplemented for the loss of income on January 1.


Monique Bégin: For the third time today, Mr. Chairman, the answer, as it was on November 7, is yes. The hon. member for

November 29, 1978
Family Allowances
Churchill said that when he put the question to the deputy minister, he received particulars from him. The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development has not discussed Bill C-10 and the officials might not have fully understood the question. However, the answer to his question is yes, as it was on November 7.


Cecil Morris Smith: That is true, Mr. Chairman, we were not on Bill C-10. But 1 have a real concern for the Indian people of this country and I think this piece of legislation was drafted so hastily that no consideration was given to the Indian people. As a colleague of mine once said, this government does not really care about the Indian people. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the situation in which we now find ourselves- I still have not received a clear answer to this-is that if you are going to provide additional welfare for January, February and March until, as the minister said, the cheque arrives at the end of March with the family's tax credit, the individual family might well have to pay back this additional welfare they will receive in the interim for January, February and March. Can the minister say whether that is so?
I suppose the minister absolutely refuses to answer my simple question. Will the family have to pay back the additional welfare? She has confirmed they will receive additional welfare for those months when they will have less income coming in in January, February and March. Will they have to repay this money?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, this is really the place where one has to learn patience, without any reason in this case. The hon. member for Churchill is playing games. He knows full well the commitment of the government and the actions taken by the government to alleviate injustice and the economic impoverishment of the Indians in this country. He also knows full well how important to me and to my department is the health of our Indian population, and he knows of all the steps we have taken. He knows that the child tax credit applies to Indian mothers, but he does not tell the House what some of his own colleagues have said to me privately regarding what Indian mothers are going to do with that money. He does not say that in public. He would not dare say it in public. He wants to pretend that only he cares; that nobody else cares for the Indian people, only he has the monopoly on caring. That does not help anyone.
He should help to pass this bill as fast as possible in order that we can work on the forms and on helping mothers to fill them out. He does not do that, of course. I thought I had said ten minutes ago-I am not asking for a long span of concentration from him-that the child tax credit will be passed on fully to Indian mothers on welfare by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That means in good English that, of course, mothers will not have to reimburse the money.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Chairman, I am glad I finally received that answer. The reason I am asking the question is that this government drafts sloppy legislation which causes problems for people throughout the country. I can tell you that

this piece of legislation will cause monstrous problems in many of the isolated communities in this country.


Monique Bégin: What amendment have you?


Cecil Morris Smith: I do not have an amendment as yet, but just wait and see. What I would like to ask, now that the minister has met with the National Indian Brotherhood, is if she could put before us and explain to us the proper mechanism to reach people in isolated communities.


Monique Bégin: No, I am not in a position to do that, Mr. Chairman. We are still discussing the strategy required for passing on the information the way I want it so that it will reach people in their own communities. The proposals from various groups are not yet ready for discussion in this forum.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Chairman, what action has been taken to ensure that social insurance numbers are all in place in order for mothers to qualify for the tax credit?


René Bégin: Is the hon. member referring to Indian mothers or mothers in general?


Cecil Morris Smith: I am referring to mothers in general and Indian mothers in particular. The minister laughs at that because she does not realize status Indians living on reserves do not pay income tax, and therefore many do not have social insurance numbers. The minister said very clearly that in order for mothers or families to qualify for the tax credit plan, they must have social insurance numbers. The minister laughs as if it is some sort of a lark. What program is under way so that Indian mothers on reserves will qualify for the tax credit plan at the end of the taxation year in March?


Monique Bégin: I just laugh at the confusion in the mind of the hon. member for Churchill. I have informed him of things which he did not know concerning the new child tax credit because he had not read the bill or asked me any questions. I brought to his attention the necessity of Indian mothers applying for social insurance numbers.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It was the hon. member for Provencher who brought that matter to the attention of the minister.


Monique Bégin: I brought that to the attention of the hon. member for Churchill when he asked about it, and I am just repeating it today. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is looking into the feasibility of his officials doing some of the paperwork necessary to provide social insurance numbers to Indian mothers who will be receiving child tax credit.


Cecil Morris Smith: I should like to refer to the comments of the minister as reported at page 895 of Hansard:
Mothers can decide to allocate that cheque over the coming months to make up for the reduction in family allowance, or the total amount can be used for a major purchase by the family.
November 29, 1978

She went on to say that the cheques could be distributed over the following months, that it was up to the families. Can families have that money distributed over 12 months, or will it be received in a lump sum at the end of the taxation year?
[Translation\


Monique Bégin: If I have correctly understood the hon. member's question, Mr. Chairman, he is asking me whether an administrative mechanism would allow recipients to choose to receive monthly payments. The answer is no. We have discussed the issue in the House on several occasions. It is impossible to get anything but an annual cheque in the first year of implementation. My answer, which the hon. member has just read in Hansard, is that the mother, when she receives her cheque, may wish to spend the whole sum or part of it to buy home appliances or for any other expense which would be useful to her family, or else decide to save that yearly lump sum or what is left of it in order to use that money in her budgets for the following months.


Cecil Morris Smith: I have some other questions concerning the total income of families in many remote communities. I hope the minister is aware of the problem which will be created there. In the majority of those communities, there are no banking facilities. Problems will be created when families receive cheques in the amount of $1,000, $1,400 or $1,500 because some of them do not have opportunities to go to the bank and many of them do not have bank accounts. Problems will be created when a mother flies out of a remote community with a cheque of that amount. If she wants to go to Winnipeg or some other large centre in order to purchase some of the things which the minister referred to on November 7, perhaps she will not even be known to the banking people or merchants in those centres.
If that amount of money was distributed over a 12-month period, it would be much easier because the cheques would be in smaller amounts or could be included in regular family allowance cheques. It will be difficult for some families to cash cheques in the amount of $1,000 in many communities, because that amount of cash is not on hand. Perhaps it will be necessary for those people to carry identification or to have someone accompany them to vouch for the fact that the cheque actually belongs to them. In many cases there are duplications in names. I can think of communities where there are five John Rosses or Mary Jane Rosses. Has the minister given any thought to the people who will cash these cheques?


René Bégin: Mr. Chairman, we are considering that problem. It exists for other Canadian mothers who do not have bank accounts. Often family allowance cheques are cashed in stores which put on special sales around the time of the month when family allowance cheques are received. Often the amount of family allowance cheques can total hundreds of dollars. For example, in the province of Quebec the fourth child and any additional children receive close to $60 each.
Family Allowances
Therefore, the amount of one cheque can easily amount to hundreds of dollars.
I do not think the problem should be made any bigger than it is. It does exist, and we are attempting to see what can be done about it. I would mislead the House if I promised several instalments in the first year of the operation of this program, because it would be technically impossible. The possible problem described by the hon. member can be added to that of tax discounters and family budgeting as reasons for implementing a system of more than one instalment in future years. We are looking into that problem jointly with the National Indian Brotherhood and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I trust people will find ways to cash their cheques easily. I was told that it was not necessarily a big problem.
1 will answer the second part of the hon. member's question as to the general information campaign for all mothers. There was an insert accompanying the October family allowance cheque which gave basic information about the program. There will be another insert in December which will be much simpler in form, consisting of questions and answers and explaining the need for a social insurance number. Accompanying the family allowance cheque for January will be an application form, a Department of National Revenue information sheet explaining how to fill out the form, and a reminder of the need for a social insurance number and how to go about getting one.
At the end of January or the beginning of February there will be a mailing to mothers who are non-filers. The total number of such mothers is approximately 1.5 million, including Indians. It will include a basic income tax form in order to avoid any additional hardship which could be created by the system. In February there will be a reminder to those who have not applied for either social insurance numbers or the benefits. The Departments of National Health and Welfare and Revenue Canada have a joint pamphlet giving basic information about the program. It will be available in all federal offices and, of course, to members of the House. There will be a question and answer guide to that program to inform applicants.
In terms of my own staff, I can confirm that all personnel in regional and local offices in what we call income security, those who look after pension cheques and family allowances, are developing special training for all our officers to help mothers fill in the new forms, in a way similar to the one followed now by our officers in helping elderly citizens. They assist about 60 per cent of all Canadians who fill in GIS forms each year in January, February and March.
What I am developing, and in respect of which I said earlier to the hon. member for Churchill I am not in a position to give more information now, is an information strategy using the local press instead of the national press, something that mothers read. This strategy will eventually involve the use of volunteer organizations, but this is in the making. When I

November 29, 1978
Family Allowances
speak of volunteer organizations I am referring to those who can reach a segment of our clientele, including Indian mothers, new Canadian mothers, immigrant mothers and mothers on welfare, particularly in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.
In this regard I want to tell hon. members that the provinces have confirmed that officials in the provinces, social workers, for instance, will help mothers fill in the forms.


The Chairman:: Order, please. The hon. member's allotted 20 minutes, including answers by the minister, has expired. Actually he has had more than the maximum allotted time. I can recognize another member, following which the hon. member for Churchill can again seek the floor.
[ Translation]


Mr.   La Salle@: 
Mr.   La Salle@: 
Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Chairman, should the provinces refuse, what would be the minister's attitude?


Monique Bégin: I have already replied to that question on several occasions, but I will readily do so again in French, Mr. Chairman. First we will call on members opposite to support, as I think they already do, and pass Bill C-10 as quickly as possile so that the administrative machinery can be set up to print the forms and all the rest. In addition, as I reported today, following many requests made during the past few weeks to the provincial ministers, who incidentally are free to manage their provincial programs as they wish, I would call on all hon. members of the House, my colleagues and members opposite, the voluntary organizations looking after the interests of needy mothers or families and those which for another reason are concerned with social policies in Canada and the citizens in general to ask their respective provincial government what is their position and whether they are prepared, yes or no, to apply good policies for them and which will not cost them a penny that is pass to mothers on welfare the full $200 child tax credit. In practice that means not to deduct a penny of the new tax credit from the welfare payments. I know the hon. member for Joliette will do his share and I would invite every member to do so, him first. I am anxious to read his next parliament bulletin which hon. members are entitled to send four times a year to their constituents, and I hope hon. members will invite the population to support that position.


Mr.   La Salle@: I thank the minister for calling upon us to do so. Of course we support that amendment which indeed appears generous to us. Besides, I said so at the second reading stage. There is no problem in that regard. However, what could be cause for concern, Mr. Chairman, is that we mentioned consultation with the provinces during second reading, I recall it very well. The other side of the House said there was no need to consult the provinces on this matter, that they had nothing to do with it and that the federal government know what it had to do. Today the minister tells us about the representations she made to her colleagues and she even asks us to request from our provincial government that mothers benefit fully from the subventions which will be granted to them. We are in full agreement on this.
However, I could ask the minister why she did not discuss this matter well before the last meeting with her provincial colleagues where it was officially discussed? I wonder whether she did not have other opportunities well before today to get
November 29, 1978

the provinces to give their opinion before introducing legislation in the House. I imagine the minister or her officials have had many opportunities to meet with provincial representatives in the past year. I imagine this legislation was not born last month, so how is it for example that at the very last minute it suddenly becomes urgent to ask the provinces to guarantee housewives the maximum amount? I think, however, that the minister has had the opportunity to ask her officials to do the work she is asking us to do today.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, in a province it is not always easy to be a member of parliament. If the hon. member for Joliette cannot accept that, I do not know what he is doing here. Sometimes in life one must put up a struggle not only against the opposition nor against the government but also against provincial governments whose interests are sometimes opposed to ours. That is very simple. I do not know why he thinks that politics is going to be a big love affair. That is not the way it is. The objectives of provincial governments are not always identical to ours. Their ministers of finance have economic problems just like everyone else. Bill C-10 is a federal bill, concerning a federal program, which uses federal income taxes to redistribute money to families with children, to families in need. As everyone knows in the House, in June 1976 the provinces asked us to look into programs using the tax system to grant supplementary social benefits on a selective basis. We identified three groups, targets which 1 have often discussed in the 14 months since I have been appointed minister, two of which are the poor children of Canada and the single parent families. The provinces are fully aware of the direction in which our work is evolving. At the end of last August, I advised my provincial counterparts of the new program. The best I could do for everyone involved was to introduce a bill, as soon as possible, and giving all the details of the program. Only a bill tells us exactly what we are striving for and what can be changed. What, to my mind, is important and interesting is that none of the provincial ministers suggested any amendments to the bill. All of them told me that they thought the child tax credit program was excellent. Some of them are even a bit envious that they did not introduce it themselves. Or at least, that is what they told me.
Only in the last few years, and I would not be surprised if it were only relatively recently in this House, have hon. members of both the government and the opposition realized that when we approve federal programs dealing with social benefits, particularly for older people, which means increases, whether through quarterly indexing or increases of $20 a month such as the one we just passed for elderly couples and which will start in the month of January, or whether new programs even imperfect such as the spouse's allowance, the provinces take with the left hand what we give individuals with the right hand, in the form of increased rents or more expensive services and so on. It is clear-and federal members of parliament have to fight for that-that the money of Canadian taxpayers
Family Allowances
paid out in the form of redistribution, which is the nature of the Canadian confederation as far as I am concerned, when the money of the taxpayers of this country through a program like the child tax credit is used for redistribution to Canadian individuals in need, the provinces cannot consider that as an additional transfer payment and pocket the money.


Mr.   La Salle@: We agree on that. There is no problem there.
I hope this $200 credit will benefit the mother and the child who will need it, and I do hope that the government of Quebec will make sure they get to benefit from it 100 per cent. I know that there are some who are worried about that. Some often try to leave the impression that I have close friends in the government of Quebec, i am very happy to be able to communicate with members of Quebec. I was doing so at the time of the Liberal government, at the time of Mr. Johnson. And God knows I had excellent friends too, but sometimes it was quite useful, and I had the impression earlier that the minister said she had had discussions with the minister, Mr. Lazure, or that Mr. Lazure had in any case been rather receptive to the objective she is pursuing. I am one of those who wish, of course, that Mr. Lazure will succeed in convincing the cabinet about the idea we are pursuing but I ask the minister what was the kind of consultation she had with Mr. Lazure, what were his comments and whether she can say more specifically that earlier she undertook to recommend to the provincial government that specifically children in Quebec be allowed to benefit 100 per cent from that provision of the act, what was the reaction of the Quebec minister and whether the minister is in a position to say whether the provincial minister undertook to act like the federal minister would like him to?


René Bégin: I need an information document which I almost sleep with because I try so hard to promote this bill in which 1 believe.
Quebec is a particular case, and it is faced with particular problems of adaptation, which I am not entitled to discuss in this House, I think, but since indeed the money comes from the same taxpayers, 1 will talk about it a few minutes to explain my particular position. I did say that minister Denis Lazure has his heart in the right place, the hon. member did hear me well, but then again I am not stupid. I know his government wants to prove that confederation does not work so he will certainly not send me flowers on a silver tray. I mean, there should be no confusion. Having said that, I do not know the recommendation he made to his cabinet, but since the very first time I talked to him, in the evening of August 23 or 24, if my memory serves me well, he has always shown his interest in that program. This, I can confirm, he gave no information about the nature of his recommendations to his cabinet at the federal-provincial conference.
The problem which he faces is unique to the province of Quebec and concerns what they call harmonization. The province of Quebec chose, as it was free to do, a program where

November 29, 1978
Family Allowances
family allowances are distributed differently than in other provinces. Canadians in general receive $25.68 per child every month. Alberta has a somewhat different program, but Quebec has a completely different system about which we were not consulted. This is what the provincial government chose to do, but this is now causing the following problems: Quebec-and 1 hope I am not wrong because this issue comes under the jurisdiction of the National Assembly and I hope that it will be brought up in the proper forum-Quebec gives $15.42 for the first child-and I should say first of all that Quebec asks us to give $15.42 for the first child-the second child in a family receives $23.11, the third child, $47.45, and the fourth and all others receive a cheque of $59.13 a month. Then, there are some adjustments made to increase these amounts if the child is older, that is if he is between 12 and 17 years old.
As I understand it-but once again, I am not the Quebec minister of welfare-Quebec decided to give these welfare payments to mothers who are on welfare only for the first children in a family. Now 1 hope that the hon. member will not be angry with me if I do not know the answer-1 am not the provincial minister-that is if I do not know whether this means the first three children or the first four children. I believe it is only the first three children of a family on welfare who can receive assistance, as well as the mother and the father if it is a two-parent family. The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh children receive nothing under the welfare program. However, the Quebec government considers that our large family allowance cheque, that it distributes as I described a few minutes ago, will compensate social welfare. Quebec is in a bad position at the present time. I do not know what this means in actual facts for the distribution of welfare costs, of which we must pay 50 per cent, but I do know that the principle of harmonization is suddenly being questioned and that the minister is reconsidering the whole matter.
Of course, many people say that at first sight it seems better to give much more money for the second, the third, the fourth child and so on. But there is a problem of which everyone with children is aware and which governments and especially members of the National Assembly sometimes forget, I think there are not enough women in any of our governments. Even if ours has made some progress in that respect, people forget that the first child costs more money. Essentially, when you have a first child, very often it means, at least in cities, that you must move to have one more bedroom which increases considerably your rent, you have to buy the little bassinet, the bed, diapers, clothing, all the basic equipment. So I consider that the first child should get a larger amount. Furthermore, the second child does not cost much. As everybody knows, he lives on hand-me-downs. According to psychologists, it may be the source of problems but it is another matter. For the third child, many things are worn out and must be replaced. At any event, this is much controversed in circles interested in family policy

matters. This issue is also in the background of discussions in the provincial government cabinet.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Chairman, 1 wish to come back to a comment made earlier by the minister. She emphasized the importance of ensuring that the money made available or redistributed by Ottawa will go to the right place. 1 believe that in other areas also the federal government had the same problem, for instance, about the use of amounts spent on bilingualism and education in the provinces. I think it is a very relevant question.
However, could the minister tell us today what kind of mechanism she has in mind to ensure-precisely what kind of mechanism from a consultation point of view with the provinces or from a monitoring point of view her government could prepare in order to ensure some monitoring. I am aware that the Auditor General is also raising some questions regarding this lack of monitoring. It is considered as a weakness, I think, namely whether the funds available for such and such purpose are indeed going to perform the target objective or if the funds are well allocated in the case of the legislation dealt with by the minister today. It is just a case but I think that it could become a generalized practise in other fields and could the minister tell us if the government feels it is important to get something prepared for that purpose so that justice be made from one parliament to another, for any department concerned. We are today talking about a specific department but up to what point could the answer be sufficiently general for this side of the House to be told if the government is showing the desire of instituting these mechanisms which have been apparently wanting, up to now at least?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, we are talking of a cheque for mothers. I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that we should institute a special monitoring mechanism to ensure that the money will be properly used by the mothers because I for one fully trust them.


Mr.   La Salle@: hon. member can do that in his constituency office. Certainly he goes to his riding every weekend. In his MP bulletin that goes out to each of his constituents, he can tell them to write their provincial minister, asking him whether it is agreed he will pass on to mothers the full child tax credit, rather than deducting welfare payments. This is politics.


Gérald Laniel: The time allotted to the hon. member has expired. Is it agreed that the hon. member way put another question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Chairman, a single comment. I have the clear impression the minister is convinced a negative answer will come from the Quebec government, because she is asking us to put pressure on this, to invite mothers to write their provincial government. How can the minister leave us under the impression the Quebec government will say no? Originally Mr. Lazure appeared quite agreeable on this, and now we are asked to put pressure on. This is worst than asking us to pressure people to buy Canadian. As far as I am concerned, my impression is there is no need to worry on this. It is my hope every provincial government will pass on the maximum benefits. But the way the minister explained this, 1 would appreciate it if she would tell the House whether she has serious reasons to ask us to do this, for thinking the Quebec government will react negatively to her proposal.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, surely I have misunderstood the hon. member's position. I thought he was somewhat anguished by the situation in Quebec. He asked me how we could react, and I answered him. This of course goes for every province that is not yet committed. Now I said a number of times, Dr. Denis Lazure in my view is very much a man of good will, but he is not alone in his cabinet. I am not sure of Mr. Parizeau, his minister of finance, because Mr. Lazure has a minister of finance. He is not alone. I am not sure that the minister of finance does not want to collect federal funds by all possible means. I am not sure also that Mr. Parizeau is in favour of the poor. I have never heard such a thing. I have never heard that Mr. Rodrigue Tremblay was a minister of the poor. 1 wonder whether Mr. Bernard Landry shares the interests of the poor. As a minister, I want to fight against poverty in Canada, it is my job. It is also the job-


Mr.   La Salle@: I am not alone, we must have a chance.


René Bégin: No, I know. I was also going to say that it is the job of Dr. Lazure. I hope that Dr. Lazure will succeed.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister pertaining to the single parent. In many communities there are single parents where the children are not in the household of the single mother but are usually in the household of a grandmother. Sometimes there can be as many
Family Allowances
as three or four illegitimate children in a household. At the present time the family allowance cheque goes to the grandmother, possibly because the real mother of the children is working away from the community. In such a case who qualifies for the child tax credit? Does the mother have to make application or can the grandmother who is looking after the children do it?


René Bégin: Mr. Chairman, 1 deeply dislike the word "illegitimate" children. All children are legitimate. These are words we should not be using. They mean more than the word itself.
As a rule the person who now qualifies for the family allowance receives the new child tax credit. That may be the grandmother, as in the case described by the hon. member for Churchill, or it may be the father, depending on who gets the family allowance. Quite often it also depends on who has legal custody, but this is not necessarily the case.
In the thrust of his question I think the hon. member made a plea for the children of single parent families. They are a vulnerable group. By all standards in 1975, 31.2 per cent of them were poor. Of those, 90 per cent are headed by women. This group will be significantly helped by the new child tax credit. They will receive $106 million in credit payments. To use another measure, 87 per cent of all single parent families in Canada will get total or partial benefits from the new child tax credit.
I think that answers the hon. member's question. If there are particular cases, the officials will be pleased to give answers on a personal basis. I do not know if the hon. member is referring to a particular case.


Cecil Morris Smith: I am referring to one case in particular. However, I think it can be duplicated in many communities. A grandmother may be collecting the family allowance for some of her own children and at the same time collecting for grandchildren who may be in her care. Will this grandmother have to file two separate forms in order to qualify for the child tax credit for the two families, that of her own family plus her daughter's children? Will she have to file two separate applications?


Monique Bégin: In so far as I understand the particulars of the questions, it appears that the answer is no. That grandmother would file one tax credit form and one income tax form declaring all her sources of income, showing a net income of so much, and claiming both her children and those of her children or other relatives whom she may care for. If she is in receipt of a family allowance, she is absolutely assured of the child tax credit, if she qualifies. If there is a case where she should get the family allowance and she does not, this will give us an opportunity to rectify the situation.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Chairman, I want to put something on record concerning the additional welfare payments to families that will have a smaller income because of a reduction

November 29, 1978
Family Allowances
in family allowance at the first of the year. This should be on record because it is going to be very confusing for many people in our isolated communities.
In committee, I asked the deputy minister of Indian affairs some questions. Even though this question does not pertain to Bill C-10, the department of Indian affairs is responsible for the welfare of Indian people in Canada. It seems there was very little on communication with the department of Indian affairs concerning Bill C-10. At this committee meeting on November 23, I asked the deputy minister what effect Bill C-10 will have on Indian people living on reserves. I quote:
Will the reduction in family allowances be compensated for by an increase in social assistance payments in cases where a family is in receipt of social assistance, I think that is the first order of questioning.
The second question is the adverse of that. What happens to social assistance payments to families that are in receipt of the once a year tax credit.
The deputy minister replied to those questions in this way:
I think I read a transcript of a different exchange between Mr. Smith and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I do not know whether I can answer all of those questions, but I could make a couple of general observations. Our practice across the country is to conform with respect to social assistance payments to provincial practice, that is, to say we tie ourselves to provincial rates and when the province increases its rates we increase whatever a province's rules may be off reserves we normally apply on reserves.
It is my understanding that in calculating eligibility for social assistance and appropriate levels for social assistance, provinces do not take account of family allowance payments. It would allow from this that since they are excluded from the calculation of the requirements for social assistance, that in your monthly, or whatever, payments, you would neither take cognizance of the reduction in the monthly rate nor of the lump sum payment and the tax credit. The subject is one that is still under discussion between ourselves and the Department of National Health and Welfare. I think it is possible that at some point the two ministers will need to meet to make a determination on some of these issues. It is probably going to be fairly difficult to arrive at firm conclusions about what kind of regime should be applied until we have a picture of what the provinces are likely to do. And in outlining existing practices and the sort of one logical conclusion that you could draw from that practice-I am speaking hypothetically, the subject is not decided, but if we were to conform to our past practice of tying what we do on reserves to what provinces do off reserve, and given the family allowances are excluded from the calculations for requirements for social assistance, then on that particular hypothesis, you would not get an adjustment upwards in the monthly social assistance payment, nor would you get an adjustment downward from the tax credit payment point of view.
The deputy minister said they would not be affected as far as the downward adjustment would be concerned. However, I was concerned about the other adjustment we were talking about. That indicated to me it was not conclusive that the additional welfare would be paid. The minister emphatically says it will be paid and that the individual will not have to pay back any payment that is made to a family now living on welfare because of a drop in income to that particular family. While the minister says this is going to happen, the deputy minister of Indian affairs says that some meetings will have to take place. Perhaps that meeting has taken place since November 23. Can the minister confirm whether that meeting has taken place? If so and it has been decided, there is no point in my going any further.


Monique Bégin: The hon. member was reading from answers given by the deputy minister at a recent Indian affairs committee meeting. In all fairness, he said at the beginning that he was not fully apprised of all the dimensions of the child tax

credit. The next time I will have him at my briefing sessions. I did not know he would be asked these questions. It is a bit unfair.
What I said to the hon. member for Churchill, and I repeat it for the tenth time, is that the minister of Indian affairs and myself have agreed on supplementing any families on welfare wherever it is needed, whatever the method of distribution. There is agreement upon its objective. Of course, the officials will have to work out the particulars, but that is agreed. There is no doubt about it. One of my assistant deputy ministers who is present in the gallery today will clarify this as soon as possible and bring the comments which have been made today to the attention of the deputy minister of the department of Indian affairs.
When the deputy minister of Indian affairs referred to the provincial welfare scales he described the right mechanism. We want to keep a balance for all Canadians. Indian affairs is rather like a provincial department when it comes to social assistance, so we maintain consistency in welfare policies and payments in the country. Provinces, within that general framework, have very different modes of accounting for income. I can possibly say that in fact they all count family allowances as income. I can also say that they don't. It is an accounting practice by which two or three of the provinces count the family allowance one way and the others count it in another way. In any event, it is always taken into account. I wrote to my colleagues and I also told them orally that with respect to any social assistance payments, whatever the accounting practices, they should not count the new child tax credit as income. Nevertheless, it does appear somewhere on the total balance sheet.
It is a bit complicated but it is really a matter for provincial welfare ministers. It may be that the deputy minister of Indian affairs is referring to that mechanism when he speaks of maintaining consistency with the provinces-that may not be the phrase but I do not have the long text which the hon. member read. However, I can assure the hon. member that for the first three months in some families in which there are many children, the decrease in family allowances will mean a manque a gagner, a need, an additional need which will be made up from the payments under Indian affairs. The child tax credit in itself means for Indian mothers in Canada in 1979 an additional net S19 million. The hon. member referred to that at the beginning of his question. For poor families in Canada it means a net additional $108 million taking into account reduction of the family allowance.


Cecil Morris Smith: I understand that the $19 million covers all the status Indians. I believe that for Indians on reserves it will mean an additional $14 million. I think I have this straight now. I am sorry the minister had to explain it at length but I know I shall have to try to explain it to many of my constituents, who in many cases do not have the advantage of television and live in areas where radio reception is very
November 29, 1978


Cecil Morris Smith: Which department will determine the circumstances of individuals who will be receiving welfare payments because of a decline in income? Will it be the
Family Allowances
Department of National Health and Welfare or the department of Indian affairs? At this point the department of Indian affairs does not have enough community workers or social workers to undertake this task. I am wondering whether extra staff will be needed to determine which families are going to qualify for the additional payments to offset the drop in income.


Monique Bégin: The usual mechanism will be used to determine who has additional need. That will not increase staff or man-years. We are talking about the first three months of the year. It is quite easy to determine. In most cases this is done with the co-operation of band councils, so it is the same mechanism which will determine additional social assistance needs.


Mr. Rae:: Mr. Chairman, I want to return in my question to my old friends the income tax discounters. I have two questions relating to them. 1 am sure the minister has received a brief from the national anti-poverty organization. I know she will recall from that brief that that organization raised the question of the effect of the lump sum payment on the way mothers who receive this payment will react. In other words, the proposal of the organization was that families at least be given the option of receiving the money four times a year.
I do not want to labour this point because 1 know the minister has already expressed an interest in looking at this matter after the first year of the program. I simply want to ask the minister to remain open and to keep looking at that possibility, because I think there is a severe deficiency in the present approach which is being proposed by the government.
There is another point I want to make with respect to this problem. I was not in the House at the time but I understand that the minister told the House that information is already going out to people with the current family allowance cheques. Is any information going out with respect to the tax credit?


Monique Bégin: The basic information strategy is not yet finished.


Bob Rae: In that case, perhaps my suggestions will have some effect, who knows? Stranger things have happened. I suggest that a pamphlet which is not written in bureaucratese, which includes pictures and which would be lively would be read. Perhaps the minister should consult some of her political advisers in this regard rather than her civil service advisers. Those of us who are in this game know that we have to get information across to people, and I would like to see this information put across to welfare mothers. I intend to do that in my riding in my next household letter. I intend to tell people who will be receiving these cheques that they should wait and that hopefully there will be no need for them to go to income tax discounters.
I return to this point because when the income tax discounting bill was introduced and passed last year, it was suggested that the people who would be seeking income tax discounts

November 29, 1978
Family Allowances
would be people who would be filling out income tax forms which are complex, difficult and involve some work in filling out. In other words, the people filling out the forms were getting fees for their services as well as straight security for loans.
Let it be said that anybody should be able to fill out the form which is intended to be sent out in January of next year. I hope it is the intention of the government that the form will be very simple and extremely straightforward. Let us hope that it will be a one-page form and that it will be possible for recipients of the forms to fill them out on their own, or they will be counselled to go to community groups, to their members of parliament, to their MPPs or to people who will be filling out forms in relation to the graduated guaranteed income supplement, which the minister knows is filled out at the same time, so they do not have to go to income tax discounters to get the form filled out.
I assure the minister that people in the income tax discounting business are going to be going through housing estates and communities. They will be distributing leaflets telling people that they can get their money quickly. Discounters will be using that commercial approach. I think the government is making a mistake, but let it go ahead. The government is making the mistake of allowing income tax discounters to take this money as security. However, let us at least fight the commercial approach which will be used. Let us undertake that fight with our own public relations efforts.
I hope there will be a public relations effort in which individual members of parliament who feel as strongly as I do about these people will be assisted by the government in seeing that information is provided and that people will have some basic consumer counselling with respect to these forms.


René Bégin: Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes left I want to say that at times I am tempted to agree with the hon. member on the non-assignability of these child tax credit cheques; but I am always reminded-rightly so, it seems to me-of the freedom of people to obtain their money early if they want to.


Bob Rae: They don't "want" to, they have to.


Monique Bégin: It is not a matter of wanting. They do not even know as yet whether that money will be included in their family budgets.
The balance of the hon. member's remarks represented an excellent suggestion which as far as my department is concerned will be implemented. The particular dimension described by the hon. member by which tax discounters help people in filling out difficult forms is very true. Unfortunately, the insert for the month of December is in the process of being printed. It is too late to include the hon. member's suggestions in that insert. However, in subsequent inserts there will be special paragraphs for children which I hope will be "alive".
I can assure the hon. member that the next insert will be the result of advice from my political staff. It will contain pictures and it will be colourful. I hope it will not be boring. There will be pictures of children on it. It will be a small insert which will not tell the whole story, but it will be a beginning. I will supply hon. members with material. I like the idea that members of parliament should conduct clinics in their own constituencies. All the other suggestions made by the hon. member will be explored. I am not sure if the hon. member was in the House earlier, so I will repeat that social workers in all provinces and other provincial officials will also help mothers who are on welfare.


Mr. Paproski:: Will you send us a copy?


Monique Bégin: Yes.


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Chairman, 1 understand that there is a disposition on the part of hon. members opposite to pass clause 1 before we adjourn. Could that be done?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the shameful partisanship which has been demonstrated by the minister today, the cheap shots she took at one of her admirers, the hon. member for St. John's East, and her general abrasiveness, we are anxious to make progress and to get into some technical aspects of the bill. We would be disposed to passing clause 1.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, without any qualifications we are prepared to pass clause 1.


Bob Rae: The minister was nice to us.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 30, 1978