1983-02-08

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 20, 1982, consideration of Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, as reported, (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs; and the motion of Mr. Hawkes (p. 21697).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) to continue his speech, I should inform him and the House that the Hon. Member had already spoken for two minutes before Christmas and, therefore, under the new rules has eight minutes of his speaking time left.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that people understand that the two minutes that you referred to are the two minutes that I spoke on this Bill in a particular debate, as before Christmas I spoke in this House, obviously, for much more than two minutes.
I am glad to be recognized to speak in this debate, but in a way it is sad because it follows the arbitrary action of the Government to impose closure on this debate. I suppose that the Government moved in that direction because the arguments that have been put forward from this side of the House are beginning to hit home and it is feeling the heat. The Government probably feels that if it allowed this debate to continue, it might feel the continuing pressure to withdraw this legislation and to change its policy of six and five as it applies to Family Allowances.
The legislation that is before us today, Bill C-132, the application of six and five to Family Allowances in this country, is fundamentally an attack on human dignity. I want to elaborate on that. It is an attack on human dignity in the sense that, first and foremost, six and five is the Government's economic policy. It is its contention that inflation is the most important problem in this country and it has demonstrated to everyone that fighting inflation is its priority. In other words, by the application of this six and five program, the Government has accepted continued unemployment for at least 1.5 million people. This figure is the official statistic of unemployment in this country. So having 1.5 million people unemployed has not yet moved this Government to make unemployment its
priority. It continues with its misguided efforts at wrestling inflation to the ground, and that is what six and five is all about. Fundamentally and effectively the Government has abandoned any notion of providing employment for everyone who wants and needs employment, and has abandoned the policy objective of full employment.
In these times that is a direct attack on human dignity, because every person has a basic need to engage in productive activity. In this society in which we live, the way we distribute revenue is through the employment that we have. In our society it is necessary to have a good income in order to live a decent life and sustain one's feelings of self-worth and dignity. Six and five, as an economic policy, places the priority on fighting inflation, downgrades the importance of employment and undermines the dignity which the average Canadian enjoys.
Unemployment not only hurts the person who is unemployed, it also hurts the person who has a job. It does that because everyone is insecure in their employment, and they live in fear. To live in fear is a very negative experience and adds in no way whatsoever to the quality of life in this country.
The reason I emphasize the employment aspect of six and five, when we are talking about Family Allowances, is that it is hard to understand what the Government is doing in applying six and five to Family Allowances. In the first instance what it appears to be doing is attacking the notion of universality in social programs. In other words, it has capped the increase of Family Allowances, which is a universal program which goes to every citizen in the country. In order to deflect criticism, the Government has added something to the Child Tax Credit, which is a selective program. It has made a fundamental choice to go with selective programs as opposed to universal programs.
The problem with that approach in the social policy field is that it is an attack on human dignity. I say that because we know that once programs start to move down the road of selectivity, once you have to prove that you are poor before you can get social benefits, these programs have attached to them a negative stigma which says that anybody who applies is less than an equal, less than the person who does not have to apply.
This is a retrograde step in terms of social policy in this country and a direct attack on the respect that each individual receives. This Bill needs to be withdrawn. It should be put in the ashcan. The Government has to come up with better social

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
policies that go in the right direction, and with an effective economic policy.
One of the problems in moving this Government to withdraw this legislation is that the whole of the Opposition, the Official Opposition and the NDP Opposition in this House, are not united. The Progressive Conservative Party have taken two stands on the six and five program. That has made them ineffective in fighting this inhumane action by the Government.
When the six and five legislation first came out, the Tories voted for it. They moved in one direction. They did not seem to understand the implications of the six and five legislation, the fact that it places a priority on fighting inflation and downgrades the problems of unemployment. They did not seem to understand that this legislation would be applied to Family Allowances, old age pensions and Public Service pensions. When the specific legislation applying to Family Allowances came into the House, they reversed themselves and went in the other direction.
What message is the Government to take from that? It takes the message that the Official Opposition, the Tory Party, does not know what it is doing and cannot mount an effective attack against the Government, even though the legislation is inhumane.


Mr. Lewis:: What about the polls?


Cyril Keeper: One of the Tories says, "What about the polls?" 1 am sure that is a reference to the fact that the Tories are riding very high in the public opinion polls right now. It is good to be high in the public opinion polls in politics, but it is also necessary and important to look at the substance and quality of legislation before the House.
One of the reasons that the Tories are in trouble now and are such an ineffective Opposition is that they always have their eye on the public opinion polls. That is why they are into a leadership convention. They are afraid that their present Leader could not take advantage of their high standing in the public opinion polls and could not take them to office.
A single-minded eye on the possibility of winning in the public opinion polls is not good enough. It leads to ineffective opposition. If the Tory Party could get its act together, make up its mind about six and five and join us in fighting this attack on human dignity, this attack on Family Allowances, we could do something about it. When the Tory Party decided it did not want legislation that affected the oil industry to go through this House, the bells rang for two weeks. If the Tories were to adopt the same attitude with regard to this legislation, we could stop it. An effective and united Opposition could stop this inhumane action and restore human dignity as a value in public policy.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) has again shown the classic socialist approach to his Party's philosophy. They truly believe that if they say something often enough, people will come to believe it as they have come to
believe it. They truly are ideologues who want to remake mankind into a socialistic image, but they always get botched up when they deal with real people so that they find themselves falling behind in the polls.
[DOT] (U15)
They continually refer to this bell ringing episode as if it were an episode to save the oil industry. It had nothing to do with that at all, Mr. Speaker, because all of the Bills went through. The bell ringing incident was because the Government was trying to jam 15 pieces of legislation through in one omnibus Bill. We knew, as the Opposition, that Canadians would never be able to come in and speak properly to that Bill in its omnibus form, that it would set a precedent so that in the future the Government, in theory at least, could bring in three or four omnibus Bills per Session and pass statutes, in effect, as schedules to that omnibus Bill which would affect many, many different areas. So we let the bells ring, with no support from the NDP, until the Government agreed to split that Bill into individual parts. As you know, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I must draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that he is not presently speaking to the motion now before the House. I would suggest that he come to that soon.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-132, a Bill to amend the Family Allowances Act, is the third string in the Government's program to attack the poor people of Canada. Over the years the Government has built up these huge deficits which have led to the inflation which is now leading to the economic collapse in which we find ourselves, so people are having to cut back. We agreed with six and five as an over-all program to cut back in the future, but we certainly did not agree to the Government applying it in these specific areas. As you know, we opposed it when the Government tried to break contracts with retired federal civil servants, we opposed it with respect to the senior citizens, and we are opposing it with respect to the Family Allowances, because, Mr. Speaker, it is being applied unfairly.
As I mentioned before, the Minister herself, who receives $100,000 plus, will this year take an additional $6,500 out of the Canadian economy even though she is not working one bit harder than she was last year. We, as Members of Parliament, will be taking an additional $3,900 out of the economy in 1983, even though we are working not one bit harder than last year. Yet we expect the mothers receiving Family Allowances to take only 6 per cent when they had guaranteed to them full indexation. That is not fair, Mr. Speaker. It might seem like very little money, $17 per child per year, but that $17 to the mother who is barely at the poverty line is much more significant than the $3,900 is to you and me, because our actual cost of living has not gone up $3,900.
There is a solution, however. Had the Government been genuinely fair in treating Canadians, it would have brought in a law that said that rather than six and five, there would be a flat across-the-board payment-just to pick a figure, say,
February 8, 1983

$1,000 across the board. You and I would get $1,000 and that probably would cover our cost-of-living increase. Well, why not give that to the senior citizens, because their actual cost of living has gone up by that much?
I put that argument to the Minister a few days ago and she stood up with some response which was totally out of context. It was almost as if she did not understand the point I was making, which was that in times of hard inflation when we as a nation decide there has to be a cutback, the way to achieve that cutback is to give a flat across-the-board settlement of, say, $1,000 or $2,000. The people near the poverty line would then come up and those at the top would come down, and we as a society would get closer and closer together.
As I have argued before, the real effect of inflation where you have across-the-board settlements of 6 per cent or 10 per cent is that the rich become incredibly rich and the poor just barely inch up, so that as a Canadian society we get further and further apart. Surely during times of inflation we should be trying to come closer together, particularly when you are trying to adjust to the situation. That has been my argument, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I can stand with absolutely no hesitation and argue against the position of the New Democratic Party and say we are opposing this specific Bill even though we are in agreement with general restraint across the country. We can all agree on restraint. It is the application of it, where you have to decide whether or not you are being fair, that is important.
The NDP push this nation into huge deficits, Mr. Speaker, to the point where 25 per cent to 30 per cent of every tax dollar which comes into the federal Government now goes to service the debt. Where does that 30 per cent go? It goes to people who already have wealth. So when you build up deficits and top that with inflation, you get a concentration of wealth in the hands of people with money already, rather than the poor. That is the direct fall-out from the policies of deficit financing that we on this side have been arguing against for so many years.
1 will continue to say that again and again and again, Mr. Speaker, because Canadians are beginning to realize that the real problem is deficits. They lead to inflation as night follows day, and inflation, as day follows night, leads to economic collapse. It has happened time and time again throughout history, in Canada and in every other country in the world, and until Canadians come to realize that, take their sovereignty back, and real limits on the power of Governments to interfere in their lives, we will continue this circle through history.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak at report stage on Bill C-132. Before I get into my prepared text I would like to take issue with my colleagues to the left, if I may very briefly, on two items.
Firstly, as to whether or not we have changed our position on restraint, I would tell my colleagues to the left that we have definitely maintained our position on restraint. We have
Family Allowances Act, 1973
supported the Government in the broad principle of six and five. Where we have separated ourselves from the Liberal Party is that we do not believe that the errors of the Liberal Government should be corrected on the backs of retired civil servants, senior citizens and those families who are suffering in Canada today as a result of Liberal Government policies.
As to the offer to unite with the New Democratic Party, I should tell them that we are very, very fussy as to whom we unite with. We do not fall in and out of bed as quickly and as easily as they do. While I am talking about beds, I might point out that there is one very great hindrance to any uniting with the NDP, and that is their stated policy on bordellos and licensed houses of ill repute, which policy we know from the words of the NDP justice critic. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to deal with that very pertinent issue right now.
Now, as to the purpose of the Bill, the Liberal Government is planning full steam ahead, unless common sense prevails, to cap the indexing on Family Allowances to 6 per cent despite the fact that, due to its policies in the past, inflation has skyrocketed into double digits and it has done nothing about it. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, to this side of the House that the Liberal Party has not won the battle against inflation. What it did was create such economic chaos that nobody could buy anything. It won the battle against inflation by creating the chaos and making it so no one could afford to buy. That certainly brings prices down because manufacturers are not manufacturing for inventory, they are clearing out inventory.
There is no question on this side that we feel the indexing of Family Allowances to the level of inflation should be maintained. That is why my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), put in an amendment to endeavour to stop this Government from carrying on ad nauseam with its decision to fight inflation, and then take credit for beating inflation on the backs of the poor families of Canada. My colleague moved an amendment to remove capping from the year 1984, as an appeal to the Government and to common sense, to restrict capping to 1983. This was done because we are against the principle espoused by the Liberal Government that old age pensioners, families and retired civil servants should fight inflation. I know that is the position of the Minister and the Government but we feel it is not fair to ask them to bear that burden. As a result of Liberal Government policies, more and more Canadian families are living at the poverty level. I am not sure whether that has ever been stated as firm Government policy, but it is certainly a firm happening in the country.
In my riding of Simcoe North there is 33 per cent unemployment in the Town of Midland as a result of the failure of the Government to react to economic circumstances throughout Canada and the world. Having created that chaos, that hardship and unemployment, the Government feels it will

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
correct the situation by cutting back on the legitimate indexing of Family Allowances.
Time and time again we have suggested that there are better ways to fight the battle. We have suggested that the Minister not fight the battle of restricted Government spending by setting up the Macdonald Commission and paying $825 per day to Mr. Macdonald and lesser amounts to the other members who are not aspirants. We notice that Mr. Macdonald gets more money when he travels but we are not sure why. We are not sure that he has to travel at all or that he should even have been appointed. 1 would ask the Minister to have her officials calculate how many Family Allowance cheques could be maintained if we did not spend $825 per day for Mr. Macdonald and his confreres. Perhaps the Government could support the motion for capping to 1983 only if it were to dump the Macdonald Commission.
I also suggest to the Minister that the Government should tackle unemployment rather then watching the number of unemployed people increase and doing nothing about it.
It almost seems as if there cannot be a program without an acronym. We get nothing but acronyms from the Government, but no jobs. That is why the Family Allowance is needed at the minimum family income level. It would assist families to receive a cheque once a month, not a tax credit which it seems to me is worked into the income tax return and brings about a refund cheque in May of 1984. A Family Allowance cheque issued once a month is sorely needed by the families of Canada. We suggest that it is unfair, inappropriate and should not be on the cards that the families who need the money have it taken away by the Government.
I do not want to say anything more than that, Mr. Speaker. We will support the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Calgary West, which is made in good faith and would give the Government an opportunity to come to its senses on the capping of the indexation of Family Allowances. We will also vote against the Bill.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, there is not a Government Member speaking to this amendment, not a Government Member standing in the last series of speakers to speak on this Bill.
This Bill caps Family Allowances. I do not support this package of legislation. It obviously sets the tone and the direction of the Government. The application of the six and five program has been brought before us in four different pieces of legislation up to this time: Bill C-124 will cap the increases allowed to wage earners, Bill C-131 will cap Old Age Security pensions, Bill C-132 which we are discussing today will cap Family Allowances, and Bill C-133 will cap indexing on pensions of retired public servants.
[DOT] (U30)
1 would point out to Hon. Members that if they look at each piece of legislation in isolation, the Government may be able to give some justification to them. However, if one looks at what the Government is doing with the global package, it is plain that the Government's major thrust is against those who are
vulnerable and defenseless in our society. I suggest that this is the condemnation that is at the door of the Government.
The supreme irony of this program lies in the front page article in The Globe and Mail of today wherein it is revealed that the new Chairman of the Macdonald Commission, Donald Macdonald, will cost the taxpayers of Canada $800 a day. That is only for the Chairman. His salary will be a minimum of $800 a day in addition to the per diem expenses he will receive.
Has it occurred to Hon. Members that that minimum of $800 a day is what an unemployed person receives on his monthly UIC cheque? This incredible irony shows the callousness of the Government. This is a man who receives income from the boards on which he serves of various corporations. No doubt he receives a stipend from the law firm of which he is a partner. He receives consultant fees for the work he does for corporations such as McDonnell Douglas which, incidentally, signed a contract with the Government. As well, he receives a generous pension as a former Member of the Cabinet. While he receives all this income, the poor, impecunious, poverty-stricken Donald Macdonald will be propped up with an extra $800 a day. Meanwhile my constituency office-and I am sure this is true for all Members-is besieged with telephone calls from those who are in the snags of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Then we have Tom Shoyama.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to the motion now before the House.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, you will remember that I introduced this particular segment of my remarks by showing the incredible irony that exists between the legislation we are discussing today, which is to cap Family Allowances for families in Canada, and what the fat cats get who happen to be friends of the Liberal Government. This Government is committing an unconscionable crime.
I want to point out that Mr. Shoyama, the former Deputy Minister of Finance who is now retired on a very generous Public Service pension, will now receive a fee commensurate to that of Donald Macdonald's. This is evidence that the attack is definitely not on the friends of the Government. It is against those Canadians who are vulnerable.
I suggest Hon. Members go back and look at the speeches made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) when she was debating the Bill which would bring about a tax benefit at the end of the year for families. It was called the Child Tax Credit. Her plea at that time was that those receiving this Child Tax Credit were the same as those who received Family Allowances. At that time she said that they were the vulnerable ones. These people include housewives and mothers, single parents or others, in Canada. The Minister and other Members went on to say that this may be the only cheque that these people can cash if they are not single parents. The Government now says that it wants to cut

February 8, 1983

back on these cheques. When we debated the Child Tax Credit two years ago they were the vulnerable ones. Today they are expendable.
As I said at the outset, this legislation in its global sense is an attack on Canadian families, whether senior citizens, retired public servants or children. They are the ones the Government has chosen to bear the brunt of its attack on inflation.
1 support my colleague's amendment to terminate this six and five program at the end of 1983 because the Government's record has shown that it is a poor planner. It cannot predict what will happen in 1984. When we have three different budget projections in one year, all of them updated and upgraded to show that the Government deficit will be even larger than its previous estimate, I do not think the Government is qualified to make projections on the restriction of family incomes into 1984. Surely if it wants to operate according to its record, it should limit itself to the year we are in. Therefore, I support my colleague's amendment to limit this legislation to one year.
Last week 1 mentioned one illustration of the Government's inability to plan. In November, 1981 the Government floated a Canada Savings Bond at the incredible rate of 19 per cent plus. It raised $12 billion through that bond which could have been invested in the private sector. Since interest rates plummeted soon after that bond was floated, the Government paid out more than $2 billion in interest charges which should not have been paid as a result of the interest rates dropping. The Government borrows money on the New York bond market on a three-month term whereas it borrows on the Canada Savings Bond on a one-year term. The Government is not very competent in planning what its future costs will be.
I am in favour of this amendment because it is the Government that creates inflation by its expensive operations. We now have legislation before us which prohibits the taxpayer from protecting himself from the inflation that the Government itself creates. I consider that to be wrong.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to Bill C-132 and in support of the amendment moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). We on this side of the House have no illusions about the result of this amendment. We know that it cannot make the Bill any more acceptable to the Canadian people, but it can go a long way to offset the damage that will be created by this Bill once it is passed by the Government.
As the Member for St. Catharines, I want to say that I am naturally very much concerned about unemployment and the poor state of the economy that exists in the St. Catharines and Niagara region. St. Catharines-Niagara has the highest rate of urban unemployment in this country. One out of every five workers is unemployed. Jobs have disappeared at the rate of 1,750 a month over the last two years.
We now have Bill C-132. We have heard many irrelevant speeches and comments from those on the Government side of the House. They say that we in the Opposition are making a mountain out of a molehill. Let me offset this argument which Government Members tend to make. We hear them ask what
Family Allowances Act, 1973
difference does it make? We hear them say that any mother should be prepared to contribute this part of her income to the six and five program by having her Family Allowance cheque reduced from $30 per month to $28.52 per month. Is that a hardship?
The response is quite simple. In the City of St. Catharines alone the loss in 1983 will amount to over $50,000 a month, and this amount will be compounded each month during the time the recipient receives the benefit. That represents nothing less than a one-year tax increase of $600,000 applied to over 22,000 families in St. Catharines, almost 25 per cent of which are single parent families.
What is even more reprehensible, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we are not talking about wealthy families. According to Revenue Canada, the average person living in St. Catharines is earning just over $13,000 a year. The single parent trying to raise a child or children on $13,000 a year is hardly in a position to join the war against this Government's inflation. That parent is already waging a personal war without needing to do double duty on behalf of a Government that keeps spending.
The Government knows this. According to the 1981 edition of taxation statistics, St. Catharines' taxpayers paid annually an average of $3,000 each to the federal Government. In the 1982 edition, that average is down to $2,265, a drop of almost 25 per cent. Indeed, on a total net tax paid basis, and taking inflation into account, the federal Government's revenues from the City of St. Catharines has dropped by $3.4 million in just one year. This reflects the staggering rate of unemployment in our area and the poor state of the region's economy. Yet it tells a good deal more than that. It tells us that the federal Government is losing revenue from the St. Catharines' people; and this Bill, along with the attack on old age pensioners in Bill C-131, is simply a further attempt at a tax grab.
In committee, witness after witness made the point that this Bill will hurt low-income earners the most and wealthy Canadians the least. It was further pointed out that if the Government were serious about being socially and economically responsible, then tax reform was the route to follow.
Several excellent suggestions were made with respect to the Child Tax Credit, the Family Allowance Program and the tax exemption for dependants. The thrust of these suggestions was to the effect that the Government could do far more for women in general, could do more for middle-income families in particular, while not increasing expenditures and indeed would have the opportunity to cut costs.
The Government's response was typical of its attitude, an attitude that has prevailed since the 1980 election. This is our Bill, the Government says. This is the way it is, and that is the way it is going to be, is what we hear. Only one amendment has been adopted since debate began on these last three six and five Bills. That amendment was granted under threat of revolt

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
from Liberal backbenchers, and under the threat of closure with respect to each.
Efforts on the part of the Opposition to reduce the damage that will be inflicted by those Bills have been rewarded by a series of closure motions to cut off debate and discussion of the responsible approach to pension and taxation reform. In the case of this Bill, the Government did not even wait for the call of closure or for the axe of fall. Mothers had their January cheques reduced despite the fact that the legislation has not yet been passed. If the Government can thumb its nose at the law, then why should Canadians respect the law? Why should Canadians have trust and confidence in this Government? Why bother with the parliamentary process at all if this is the way the Government chooses to operate? Give a Bill first reading, make a few remarks and send everybody home. When will this Government respect the fact that Canadian expect their Parliament to operate in a spirit of co-operation and compromise? What we have today is rule by closure and by order in council.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), has put forward an amendment that deserves this Government's support. We will be watching in what numbers, if any, Government backbenchers will rise in support of this amendment. It is an amendment that limits the application of this Bill to one year and gives the Government an opportunity to reassess its approach and see what impact the legislation will have in that one year. Over that period of a year the Government may realize that the Bill has no economic merit, no economic impact and that it is socially regressive. Conversely, the Government may even regard the program as pure genius and wish to extend it if that can be justified. But that decision cannot be made now.
A lot can happen during 1983. To legislate for 1984 on the basis of the Government's guesstimates is completely irresponsible. We are not talking about an insignificant decision. We are not talking about an insignificant amount. Should inflation again reach astronomical heights in the last quarter of 1983 as it did in prior years, even in the months just gone by, mothers are condemned to getting by with 5 per cent protection in 1984. Surely to goodness, no Government would want to lay the foundation to such a dreadful scenario at the feet of the people of Canada, or expect that to happen and expect it to be accepted.
There is a second advantage to my colleague's amendment. This amendment takes into account the Government's own estimate or guesses about inflation. Canadians know perfectly well that inflation will not be the number one problem in 1983 or 1984. Unemployment and economic recovery have to get top priority. This amendment allows the Government to get on with that instead of fighting an ongoing battle against a third-ranked contender.
I intend to support this amendment, Mr. Speaker. If Members sitting in Government benches are in the least concerned with unemploment and with social progress, they too will support this amendment.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to take part in this debate and to say at the outset that we too support the amendment put forward by the Official Opposition, but we are still fundamentally opposed to the whole Bill.
I have been here a number of years and this is the most outrageous effort at what I call nothing more than chiselling by the Government of all the efforts and times that I have seen this Government chisel here and there from those who can least defend themselves and from those who are most in need.
We saw an occurrence on Tuesday of last week in which the Government said it was prepared to provide hundreds of millions of dollars each year to our two national railways. The two national railways would be given hundreds of millions of dollars, and would be allowed a 39.5 per cent profit annually. I do not know of anyone who makes that kind of profit. Usually a reasonable return on investment is somewhere in the 10 per cent or 20 per cent area. Any Government which can find revenues to hand out to our two national railways and allow them to make that kind of unconscionable profit and at the same time chisel a few dollars a month from old age pensioners, Public Service retirees, Armed Forces retirees and children, surely must be some kind of obscenity. Any Government that can do that must have its priorities in reverse.
The Government, starting this year and continuing over the next several years, is prepared to spend $8 billion on a fighter plane which will be of little or no use to us, which will maximize profits for its manufacturers, and which will continue to escalate the arms race, but it cannot find a few dollars a month for the old, for retired public servants, for retired members of the Armed Forces, and for children. Surely that is an additional obscenity. All the Government has proven is that the money is there for these sorts of things, for unconscionable profittaking, not making, and military equipment, but it is not there for those who need it the most.
Many of these social payments in the form of pensions, the Family Allowance and so on, are taxable. Therefore, for those in the upper middle and high income groups, the Government will tax back most, all or even more than the increases provided for Family Allowances, for old age pensioners and retired public servants. It really is not a cost to the Government for those who do not necessarily need these increases. One way or another, the Government gets it back, and then some. It is generally efficiently administered. It is a simple way of maintaining universality and seeing to it that those who need it most get it and get to keep it. Surely it is no way to fight inflation on the backs of those who not only did not cause inflation, but are also its first victims.


Mrs. Mitchell:: It is child abuse.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The test of any civilized society is how well it treats its old, its sick and its very young. It seems to me that we are failing part of the test when we put legislation such as this on the law books of Canada. It is the most unfair and-


Mr. Althouse:: Neanderthal.
February 8, 1983


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -backward way. This is the kind of thing that Governments did decades ago. This is not the kind of thing that a Government should do if it has any real concern for who receives and who should receive the benefit of Government payments. This is the time when those people most in need should get first priority.
Every year the Government can give money in the hundreds of millions-yes, even billions-to corporations and to the wealthy, and there is little complaint about it except from a few. However, the minute one attempts to restrict those kinds of outlays by Government, one is accused of being against private enterprise and against assisting the economy to grow and so forth. We do not object to many of those kinds of payments. We think that some of them are necessary. However, if the money is available for that purpose, then surely it is available to the tune of full indexing for children, something they were promised.
One of the few good moves that the Government made in the last number of years was indexing. Of course, it was part of the New Democratic Party shopping list during the 1972 and 1974 minority Parliament, and it took that kind of leverage from both the Official Opposition and from ourselves in that minority Parliament to persuade the Government to institute indexing so that we would not blame those who were old, sick and very young for inflation-because they were its first victims-but, rather, we would in fact protect them from inflation and call on the rest of society and the rest of our economy to take part in sensible measures to control and to reduce inflation. One just does not do it to old people and to children. That is not the way to go.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Unless you are a Liberal.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Those who call themselves "Liberals" on that kind of a matter do not know what they are talking about, because they turn out to be neither small "1" liberal nor large "L" Liberal.


Mr. Fulton:: They are not talking about it though.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They turn out to be the most outrageous reactionaries that I have seen around here, with the exception of a few people in the Official Opposition. I find that these so-called Liberals are even just as reactionary, if not more so, than those that sit in the Official Opposition.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Except you.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And even they agree that this is going too far. I urge the House to support this amendment and, following that, on another day to defeat the Bill.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, as 1 rise to address this critical issue of Bill C-132, I cannot stress enough the importance of the Government stimulating the economy but ensuring that our families are not strangled in the process. Today's Canada is looking for strong leadership and a caring Government, but I am sad to say that Canadians have
Family Allowances Act, 1973
been disappointed. We must work together, but not by penalizing those who can ill afford it.
The single most important thing we as Canadians possess is the family unit. It takes priority, as it should, and should be upgraded in every possible way. This Bill is not one of those ways. We would be better off without the Bill. However, as it has been forced down our throats, let us at least only try it for only one year.
1 am pleased to see the NDP finally entering the debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Finally? Would you like to see our record?


T.A. Bud Bradley: We heard the First NDP Member speak on this amendment after four Conservatives. Members of the NDP talk a lot. Let us hope that the action from these selfbelievers and self-seen supporters of those penalized people is louder than their words.


Mr. Kristiansen:: 1 bet you we will be here to vote.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, as a part of the six and five restraint program, the Family Allowances Act will set the monthly Family Allowance payments at 106 per cent of the 1982 level in 1983, and 105 per cent of the 1983 level in 1984. Monthly Family Allowance payments, which are currently $26.91 per child, will rise to $28.52 in 1983, and to $29.95 in 1984, a very small measure for the inflation that will probably be taking place. Had full indexing continued in 1983, average monthly payments per child would be some $30 at the rate of 11.5 per cent, and some $33 in 1984 at the same rate.
For most low and middle income families, this loss will be more than offset in 1983 by the one-year temporary increase of $50 per child in the Child Tax Credit program. But what happens in 1984? We have a Government Act which is to continue in force for two years and we are only offsetting it for the first year. That is why we require the amendment. The net result of this action of enriching the Child Tax Credit and partially deindexing Family Allowances is that the Government will spend more than $95 million more than it would have spent if neither program had been changed.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) moved this amendment that we are now debating on the basis that he felt, and I agree, that it is impossible to predict just what inflation will be like in 1984, and therefore to project the program that far ahead was unfair to families. He also stated that the Bill should not be passed in the first place because of its attack on the Family Allowance, which is something which mothers in particular use in planning their budgets each month.
Family Allowance was initially introduced to help families or single parents raise their children. The mother always had a certain amount of money which she could set aside through the Family Allowance to provide the basic physical needs for her children. Why change that?

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Does this Bill mean that we must take money from our own children in order to solve the inflationary problem of the country? Inflation has come down, but not because of six and five. The economy in this country is in terrible shape; businesses are going bankrupt and unemployment is running rampant. That is why the economy is slowing down and the inflation rate is dropping. Bill C-132 will be another slap in the face for single mothers, many of whom work at low-paying jobs. This could well be the last straw for the unlucky widow who is trying to substain her children.
Why should we require this experiment for two years? The Government has given an exceedingly shocking demonstration of insensitivity to the needs and wishes of the poor, the elderly, members of the Public Service and now children, by the introduction of Bills C-131, C-132 and C-133. What kind of Government can advocate credibility when it carries its ineptness on the backs of our children?
Although we agree that changes are necessary in the Family Allowances Act, this is not the way to go about it. Reducing a program with supposed beneficial actions should not result in added expenditure by the Government of $95 million. What is the real reason behind this Bill? It certainly is not to reduce Government spending. There has been much talk about stopping inflation. However, the battle against this much talked about enemy must start with those who are responsible for it, not mothers and children but Government. We must address the problems as they exist. Certainly we must restrain Government spending, I am in agreement with that, and I am sure Members of all three Parties of this House would agree with reduction and restraint of Government spending.
However, this Bill does not address that question. Why is the Government not looking to see where it could save money without attacking people of low income? Every piece of legislation in the restraint program attacks elderly people, people on fixed incomes, people on Government pensions or senior citizens. We should be making every effort possible to make sure that they live out the remainder of their lives in comfort and without worry, and that is not accomplished through these actions that we are taking in the House of Commons now.
There are ways to reduce the deficit and bring money into the coffers of the Federal Government without attacking the people for which Family Allowance was set up to help. As I said earlier, we need a review of our programs but patchwork legislation like this is not a review. We now have the Family Allowance program, income tax deductions for wholly dependent children, the Child Tax Credit Program and income tax deductions for child care expenses for working mothers. We have programs that were introduced one after another to patch other programs in order to correct inefficiencies in those that were first brought in. These are patchwork programs by a Government that is afraid to cut or change any one specific program because of votes.
This Government is more concerned about winning elections and getting votes than it is about making sure its programs are correct and beneficial to all concerned. Now we have six and
five applied to Family Allowances, a move that will, in effect, because of other patchwork costs, cost this Government more money, as has been the case with their programs for so many years.
In closing, I would like to say to this Government, stop playing games. Either review the whole Family Allowance program or leave it alone. Just because this Government has failed, do not now ask the children of our country to wrestle inflation to the ground.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville);: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the amendment that has been proposed by my colleague for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), but most importantly I want to rise to speak in opposition to Bill C-132.
This Bill very amply demonstrates this Government's double standard. Today in the Toronto Globe and Mail we read about the extravagance of this Government which is proposing to pay the Hon. Donald Macdonald $800 per day and up to $925 per day plus expenses, along with the other members of his Royal Commission. That clearly demonstrates the double standard of this Government.
We are dealing here with a piece of legislation that is going to cut back on Family Allowances and on the family incomes of those families who are most in need. We have been dealing with legislation that is going seriously to impair the ability of pensioners to have a decent living and live in dignity, while at the same time we have this kind of action which can only serve to undermine any confidence that one may want to muster in support of a Government restraint program.
I think it is scandalous. The Government, in order to lead the country in a period of recession toward the road to economic recovery, in order to lead the country in terms of lowering expectations and reducing expenditures, must lead through example, not merely through rhetoric or demonstration but through example. I submit it is not leading through example when we read this sort of thing in the headlines of a national daily paper.
There is no question that actions like this undermine the confidence of any restraint program. I do not think there is anyone in the country who does not recognize the need for exercising restraint and lowering expectations, but the Government must demonstrate that it is serious, that it is prepared to cut waste, extravagance and non-productive expenditure. If the Government were to come clean and say: "We accept the major recommendation of the Auditor General's Report which identified very serious weaknesses in the accounting practices and expenditure of public funds", and it demonstrated that it was going to take action in that area in terms of curbing nonproductive investment, the people of Canada would respond very positively and get behind a restraint program. It certainly cannot demonstrate that kind of faith and leadership by attacking a group in society that is not able to defend itself, while on the other hand being very generous to, and extravagant with, people whose needs are indeed questionable.
February 8, 1983

This Bill, like the other two Bills pertaining to the six and five program which we have been dealing with in this House, essentially hurts those who are making a major contribution to Canada in the area of families, the raising of children. Many mothers who have sacrificed a second income in order to stay at home with their children will find themselves in a situation where their income to raise their family will be cut back. I consider the limit to indexing to be a very regressive measure which hurts those at the lower income level.
We hear talk about what is going to be saved. We hear bandied about figures in the area of $250 million and $300 million. In speaking to the Bill on December 20, 1982, at page 21770, my colleague from Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Clarke) said that according to his calculations, and considering that the higher income earners do not receive the Child Tax Credit and pay tax on their Family Allowance, the estimated saving will be in the area of $15 million after everything has been tallied up. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Quadra who calculated this figure is a qualified accountant and very much abreast of the legislation and accounting practices. If he is correct in that assumption, it means that this federal Government, which spends money at the rate of $217 million per day or $9 million per hour, will be looking at two hours' worth of revenue going through its hands.
What this measure and its sister legislation does is basically attack two of the pillars of society, the family unit and our senior citizens. In this time of financial difficulty we should be adopting measures which will strengthen the family unit and the wherewithal of our senior citizens. No one in this House would disagree that we owe our senior citizens very much. We all recognize the importance of the family unit both in terms of the social and the economic structure of this country. The family unit is still one of the most important and basic institutions in society. It should be preserved. The integrity of the family should be enhanced, not attacked.
There is no question in my mind that the Government has failed miserably in dealing with inflation. Look at what is happening in the private sector. The Conference Board recently reported that wages in the private sector are dropping without a six and five program. Therefore, the six and five program has become a propaganda sham.
Recent Statistics Canada surveys have indicated that in the area of regulated pricing versus unregulated pricing, regulated pricing, those prices controlled by a Government commission or regulatory agency, over the past year have risen by 18 per cent, while those prices subject to the vagaries of the marketplace have risen by half that amount. When we look at that in the context of the services which our senior citizens and low-income earners rely upon, such as electricity, power, heat, energy and transportation, most of those components are regulated by a regulatory agency. As a result, those prices have increased dramatically vis-a-vis those prices that are not controlled and must respond to the marketplace.
Over the past year, the price of commuter transportation has risen by 13.6 per cent. Intercity bus fares rose by 24 per cent. Over the last two years, energy costs have doubled. Heating costs exceed those in the United States. Having regard to the fact that the Government wants to engage in a war against
Family Allowances Act, 1973
inflation, why is it attacking those individuals who are suffering the worst effects of inflation? The Government is attacking the problem in reverse. At a time like this it should re-examine the components which make up the formula for the agency regulators, those who regulate the prices. Therein lies the problem.
The Government could reduce the cost of energy by reducing the level of taxation. When our Party was in power, we proposed providing relief for low-income earners and pensioners. We have to look at this in two areas. We must address the real causes of inflation. Most important, we must look at the policies which have mitigated against growth in the generation of new wealth in this country. This recession has been brought on to a large extent by the Government, which has driven away investment and production and driven up Government spending and the deficit.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise along with my colleagues to support the amendment to Bill C-132 proposed by our colleague from Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). I should deal first and directly with that amendment because there are those who would say that this Bill C-132 amending the Family Allowances Act is totally wrong and inappropriate, and that there is no way it can be amended to give it any kind of credibility in the House of Commons or before the Canadian people.
The purpose of the amendment is to say that if you are going to make a mistake, at least do not make the mistake in two successive years; at least look at the situation after the lapse of one year. If the Government with its majority must come into this House to ram through a similar provision a year from now, it would then at least face the Canadian people with this malicious and vicious measure on two occasions rather than on one occasion.
The purpose and intent of the amendment is to say: "Slow down, Government; don't use your majority in the House of Commons to force something on the Canadian people that they do not want. Please at least have the grace and the decency to look at the matter in a year's time when, hopefully, you may not feel as disposed to use your power and authority in the House of Commons to carry out your vendetta against the young people and families across Canada in the name of restraint of Government spending."
That is the message I want to give my friends and colleagues in the New Democratic Party who constantly rise in this House, and ask: "Why did the Progressive Conservative Party support the six and five program"? I, for one, stood against the initial legislative provisions involving the six and five program. Although I agreed with the principle of restraint in Government spending, I never for one second trusted the criminals on the other side of the House who were trying to perpetrate a fraud on the Canadian people. The Government was going to reduce Government spending and it was so adamant and determined in its desire to reduce Government spending that it was going to inflict its restraints on the aged, the senior
22608

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
citizens, the young persons of the country and the retired public servants. I never believed for one minute that the Government had anything but evil intentions in mind. I never believed for one minute that the Government did not intend to fool the Canadian people into thinking it was going to change its arrogant and wasteful ways. But, Mr. Speaker, you can hardly blame honest Parliamentarians for being fooled by what appeared to be an honest attempt to restrict Government spending, and that is what the Government program was supposed to do.
Back in June, 1982, when that program was announced, all of the measures were linked to a reduction over a period of time in the deficit caused by Government spending. If I recall correctly, the budget deficit was to be reduced to the area of Sll billion. Six months later we were told that the budget deficit was going to be in the area of $23.6 billion. Now, six months later again, we know that it may reach as high as $30 billion. That is the beginning and the end of the Government's restraint program. It is a public fraud, but everyone knows that now.
What the Government is trying to do with these closure measures is to stop us from reminding the people of Canada that the Government's six and five restraint program is a fraud. It wants to stop the debate in Parliament. It wants to get on with other things, so that those people in Canada who do not already know about this fraud perpetrated by the Government of Canada will not find out. I believe it is our duty, Mr. Speaker, to stay here as long as we can, as long as the rules of parliamentary debate allow, and keep making the same point over and over again, that the Government is not serious about cutting back on Government spending. It is not serious about trying to get the economic affairs of the country in order. All the Government is trying to do is to maintain itself in office, to maintain the power which it now exercises for all time.
Do not listen to my friends in the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, who give the impression they are willing to engage in some crusade to defeat the Government in its measures, because every time that crusade arises and develops, the NDP stand up and side with the Government, allowing it to carry on in its nefarious ways. They keep supporting the Government. And I can tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) right now, without fear of contradiction, that whenever the Prime Minister needs the NDP, they will be there to support him. No matter what they say on other occasions, they will always be there for him. We know the nature of that friendship.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), the great saviour of our health and welfare program in Canada, has returned to the House of Commons. I suppose she went out to find out how many doctors have just left Canada because of her intentions with respect to our health programs.
Here we have a Minister of the Crown who stands in the House and says she is working for the senior citizens and the young persons across Canada, that she is trying to provide
benefits for them which will allow them to live a decent life. She tries to defend this program as it applies to senior citizens and young persons, but, Mr. Speaker, it is indefensible.
In her own report she says the measure which is contained in Bill C-132 saves $115 million in 1983 and $200 million in 1984, at the expense of some 6.6 million young Canadians and 3.6 million Canadian families. That is not true. The fact of the matter is that when she juggles around with the tax credit and she moves this figure and that figure, with the aid of Government accountants, she comes out with a net loss of $95 million. Even in this very area where the Government claims to be practising restraint, it is in fact transferring the funds to a smaller group, a group which the Government controls, that it knows will support it at election time. We in this House of Commons are continuously fighting against the nefarious schemes of the Government, the purpose of which is to maintain the Government in office; in no way, shape or form do they benefit the people of Canada, nor do they accomplish anything to correct the difficulties with the economy.
I would like to deal in a very particular way with some of the problems which we have seen in this House of Commons with measures like Bill C-132. I pointed this out in relation to the provisions affecting senior citizens. What the Government is doing, Mr. Speaker, is it is taking $47 over the two-year period away from some Canadian children and it is turning around and spending $50 on other Canadian children by way of increases in the Child Tax Credit. All the Government is doing is juggling the books; it is not accomplishing anything. Canada is not back on the road to economic recovery. The Government has not created jobs, or any wealth for the nation, to support social programs. It is simply juggling the books. How stupid does it think the Opposition is? It might fool the New Democratic Party once in a while, but it certainly cannot fool the Progressive Conservative Party when it just juggles the books and pretends it is doing something for the economy and the Canadian people.
The jig is up now. People who were not previously concerned with social programs now realize that when you take $350 million or more from that level of society, all you are doing is stopping purchases in stores and stopping people from having adequate food, clothing and shelter. No one will be able to explain to me how that contributes to the economy, let alone to the advancement and social well-being of the Canadian people. Everyone is on to it. Even Leonard Shifrin, the great defender of the Liberal Party and its social programs. He said in an article that this "Rejigging child benefits won't cure the economy". So it is not my idea. It is one of the friends of the Liberal Party who has said that is all the Government is doing in Bill C-132 and its other six and five legislation. The Canadian Council on Social Development has called for a halt to this action by the Government for the reason which I just mentioned, that it is simply taking money out of the economy without benefiting anyone.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that what we have to do in this House of Commons, and I sometimes lose hope that
February 8, 1983

we will ever be able to do it, is work to correct the problems in Canada in a realistic way and try to resolve the problems which face the Canadian people. We are not going to do it, or even work towards it, if we allow the Government to get up in this House and present through this Parliament to the people of Canada a problem which it claims will cure the troubles of the Canadian economy, when it knows, and every one of its advisers know, that it is simply a fraud on the Canadian people. It is simply designed to give the Government the kind of hard-nosed image which people know is needed in Canada to correct the economy, so we can create wealth and support social programs.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise also to support the amendment of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), although, of course, we know that this is no solution to a very bad Bill.
I cannot help but comment, before relating my remarks to the Bill itself, on the arrogance of the Liberal Government once again. Not only did it bring in time limitation on this Bill yesterday, but it is not speaking in support of the legislation from its point of view today because, of course, there really is no argument which will support this Bill.
1 would like to say particularly that we in this Party believe that it was not only extremely arrogant and unethical, but indeed illegal, that the Liberal Government under the auspices of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) sent out January Family Allowance cheques at a reduced indexing. This indexing, which should have been close to 11 per cent, was reduced to 6 per cent, and this was done before this Bill had the sanction of this House. It was done for only the children's allowances cheques. It was not done, interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the senior citizens' cheques. This shows, I believe, the kind of arrogance and priorities which the Liberal Government has, that it will attack children. Children do not vote; senior citizens do vote. We feel very strongly that the Government must return the money which it deducted from those cheques illegally this month to those families. It amounts to only $1.40, but it is the principle involved, and it was money stolen from the children of Canada.
The Minister, in one of her speeches trying to justify this Bill, said that the six and five capping on Family Allowances was really using "a sword as a psychological weapon". Those were her words. Certainly she has demonstrated how she used this sword on the children of Canada and their mothers-


Miss Begin:: I never said that.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -by taking away the full indexing for the month of January before this Bill even passed the House of Commons.


Monique Bégin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At this stage we cannot question Members opposite, but I find it very difficult to listen to absolute misinformation. If the Hon.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) says I said something, she should quote it and give the page and the date, because she is just saying what is not the truth.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will indeed bring the reference to the House. This was said in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I do not have the exact page but I will certainly get it for the Minister. I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt; perhaps she was having some difficulty expressing herself at that time, but that certainly was the phrase she used.
Certainly the feeling expressed in that phrase was demonstrated in the actions which followed. Why on earth would the Minister allow Family Allowance cheques to be reduced for the month of January when this Bill has not even passed the House of Commons? We in this Party feel that this is just another arrogant action by the Liberal Government, and certainly it shows very little sympathy on the part of the Minister for Canada's children and their mothers.
In his speech the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) referred to a columnist, Mr. Leonard Shifrin, in support of some of the points he was making in criticizing the Liberals. It is very interesting that Mr. Shifrin, in an article of January 1 in the Toronto Star, questioned the credibility of the Tories and their attitudes with respect to this Bill. He said that it appears that Canada really has two left-wing Opposition Parties who are opposing the six and five legislation. The NDP and the Conservatives have taken the same position on both C-132 and C-131.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You did such a rotten job, we had to help you out.


James Ross Fulton: We always knew you were a left-winger, Ray.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: His questioning of the Conservative position refers to the Conservative position generally on Family Allowances.
We just heard a very excellent speech-it sounded almost like an NDP speech-a few minutes ago which strongly supported Family Allowances. On the other hand, as Mr. Shifrin said in his article, 62 per cent of Tories polled said they were in favour of reductions in Family Allowance outlays. So it seems a little hypocritical for the Conservative Party to take such a sanctimonious stand in favour of Family Allowances as a fully-indexed universal program when 62 per cent of them were in favour of reducing Family Allowances. So I suspect they are really presenting the position of the Tory Party, whatever it is, because it is very difficult to determine what that is. According to the survey, it certainly does not reflect the wishes of their Members.
Why do we as New Democrats support Family Allowances and therefore oppose this Bill very strongly? We have always supported fully-indexed, universal Family Allowances. In fact, when these allowances first came in, in the Mackenzie King era, the intention was that the allowance would be increased,

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
not decreased. Eventually, after a lot of pressure, full indexation was supported by all parties in the House.
We believe fully-indexed, universal Family Allowances are a basic right of Canadians, a right which has been recognized by most Canadians. Therefore, most people are opposing any cutbacks in this program because it recognizes the importance of Canada's children. I do not think I have to say again, as I have said many times, that children are one of our most important resources. It sounds a little like a cliche but it is very, very true. It is costing much more to raise children every year. Birth rates are down and I think there is a real reason why they are down.


Blaine Allen Thacker: What is your position on abortion? What do you think of the unborn?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It is because of the cost of raising children. So we believe that the baby bonus, as it is sometimes called, is a basic right of Canadians. We also like the program because the cheque is paid directly to the primary parent, usually the mother. Perhaps it should also be available to the fathers who are assuming the role of the main parent. We believe it is particularly good because the cheque is a monthly cheque and mothers depend very much on it, not just for buying shoes or jeans for children, but also to put food on the table in many families. Certainly families on social assistance or unemployment insurance find that towards the end of the month their money is gone and the Family Allowance is used to feed the whole family.
The Family Allowance cheque was also aimed at compensating wage earners who have children as opposed to those who have no children. That seems only fair; workers who do not have children do not get the allowance and they should pay a much higher rate of income tax to help cover the cost of children. We also know that the original intent of early reformers who worked hard on social security legislation in Canada always felt that the Family Allowance should be increased. I was talking recently to some experts in this field from the University of British Columbia School of Social Work, and their opinion was that the whole question of Family Allowances should be reviewed. Family Allowance should go towards covering the cost of children, whether or not families are on social assistance, are wage earners, or collecting unemployment insurance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to inform the Hon. Member that her time has expired.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, in the riding of North Vancouver-Burnaby, according to the latest census figure, there are 22,000 youngsters. My brief remarks today are on behalf of those 22,000 youngsters and their parents. Most of them do not come from wealthy homes. With the fantastically high unemployment on the West Coast, it is a very tough time for many families. I suspect the bulk of those 22,000 children are suffering enough as it is.
This particular piece of legislation, this particular nitpicking grab of a few dollars from those who can least afford it, strikes me as indicating a certain lack of understanding of how the
average family lives. A few minutes ago I looked around the Chamber and thought about the 282 Members of the House. Most of us have reached a level of success in life and had a reasonable income prior to coming here. I thought that perhaps the reason for this legislation is that this kind of suffering is an academic exercise for most Hon. Members opposite. They do not fully understand what impact this legislation can have on the 22,000 children in my constituency and the households across the nation. The impact can be severe indeed.
Let me go back to olden times, Mr. Speaker. I remember when I was living on a pittance and had two young children to support. I was attending university, which also explains why my income was so low. It became necessary for me to return to the university each evening to study. At that time the bus fare cost a dime. It took a total reshuffling of the family budget to clear that ten cents for the bus fare. The baby bonus cheque came once a month and helped with clothes for the two children and actually bought a little cheese for the macaroni that we seemed to have about three times a week. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can sympathize with the thousands of families who live that way today with not much hope for a better life.
All this legislation will do is cause hardship. Hon. Members opposite may not think a few dollars a month is important, but to the family on welfare or on unemployment insurance trying to meet mortgage payments, this is a severe blow and is going to cause a great deal of hardship. Many families will have to reshuffle what is already an inadequate budget.
We are living in a world where the dynamics of social life are changing. The number of one-breadwinner families decreases each year. There are millions of women and men who prefer to see at least one parent available to the children for more time than they have available at present. I have knocked at most doors in my part of the world. Nothing is more tragic than when a seven year old sick little kid comes to the door because it is absolutely necessary for both the father and mother to work. There are thousands of such cases.
I hold no brief for those who say that women should stay at home. I do not accept that. If a woman wants a career she should have it, but if she has a child she has a strong responsibility, as does the husband. Sometimes we overlook that.
There is another phenomenon in the dynamics of social life that is changing. Many men would prefer to be a house husband and stay home to fill that traditional role.
This legislation indicates a philosophy that holds the family not to be important. It indicates an encouragement to force more women or men to go out and work who perhaps realize that the greatest contribution they can make is to the next generation, to their own children or to their neighbour's children. But we do not encourage that.
I wonder if the Minister has ever considered that this kind of philosophical legislation means that we will spend a lot more money in other areas of social responsibility. More funds will
February 8, 1983

be needed to help the broken home, the kid who goofs off and does not get an education, the street people on Davey Street in Vancouver or Yonge Street in Toronto. All of them came from homes that in one way or another were unsatisfactory.
How can we expect someone to go to work at eight o'clock in the morning, spend a heavy day there, come home at five o'clock in the afternoon and, even jointly, prepare dinner, look after a couple of kids, read a bedtime story, put them to bed properly and listen to their problems? For someone who is tired or had the kind of day at the office that the typical Member of this House has, that is hard to do.
The Government should be doing anything it can to help parents raise their children properly. It should realize the kinds of social problems that exist, rather than contributing to problems, as this legislation will.
We might look at what has happened in Sweden. Many families there share a job, one working at it for a few days and then the other, or perhaps one works half time and then the other one works half time. If the Government could make arrangements for two mothers each to work half time on a job, it could save the money that is now being spent in the courts of the country and would help with the broken lives of the young people that one can see on any street corner of our major cities.
When we talk to these kids we find that they did not get along at home for one reason or another. It is not because they are horrible little brats of 18 or 19 but, rather, because when they were three, four or five years of age there was nobody to listen to them or to talk to them. After a long day's work the parents were so tired they could not give the attention and love that a child is entitled to and deserves. We cannot afford to continue with this kind of improper social policy. We must find the money for good programs which are so important to people.
On behalf of the 22,000 youngsters in my riding and on behalf of their mothers and fathers, I ask the Liberal Government to please reconsider and withdraw this terrible piece of legislation. The Government just has to ask any Member of the Conservative Party and he will show where millions of dollars could be saved without affecting the homes and the young people of Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in debate on the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). I take very seriously indeed the Government's six and five program as it relates to three important sectors of our economy and three very important groups of people in our society, namely, the senior citizen, the pensioner who contributed to the security he hoped to enjoy after retirement, and the children of our nation.
I want to say that I take this issue most seriously because all of us, as Members of Parliament, have had the daily experience of receiving representations in our constituency office from those people who have been severely affected by the
Family Allowances Act, 1973
recession in Canada. They have asked us the simple question of what we as Members of Parliament can do and how we can help and advise them in terms of the negative effects they are feeling because of unemployment and the devalued dollar. I stand to participate in this debate because I have seen the strategy of this Government invoking a motion, whether it wants to call it time allocation or closure, to limit debate on legislation which affects the most important segment of our society.
One has to ask why this callous and arrogant attitude has been adopted by the Liberal Party. Why do we see the spectacle today of the Liberal Members sitting mute in their place and not saying anything in support of this legislation? While I am not casting any reflection or alleging any motivation on the part of Members of the Liberal Party, I think their silence indicates why we have seen this strategy adopted by the Government. The Government House Leader has realized the embarrassment and humiliation felt by every Member in the backbenches of the Liberal Party.
Those Members do not have any basis on which to stand and support this retrograde step in terms of the children or our nation. Indeed, the political consequences to each of them is known. They know that to stand up and attempt to defend the indefensible will cause them serious problems in the next election. It is in their own self-interest that they sit there and do not address this issue as to why we should support this particular proposal.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) herself has tried to skate around the issue by saying that we should not worry because this measure is merely symbolic. What kind of Alice in Wonderland are we seeing? The Minister of National Health and Welfare is charged with a statutory obligation to the children of this nation and their parents to see that there is no erosion of benefits paid to the children and parents of this country. For her to stand in her place and say that this is merely symbolic is not, I suggest, in the best traditions of ministerial responsibility.
When I think of the original principles of Liberalism in this country, those principles of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Mackenzie King who introduced this particular concept of Family Allowance in our country, I think of how they must be rolling and whirling in their graves to see these Liberals stand up and attack the very fabric and basis of what I call a truly Liberal policy and proposal with respect to support for those in our society who most need help.
I say to those Members of the Liberal Party who are sitting there and have supported these measures that whatever your rationale is, the people of Canada instinctively know-that you have deserted the traditions of Liberalism with your support of this kind of legislation. I merely want to say to those Members of the Liberal Party who are keeping silent and not participating in the debate that I recall that at your last annual meeting one resolution that received unanimity was one declaring that the Liberal Party abhors backroom, political manipulation in

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
terms of policy and political activity in this country. You know what this is. This is the Keith Davey and Jim Coutts approach. It is the perceptual approach of trying to suggest that the Liberal Party is moving forward on a program of restraint. It is precisely what you voted against at your annual meeting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member should address his remarks to the Chair.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would never suggest that you, revered as you are in my mind, would ever participate in manipulation of any sort. I apologize for that. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Members of the Liberal Party have a very short memory in terms of the direction they received from the mainstream of their Party.
With respect to the amendment moved by my colleague for Calgary West, I think he would agree that it is a modest attempt to bring the reality of this situation to the attention of the Government. This amendment provides an opportunity to the backbenchers in the Liberal Party not to vote against their Party but to at least limit the imposition of this particular legislation. If those Members really believe in the true principles of Liberalism, I ask them what is wrong with at least making this small gesture. It is quite logical for them to support this amendment and demonstrate that, as independent, thinking Members of Parliament, they will not be the tools of this backroom manipulation and Madison Avenue approach to politics. I suggest that this amendment is very worthy of their consideration.
I think all Members of the House would agree that we must establish our priorities for Government spending. In my estimation, those priorities are for the disadvantaged of our society, the people least able to help themselves and those unable to help themselves. Those categories include senior citizens, pensioners and the children of our country. That is why I feel so strongly that this restraint program approach goes directly against those segments of our society that are least able to help themselves.
What hope is there when a Government policy is developed around the concept of looking inward and confining the expectations for our great country? What hope is there when the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) tells the young people of our country that they will face a desperate time in terms of their future and that the Government has no policies to assure them any realization of employment in the near future?
I see that it is almost one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I have a few more things I would like to say. May I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I must inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is taking the bread out of the mouths of children. I can understand why the Liberals brought in closure. If you look over the list of speakers, other than the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, there have been three Liberal speakers on this Bill.
You do not support it. I can understand why you do not want to support it. You do not want to take the bread out of the mouths of children, but you will vote for it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Again, I should remind Hon. Members that they should address their remarks to the Chair.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Evidently from the comments that are made by the hon. gentleman on the other side, the Tories are not only having difficulty in keeping a quorum on their side, but in finding sufficient speakers to take up the time that has been allocated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is not a point of order.

Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Normand Lapointe (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, for some time now there have been attempts to scare Quebec farmers with our railway transportation policy. However, at the present time, we have a mass of figures based on all kinds of assumptions, and it is therefore important for Quebec farmers to remember that this new policy is going to be scrutinized from A to Z in 1985-86, and that the decision will then be up to Parliament. The farmers have no reason to be afraid. In fact, can you imagine a Western producer getting into all kinds of new ventures-hog raising, for instance-and investing large sums of money, when the policy is going to be reviewed in two or three years? Even if Western producers did get started in the hog-raising industry, their prices would never be low enough to compete with, let alone take over, Eastern markets because of the high cost of transportation between West and East. It is as plain as the nose on anyone's face.
Perhaps Quebec farmers would like to remember how worried they were about a new dairy policy, while today, producers are quite happy with it, and in fact, it has just been
February 8, 1983

adopted by the European Common Market, because our dairy policy seems to be the best in the world.
1 would therefore invite Quebec farmers to look on the positive side of this policy.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, 1 want to call to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) the concern expressed by my constituents who are involved in the Fishery, a primary industry that is crumbling under the heavy hand of the present Liberal administration. A prime example is the plea made by the fishermen of Wood's Harbour, Shelburne County, where expanded harbour facilities are urgently required.
In 1982 the Small Craft Harbours Branch gave this requirement a "top priority" rating, yet as recently as January 20, 1983, the Minister informed me construction is not expected to commence until early in the 1984-1985 fiscal year, depending on other priorities and availability of funds.
How does the Minister of Fisheries reconcile this further delay in light of the statement made by his Department officials over three years ago, namely, that the expanded facilities at Wood's Harbour qualified for a "top priority" rating based on need. For the sake of the safety of the entire fleet, this work should be proceeded with immediately.



MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, today's Globe and Mail carries a front page story in which it is reported that Donald Macdonald will be paid a base salary of $800 a day while on duty in his position as Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada. The remainder of the Commissioners will receive between $350 and $750 a day. I have confirmed the report figures to be accurate. I have a copy of the Order in Council in my possession as proof.
I recognize fully the considerable expertise which Mr. Macdonald will bring to the Royal Commission. I understand as well that compensation for this type of service must give consideration to the renumeration the Commissioners can expect in the private sector. Indeed, Mr. Macdonald's services may merit $800 a day. However, Madam Speaker, these are exceptional times; these are difficult times. Canadians are being asked to lower their demands. In fact the six and five program which I wholeheartedly support requires and indeed legislates restraint.
In light of current conditions I doubt if most Canadians can contemplate $800 a day, let alone be expected to tolerate its payment to a Royal Commissioner. Frankly, I believe most Canadians will feel, as I do, that the "economic prospects" of the Royal Commissioners are excessive.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, my statement concerns the effects of federal energy taxes on the agricultural industry in Alberta. These concerns have been properly drawn to my attention by the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops Limited which supplies heat and energy to over 170,000 rural Albertans, with a 50,000 miles of distribution system.
Energy taxes have a very negative impact on basic agricultural production costs, such as fertilizers, chemicals, plastics, and many other materials made from a natural gas base, and make up 75 per cent of the total cost of nitrogen fertilizers. Increased costs for natural gas feedstock have raised the price of nitrogen fertilizer by 41 per cent over the last two years. Presently in Canada about 5 per cent of our population grows enough food to satisfy most of our own requirements, plus providing nearly $9 billion in export commodities.
The federal Government is placing too much of the burden of energy taxation on agricultural producers who should not be sacrificed for the sake of energy excise taxes. Very visible evidence of this sacrifice has been the recent decision to close, indefinitely, Western Co-Operative Fertilizer Ltd. in Medicine Hat, after 27 years of existence. About 100 permanent jobs are affected.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, fisheries management and conservation require a good working relationship between the Department of Fisheries and all user groups, including the traditional Indian food fishery. On January 12 federal fisheries people destroyed this relationship when they arrested 130 people on charges of illegally selling fish. All but one of these people were native Indians. Obviously a method of entrapment had been used that discriminated against Indian people. The presence of television cameras in the pre-dawn raid gave the whole situation an obscene carnival atmosphere.
There are many victims of this stupid action-first, the 129 Indian people who were entrapped and arrested; second, all

February 8, 1983
Indian people in British Columbia who are trying to establish their aboriginal rights in the fishing industry; third, Department of Fisheries personnel who must continue to work in a deteriorating situation with Indian people and, fourth, all Canadians who care about conservation and fisheries management.
The Minister has recognized his mistake. I now call upon the Government to drop all charges against Indian fishermen based on entrapment. The Minister of Fisheries must begin to rebuild relationships with the Indian people by involving them in basic decisions regarding the conservation and management of our fisheries.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a situation that is unacceptable and that, in my opinion, requires corrective action as soon as possible. I am referring to the case of Atlantic Container Express, a marine transportation company in Newfoundland and Quebec, which is facing serious financial problems as a result of financial support being given by the Canadian Government to CN railways in Newfoundland.
Since 1979, the survival of a number of carriers has been threatened by the actions of Terra Transport, an operational division that takes care of the Newfoundland railway network. In fact, as a result of CN's financial support for this railway, rates have dropped by from 20 to 30 per cent, thus making this means of transportation more attractive than that offered by marine carriers. These rates are entirely non-compensatory. This policy is therefore harming marine shipping companies which are trying to compete however they can. For instance, Atlantic Container Express, a marine carrier which provides a service between Toronto and Newfoundland and between Montreal and Newfoundland has now lost part of its market because of unfair competition by CN.
Madam Speaker, I would therefore urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to bear in mind that the National Transportation Act provides that when Government support for a carrier proves harmful to another carrier in the private sector, immediate action must be taken.



MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, there are 1.6 million Canadians unemployed, and the nation is
deeply in debt. The economy is in shambles, and the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) response is to invent a new word for relief and a new way of spelling it. He is saying to Canadians the new nine-letter word is "Macdonald", and I spell it "9-2-5 p-e-r d-a-y", $925 a day of taxpayers' money.
This Government, utterly incompetent and totally bereft of ideas, is going to pay Donald Macdonald just over $100 a day, plus expenses, for each letter in his surname, to examine why it made such a mess of things-the very same Donald Macdonald who, as one of a series of Government Finance Ministers, is directly responsible for today's economic chaos.
The very same Donald Macdonald is a director of the Bank of Nova Scotia, Boise Cascade, Dupont, Manufacturers Life, and was made a director of McDonnell Douglas just prior to the selection of that firm's F-18 fighter aircraft for the Canadian military.
The very same Donald Macdonald, having accepted the task, was given permission to quit if he decides to run for the leadership of the Liberal Party, and accepted this pork-barrel position because it provided a ready-made platform from which to launch his leadership campaign and because the appointment was a positive gesture of annointed succession from the Prime Minister.
There was a time when responsible and dedicated Canadians accepted similar forms of service to the nation at salaries of a dollar a year. That a six and five government and a man would agree to a salary of up to $192,000 a year speaks volumes about the intent and integrity of both.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, yesterday I described to the House the economic situation in the Gaspe. Today I would like to add that the Government of Canada has spent more than $30 million in this riding under a number of job creation programs since 1960, when the winter works programs were introduced by the Diefenbaker Government.
Too often, we have subsidized unemployment instead of subsidizing the installation of facilities and infrastructures to promote the economic and industrial development of the riding of Gaspe.
Last fall, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced at the Liberal Convention that his Government would undertake major projects including roads, watermains and so on, to stimulate Canada's economic recovery and create jobs.
I am therefore asking the Government to start major projects in the riding of Gaspe in 1983-commercial piers,
February 8, 1983

fishing harbours, community and industrial airports and federal buildings, so as to put hundreds of people to work. There is room in this riding for infrastructures that fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government of Canada, and now is the time to act.
Madam Speaker, the people of Gaspe deserve to have a much lower unemployment rate and a decent standard of living. After all, what do governments mean when they refer to distributive justice?



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, on December 15 I presented a motion to the Government requesting that it make representations to the Uruguayan Government with regard to Professor Jose Luis Massera's imprisonment for expressing political opinions. He has been tortured and held in terrible conditions in the "Prison of Torture", Libertad, Uruguay. The conditions being suffered by Professor Massera are likely to lead to physical and mental illness, and possibly death. Unbelievably, my motion was turned down by the Liberals.
I have now received further correspondence from Professor Israel Halperin, Director, International Campaign-Massera, stating that on November 11, 1982, the Government reported the First Secretary of the Canadian Embassy in Buenos Aires visited the Professor in prison and was able to talk with him. The First Secretary reported that Professor Massera's mental alertness was such that he was able to study mathematical texts sent to him by colleagues in the United States. Moreover, the Professor informed the First Secretary that his health had improved over the last several months.
The Government should be aware of the fact that this report is unforgivably misleading. It serves well the Government of Uruguay which is trying to circulate confusing statements to counter world-wide condemnation of the savage cruelty with which the Uruguayan authorities treat political prisoners.
The fact is that Professor Massera has been denied contact with scientific work, and has had no contact with any colleagues since 1975-


Madam Speaker:: Order.



MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, the term "job creation program" took on new meaning yesterday when the Government revealed an Order in Council which will provide former Liberal Finance Minister, Donald Macdonald,
Oral Questions
with a salary in excess of $800 per day to head an inquiry into the ailing Canadian economy. Should Mr. Macdonald decide to devote a five-day week to this matter, his annual salary will be some $200,000. This move is certainly in keeping with the statement given to the House yesterday by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to the effect that "the Government has put top priority on helping job creation in all sectors of the economy".
I am sure that Mr. Macdonald and his 12 Commissioners are most grateful that the Government's job creation initiatives have extended even to them. Might I suggest, however, that this money could be better spent by channelling it into job programs for the hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians presently struggling to survive on incomes of less then $800 per month, let alone $800 per day. For example, the so-called NEED program which, to date, has provided an abysmal 4,000 jobs out of a projected 60,000, could use these funds. Better still, given the fact that $200,000 is the basic annual government allocation for many constituencies under the Canada Community Development Program, may I recommend that Mr. Macdonald use this money to sponsor some of the worthy CCDP projects, in constituencies such as my own, which have been rejected on the basis of insufficient funding.
It is surely the ultimate irony that this squandering of public moneys is all in the name of finding a solution to the country's economic crisis.


Madam Speaker:: Order.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. He will no doubt recall that last November I wrote to him supporting the idea of short-term engagements in the Armed Forces to help solve our terrible unemployment problem in the 17 to 24 age group, and to teach some useful trades, such as electronics, basic engineering, vehicle maintenance, carpentry and plumbing, radio, supply purchase and control, office procedures, man management and others. I received an answer from the Minister in January saying that the matter was under study. Could the Minister inform the House whether the Government has now finished studying and started making decisions in this matter?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, for once, probably, the Hon. Member for Victoria and I have the same views on this subject; but in any case my answer is still the same. I think that the Government has already put forward many job creation projects. As far as

February 8, 1983
Oral Questions
my own Department is concerned, we have made several submissions to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the matter is still under consideration by that Minister and, of course, by the Minister of Finance, who is responsible, after all, for providing the financial resources for future job creation projects coming up.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SEEK CABINET APPROVAL FOR PROPOSAL
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. It is very difficult to understand, but the Minister of Employment and Immigration in this country seems to be the main opponent of this sensible solution to what is part of the problem. With the newfound support that the Minister now appears to have among some Liberal backbenchers, will the Minister screw up his courage and tackle the Minister of Employment and the Cabinet again on this matter?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I feel that I have great support for this type of proposal in my caucus. I have the full support of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and also that of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Crosbie:: What about the Prime Minister?


Mr. Lamontagne:: It is a question of judging the amount of financial resources available to start a job creation program. I am sure that when the Minister of Finance tables his budget, and during his pre-budget deliberations, he will certainly take into careful consideration whatever he can do for us in the Defence Department concerning a job creation project.


SUPPORT FOR ENLISTMENT PROGRAM
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: I have a question for-guess who?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister. It is based on the petition which has reportedly been signed by 108 of his 114 backbenchers and which is reportedly supported by a majority of his 36-member Cabinet, urging the Government to enlist 50,000 young Canadians into the Armed Forces of our country to alleviate partially the terrible jobless situation which confronts our young people.


An Hon. Member:: Good enough for Hitler.


Erik Nielsen: I hear an interjection from the NDP to my left saying, "It is good enough for Hitler". 1 knew that the NDP would take that position.


An Hon. Member:: War is no solution to unemployment.


Erik Nielsen: I am asking the Prime Minister if he has any personal objections to the Government adopting the urging of
that petition and the establishment of that policy which, I can assure him, will be supported by 101 Members, which, added to the 108, will comprise 209 Members of Parliament in support of that policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, it is a matter of some satisfaction for the Government to know that action in the Liberal caucus will at last have brought unity to the Conservative caucus.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know they are interested.
I would say that it is with that in mind-and I repeat the answer given by the Minister of National Defence-that the Minister of Finance and Cabinet will very seriously consider representations made by Hon. Members on this side which envisage using the Department of National Defence to create jobs and to alleviate the very high unemployment that Canadians are suffering.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I might note, before posing my supplementary, that it was the initiative displayed by the Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) on behalf of this Party which was plagiarized by the petition of the Liberal backbenchers. Nonetheless we are still in support of it.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has not answered my question. Does he have any personal objections to the implementation of the policy outlined in that petition?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have no objections at all to the concept. I have told my caucus members that, in effect, and I encouraged them to pursue this very interesting line of economic development in order to create employment in Canada.
I point out to the Hon. Member opposite that if the idea indeed comes from the Member for Victoria, we would be interested in knowing what facts and figures have led to the unanimous support of all the Tory caucus for this, because there are a lot of economic considerations. The cost of creating jobs in that way is higher than the cost of creating jobs in other ways. The benefits or disruptions to the Department of National Defence have to be taken into consideration. We would be very happy to have the originator of the idea supply us with all the supporting facts and figures. Why should we only create 50,000 jobs; why not 500,000 jobs?


Some Hon. Members:: 
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see that even arguments ad absurdum get the support of the Conservative Members, which does not surprise me.


An Hon. Member:: Now you are being absurd.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member says I am being absurd in following an idea put forward by the Hon. Member for Victoria. I am not surprised.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure the House would be very interested in seeing those cost figures and, since the Prime Minister seems to be willing to expose them, he might table them for the benefit of all of us.


REQUEST FOR EARLY IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that one way of beginning to make up the funding that would be required for the implementation of such a program would be the refraining from paying exorbitant salaries to people such as Donald Macdonald, to architects constructing embassies in the United States, and from advocacy advertising and a few other pork-barrelling policies of the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Since the Prime Minister has answered that he does not have any personal objections to the implementation of that policy, and since he has the support of 209 Members of Parliament, can he assure the House that the Cabinet will implement that policy at the earliest possible moment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to have misunderstood what I said about facts and figures. He claims that it was his Party who originated this idea. I invited the Hon. Member to see the facts and figures that induced the support of the unanimous will of the Conservative caucus, a rather unusual thing.
As far as our attitude is concerned, 1 repeat, the Minister of National Defence has given the answer. The Minister of Finance, in constructing a budget, will be able to announce his conclusions which might or might not be along the lines suggested by the Hon. Member. It will depend on what Financial actions create the most jobs in the most effective way and beneficial way for the future of Canada, and for the reducing of unemployment. That is a very complex set of questions which have to be asked in order to answer that question. I say that I have no objection to creating jobs that way or any other way. We want to create jobs in the particular way which will be least costly and more beneficial to the Canadian economy, and the way we are suggesting now may or may not have that effect.
Oral Questions


MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who, on a number of occasions, has asked Canadians to restrain their salary and wage demands and, where possible, in federal Government circles, to restrain their demands to six and five. He has asked the mothers of Canada to accept only a 6 per cent increase in Family Allowances this year, and less next year.
Having now been informed that his Government will be paying Donald Macdonald the obscene sum $800 a day, plus expenses, which is more money than the 2.3 million pensioners receive in Canada for an entire month, will the Prime Minister explain to this House and to the people of Canada how he can justify paying a certain individual $800 a day when he is not prepared to pay that same amount for a total month's income to a typical pensioner in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must explain to the Hon. Member that in effect all the Commissioners will be receiving remuneration possibly worth the same to all of them, something in the area of $350 a day.
The $800 is paid to the firms of three lawyers who are on the Commission, two lawyers are commissioners and one is a research assistant, and more than 50 per cent of those amounts will be retained by the firms to cover the overhead that each individual member of a firm must pay in order to be a partner of the firm. So in effect all the Commissioners will be receiving approximately the same amount, $350 a day, which is the usual amount paid in recent times to members of Royal Commissions.


REASON FOR LEVEL OF REMUNERATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I still believe this really does add insult to injury. Many Canadians believe that this three-year "Ronald McDonald" approach to economic planning is not needed in the first place. Now we find that we are going to be paying the participants such extravagant sums of money during these times which the Government is calling times of restraint.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, now that he has decided to pay Mr. Macdonald the sum of money that he has indicated, would it not be appropriate at least to expect a commitment from Mr. Macdonald that he will remain for three years, during the time of the inquiry, or is this the Prime Minister's way of extending the golden touch to the man he would like to see replace himself, instead of John Turner?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 think there are many elements of that question which are irrelevant, and the most surprising is that the Hon. Member did not listen to my answer when 1 said that in effect all Commissioners will be receiving the equivalent of $350.

February 8, 1983
Oral Questions
The supplementary amount in the case of the lawyers goes to their firms to pay for the overhead.


JUSTIFICATION FOR REMUNERATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I wish to pursue this with the Prime Minister. This is not parttime work on the part of Mr. Macdonald, it is pork-time work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to ask the Prime Minister if in fact this exorbitant salary is going to be paid to Mr. Macdonald, and to all the Commissioners appointed by the Prime Minister, which amount would allow 2,000 Canadians to have extended unemployment insurance benefits for a month, or 10,000 families to have fully indexed Family Allowances for one year, how, morally speaking, he can justify this kind of salary. We are not interested in the overhead of McCarthy & McCarthy. We are interested in the overhead of people who want to heat their homes and feed their children.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's argument seems to turn on whether the Commission is necessary or not. If he does not agree with the figures that I have just quoted, that is a matter of judgment. I just put it that that is the information that I received from the Commission, and the information which has been made public and which can be tested against recent surveys by actuaries who do say that in fact more than 50 per cent of fees received by lawyers go to pay the overhead of their offices. That is another matter.
Assuming that the information is right, the question is, do we need a Royal Commission on Canada's economic future? My deep belief and that of, I would say, many members of the public and of the informed thinking critics of the Government, is that it is time that Canadians have a Royal Commission, outside of the day-to-day preoccupations of Governments and Oppositions, to look at Canada's future, to look at the structure of governments in this country and to see whether Canada's economic future can be improved both by economic means and by constitutional or political reform to institutions.
This is a serious question. I am surprised that the Opposition do not think that it is important because, when they were the Government, the then Leader of the Government, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead, had proposed the setting up of such a commission. When the same Party are in opposition, they suddenly realize that no knowledge is better than some knowledge, which is not surprising coming from the Conservative Party.


CHAIRMAN'S FEES FROM DIRECTORSHIPS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister should have been here earlier to hear the Hon. Member for London West, a member of his caucus, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications,
chastise the Government for its callousness with respect to this appointment and the amount being paid. We are not worried about Mr. Macdonald. He is going to eat because he is on the Board of Directors of, among other companies, Dupont Canada, the Bank of Nova Scotia, Boise Cascade Corporation, McDonell Corporation-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am just wondering whether that is all necessary for a question. It is a long preamble.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I had just started the list, but I will stop here. It is a serious question. Before the Christmas recess the Minister of Finance indicated that he would take up the matter of conflict of interest. Presumably Mr. Macdonald is the independent Chairman of this great commission the Prime Minister talks about. I want to know why he is continuing to receive his fees with respect to these particular directorships? Why does he continue to represent these multinational corporations when he is purported to be independent on this commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, when one sets up a Royal Commission and one goes to members of the private sector to staff and fill the position of commissioners, one does it precisely because the interest and activities of the members of the private sector qualify them for the type of knowledge that will be needed to conduct a commission. If we did not want people with private sector interests, we would not go to the private sector to hire them. I have not heard the argument from the Hon. Member that to be a member of a Board of Directors of a company or to be a lawyer in a firm which is practising corporate law in the normal way disqualifies one from giving good advice to the Government on economic and constitutional matters.
Once again, if one wants to hire people from the private sector, one should take them with their knowledge, capacity, and with their activities. Otherwise one would have an inhouse Royal Commission staffed by public servants whose conflicts of interest are defined by the law.


TRUST COMPANIES
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance disclosed in this House that the Government knew in March, 1982, that Greymac Mortgage Company and the Seaway Mortgage Company were unsound, and put them on short-term renewals of licences, and placed severe restrictions on their activities. Will the Minister, on Motions today, explain to this House what correspondence he had with the Province of Ontario with respect to his knowledge concerning the mortgage companies, and as the Province was in charge of
February 8, 1983

licensing the trust companies, what arrangements he made and why he did not disclose to the public his concerns with respect to these companies? The Minister has been playing footsie here. He has been hiding. Will the Minister, on Motions today, explain to this House where he stands?


Madam Speaker:: Order. I believe the question has been put.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, yes, indeed. I can confirm the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance yesterday wherein he indicated that the Superintendent of Insurance for Canada exercised his supervisory authority with respect to the two companies which he recommended be subject to scrutiny earlier this year. I can confirm that the Department was concerned that the exercise of control over those companies reached the stage where the Superintendent recommended, under the Act, in a report to the Minister, that they be investigated as to whether in fact the licences should be continued. The hearings to look into the very issues the Hon. Member has raised are continuing this afternoon. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that those hearings have to conclude, and that the opportunity must be given to the companies to make their case.


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary told us yesterday that the Minister knew what the situation was in March, 1982. I want to know what the Minister did with respect to the trust companies which are the principals behind the mortgage companies. In other words, did he act under the provisions of Section 24 of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporations Act to investigate the unsound lending practices of the trust companies? If not, why not? Why did he not advise the trust companies that their insurance under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporations Act would be cancelled because of their unsound practices which he knew about in March, 1982?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member must be referring to Ontario trust companies, Crown Trust, Seaway Trust, and Greymac Trust. They are under the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario. We are used to the spectacle of federal Conservatives attacking federal Conservatives. We now have the spectacle of federal Conservatives attacking provincial Conservatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


PROSPECTS FOR YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who, the other day, called our Party reactionary-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -and who today says that he has no objection to the army project that was just suggested. Why does a young Canadian have to join the army to find a job in modern Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, he doesn't.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps the Prime Minister could look at the Rooseveltian New Deal. He is old enough.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: That's Theodore Roosevelt.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He could look at that and see that there was some national service other than the military.


SUGGESTED CREATION OF MUNICIPAL JOB CREATION FUND
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Did he meet this morning with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and some of the mayors who were there? Is he prepared to agree to a real job-creation program as they suggested, namely, putting $2 billion in funds into a program for local action toward national recovery, as proposed by this group?


Paul James Cosgrove: Yes, Madam Speaker, I did have the opportunity, with other Ministers of the Government, in the process of budget consultation, to meet with representatives of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. There were mayors and elected representatives from all of the Provinces. Yes, they made submissions dealing with requests that there be public works projects. I had the opportunity as well of pointing out that, for example, the $2 billion put into housing in the last 24 months by this Government has resulted in an increase in housing starts last month of up to 165,000 annually adjusted. These moneys are working and there are jobs being created under the present commitment of this Government.


TRUST COMPANIES
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It

February 8, 1983
Oral Questions
is supplementary to the questions of my colleague from Mississauga South. The Government knew that when Grey-mac Credit bought control of Crown Trust that the new owners of Crown Trust were the same owners as the owners of one of the mortgage companies that was being investigated by his Department under the Loan Companies Act. Since CD1C was providing deposit insurance to Crown Trust, what precautionary measures did the Minister take to protect Canadians who had their savings deposited with Crown Trust?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, now we have the spectacle of another federal Conservative attacking a provincial administration of trust companies which are clearly under provincial jurisdiction.


MINISTERIAL ACTION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the Minister is showing clearly he has not read the legislation. Under the Deposit Insurance Corporation's legislation he must-not can-he must inspect these companies once a year, and he has it under his jurisdiction to go in more times if he has any doubts about the quality of a company. My question again is, since he was investigating the affairs of one of the companies which was owned by similar people, and which he had been investigating for six months, what precautionary steps did he take to protect the savings of Canadians and to protect the reserves of the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, one of the steps which this Government obviously has taken as a result of our concern about the difficulties being experienced by depositors, shareholders and the like, in the companies which are under the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario, was to indicate our intention of introducing a Bill in this House to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, to increase deposit insurance coverage from $20,000 to $60,000. That was a move which was recommended by the Hon. Member asking the question, in the Finance Committee which studied the question of bank profits.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice has now confirmed that the agenda for the First Ministers' Conference to be held in March has been completed. One of the agenda items is the question of aboriginal rights. Does the Government intend to put forward its position on aboriginal rights, before the Conference, in order that the native leaders can assess that position, as well as others interested in that
question, or does the Government see its role primarily at the Conference as moderator or chairman rather than a protector of aboriginal rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, both roles are not exclusive. Obviously the federal Government will be chairing the Conference, trying to ensure its orderly development and hopefully turn it into an on-going process, because we do not expect to have all the problems solved at this one Conference. Naturally the Government will be going to the Conference also with positions which it has developed on the problem of aboriginal rights, and its general attitude and policies toward the aboriginal people.


CONFERENCE AGENDA
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I would like to ask the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, whether the Government's position is going to be made public prior to the Conference and, as well, in preparation for the Conference whether the Prime Minister intends to place on the table not only the question of aboriginal rights but other topics upon which a number of his Ministers have commented, such as restoring a veto to certain Provinces, as well as some other topics.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would defer to the Minister of Justice for the latter part of the question, but I know that in my original correspondence with the Premiers, I indicated it was conceivable that we would have part of the Conference devote its efforts to non-aboriginal rights questions. I am not sure what state the agenda is in now, but I expect we would be looking at nonaboriginal rights questions on the second day or in the latter part of the Conference.


NATIONAL PARKS
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of the Environment in charge of National Parks. Giardia lamblia, as the Hon. Minister knows, is a stomach disease which causes vomiting and sometimes paralysis. It has been plaguing the people and the tourists of Banff Townsite for more than a year. The parasite which causes this is in the water supply and the only cure appears to be a water filtration plant. When will the Minister authorize a water filtration plant in order to protect the interests of Banff and the tourists to that beautiful area?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, because he congratulated us for it, when this matter came to our attention we did contract to have professional advice given to us by consultant engineers on the best way of responding to this problem. That report has been received and we are acting on the recommendations which were presented to us in the report. I could give
February 8, 1983

him a more specific answer on the details, if he wishes, either by letter, or tomorrow or another day. I would have to refresh my memory on exactly what stage we are at in implementing the recommendations of that report.


IMPLEMENTATION OF STUDY'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the Minister has said. The study did indicate a water filtration plant could be achieved in a number of different ways. From the answer of the Hon. Minister, is the work which is now being done leading up to a water filtration plant or simply some more wells?


John (Moody) Roberts: My
recollection, Madam Speaker, which I would like to verify, is that there was a recommendation that we proceed with alternative wells because this would be a necessary step, in any case, before the creation of a filtration plant. If I remember correctly, the recommendation is that we should proceed with that step next. We would then be able to assess whether it was necessary, as it may very well be, to proceed with the filtration plant. This was a matter of great concern several weeks ago and I would like to refresh my memory on the details but to the best of my recollection the answer I have given to the Hon. Member is an accurate one.


INQUIRY RESPECTING PRINTING OF CANADA HEALTH ACT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. For some time now, Hon. Members and others have been subjected to fairly intensive lobbying by members of our health services, and 1 wish to ask the Minister whether the so-called Canada Health Act has been printed and circulated, to whom it was circulated and why these people are carrying out this intensive lobbying. Could the Minister also inform the House whether a bill was drafted recently or some time ago?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, there is no Canada Health Act as such. There is no bill or draft bill. Recently I had a meeting with senior officials of the Department of Justice, and we are working on this. However, 1 think the Hon. Member is referring to a document, bearing a misleading title, which was published, unfortunately, under the instructions of the new chairman of the Canadian Medical Association. This is extremely unfortunate, because I realize from what 1 have read in the press, and I have not had a chance to talk about it, that many people have been misled by this document. 1 am thinking, for instance, of Ontario nurses who are opposed to certain parts. However, there is no such document-I mean, it is not what it seems. The Bill, when there is one, will first be
Oral Questions
submitted to the Ministers of the provinces, as has always been my intention, and discussed with our parliamentarians.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in his capacity as the Minister in charge of weakening FIRA. In 1978 the Foreign Investment Review Agency approved a takeover of a Canadian company called Port Colborne Quarries Ltd., by an American firm from Ohio. I have with me, Madam Speaker, a confidential FIRA document which outlines the 13 specific undertakings made by the American firm before it took over the Canadian company. It made commitments such as preserving existing jobs and creating others, increasing productivity, expanding the plant, and purchasing all equipment, goods and supplies in Canada. Not one of these major undertakings has been kept by that company. Why has FIRA not moved to enforce a contract which was made between the American firm and Port Colborne Quarries Ltd.?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I first want to thank the Hon. Member for giving me advance notice of his question. My officials have been monitoring this very unfortunate situation which has existed at Port Colborne Quarries Ltd. We are investigating with respect to the commitments which were made under FIRA and, if there is any action to be taken, we will take it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I think this is an example of where foreign ownership is costing the Canadian people many, many jobs.


AGENCY'S ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the enforcement branch of FIRA was recently cut back to fewer than 15 officers. The case load has gone up by some 6 per cent in the last year, which means that each officer has to monitor about 12 cases per day, which is an impossible task. It is making a joke of the enforcement procedure. In light of that, in order to strengthen FIRA and preserve Canadian jobs, will the Minister make a commitment in the House to strengthen the enforcement branch of FIRA so these kinds of situations will not occur in the future?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, if I remember correctly, about a year and a half ago my predecessor made a request to Treasury Board to

February 8, 1983
Oral Questions
add some person years to FIRA to reduce the case load. If I am not mistaken, I think ten or 12 people were added to FIRA at that time.
Secondly, with respect to job creation and investment, pertaining to the question the Hon. Member raised with the Prime Minister a few days ago, almost 10,000 jobs have been created or protected through commitments by companies as the result of FIRA applications being approved in the last four months. If the Hon. Member and his colleagues are so interested in job creation, obviously they must be very happy with those results achieved in that period of time.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who is no doubt aware that the Legal Aid Committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada has made a suggestion that the time has come for the law to be changed so that uncontested divorce actions do not have to be tried in the courts, the thesis being that the courts would not be clogged and the public would not be put to unnecessary expense. Has the Minister studied this proposal and, if so, has he taken any position with respect to it?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, the Government is looking very closely at this question in light of the obvious need surrounding the problems with divorce legislation and maintenance questions in Canada. I want to assure the Hon. Member that, whatever decision we make, it will be made in view of the public's need, not in view of the needs of the legal profession exclusively.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATION
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the Attorney General of Ontario, Mr. McMurtry, has told the Ontario legislature that the present system is unsatisfactory. He also indicated that he has been pressing the hon. gentleman's Government for action with respect to this matter. Are there any conferences, meetings or other proceedings under way or contemplated by the Minister of Justice with his provincial colleague, on this matter?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, as part of our decisionmaking process there will be very extensive consultation with the provinces in the very near future on this issue.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, concerning the expulsion by Nigeria of upwards of two million people. First, can the Minister clarify what assistance the Canadian Government has offered those people who are dislocated, and secondly, has the Canadian Government protested to Nigeria for taking this precipitous action as a consequence of the international economic situation, on the grounds that it is a precedent for other countries creating economic refugees in order to deal with their own internal economic problems?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I should tell the Hon. Member we have made an initial contribution of $100,000 to the International Red Cross. We have provided an additional $30,000 to assist in the transport of milk powder. We are now receiving an assessment from international organizations and we are prepared to consider short-term relief for the persons expelled from Nigeria to Ghana, and also a program of longer term assistance.
I understand that, in my absence, the Minister of State for International Trade expressed the concern of the Government of Canada to the Nigerian High Commissioner about this particularly rapid request to these persons to leave the country. I think it is understood in Africa that there are illegal residents in various countries and it is the sovereign right of any Government to request those in the country illegally to leave, so one cannot object to that principle. However, I think one can draw the attention of the Government to the speed with which this particular very large movement of people was requested, and the hardship which obviously followed as a result.


PROVISION OF AID THROUGH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, the question of creating economic refugees has enormous implications for the world community. I wish the Minister would address both himself and the Canadian Government to that particular situation. As to the extension of Canadian aid, is the Minister considering involving Canadian non-governmental organizations in any capacity whatsoever?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker, we are considering involving non-governmental organizations in the provision of aid. We are also considering the possibility of bilateral projects which might be undertaken.
February 8, 1983


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In 1977, when the old habitual criminal legislation was replaced by the new dangerous offenders legislation, the then Minister of Justice promised that all those sentenced under the old law would have their cases reviewed in accordance with the new criteria. This has never been done. Recently a comprehensive study conducted by U B.C. Professor Michael Jackson showed that none of the prisoners he studied-most of whom are in British Columbia-are dangerous pursuant to these criteria.
In view of the findings of this study, and, in particular, in view of the Haddock complaint on this point currently before the United Nations Human Rights Committee, will the Minister introduce legislation providing for a judicial review of all habitual criminals to determine whether they are indeed dangerous offenders under the 1977 legislation, and thereby keep the commitment made by his predecessor as Minister of Justice?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, this is an issue 1 take very seriously. I have met with Professor Jackson and I have devoted considerable attention to deciding on the best way to proceed. I hope it may be possible to proceed to have this matter properly examined without the need for new legislation, but in any event the Solicitor General and I will be consulting about it and we would hope to be able to make some announcement before very much time has passed.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. About two years ago, the Minister may recall that his predecessor, the Member for Matane and then Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, had promised that a newsprint mill would be built in Matane. Since then, this municipality has voiced its concern about the possibility that the project might be dropped. Could the Minister inform the House whether, on behalf of the Government, he intends to keep the promise made by the Member for Matane and the then Minister, and if so, could he inform the House when this project would be
Tabling of Documents
started, in view of the fact that we have been waiting for two
years?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken, a week ago Friday, was the first time I had all the documentation from the officials with respect to that project. We are now studying it. Obviously the Gaspesie is a priority for our Department and we will be seriously discussing this proposal. I have also sent a letter of invitation to the Mayor of Matane. I am willing to meet with him and his officials to discuss the possibilities of the project.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows full well that his predecessor committed himself on specific conditions-which a number of people will remember-to having this newsprint mill built. With a view to reassuring the people of this riding who, according to my information, are getting worried, I wish to ask the Minister if he could inform the House whether the Government is going to keep its promise to have the mill plant built, and if he is willing to meet the Mayor of Matane who asked the Minister on January 14 to have a meeting with him?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I am more than willing to meet with the Mayor of Matane, and as I said, I have already sent him a letter. The agreement signed by my predecessor was an agreement in principle based upon a specific condition. A lot of things have happened in the industry in the interim. As I said, we would like nothing better than to have a pulp mill in that particular area, given that we do not do something that is damaging to the rest of the industry.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Madam Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to Section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the Table a certified copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Manitoba, 1983.
Pursuant to Standing Order 46(4), this report is deemed to be permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

February 8, 1983
Petitions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise today to present a petition of which I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) should take special note. This petition, signed by 1,830 people, was circulated among students at 15 high schools throughout Manitoba by two students at Teulon Collegiate, Janice Moeller and Mandy Ens. These young people care about their future. They want their future to be lived in a world free from the threat of nuclear war, so they have initiated and signed this petition opposing the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada.
The petition points out that any decision by the Government of Canada to allow the U.S. to test its Cruise missile on Canadian soil will lessen Canada's credibility as a world champion for arms control and disarmament. I am especially proud of those young people for stating their views on this important issue so clearly, and I am proud today to present this petition to the Elouse of Commons on their behalf.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a 1,150-name petition from the Village of Chase, British Columbia. The petition opposes a recent decision by the Canada Post Corporation to close a downtown post office in Chase, B.C. and move it to a location in Chase Plaza.
The concern of the residents is two-fold. This move will add more than two kilometres to the distance senior citizens will have to walk to collect their mail. The major concern is that the Canada Post Corporation made no effort to seek public reaction to the decision. The residents feel that they should have been consulted directly or through their duly-elected village council.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents of mine who are concerned that the Charter of Rights does not include the right to own private property. They have made the effort to collect names and have said that they believe that an amendment should be made to the Constitution and Charter of Rights, entrenching property rights in the Bill of Rights.



POINT OF ORDER


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the reference requested this morning by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is on page 50:12 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of December 7, 1982, line 20:45.


Madam Speaker:: Order. That is not a point of order.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-673, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography).


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I am proposing a Bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to pornography. This Bill is concerned with the issue of both child and adult pornography. I want to clarify the law. I want to set up effective sanctions and by taking an effective approach to the pornography problem, improve the situation in general.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-674, an Act to amend the Interest Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam Speaker, when a Government fails to act in the best interests of its citizens, then it is the duty of the individual Member of Parliament to act so that more Canadians do not lose their homes. The Government seems to have forgotten that over 700,000 Canadians are still struggling with mortgages that have an interest rate of over 17 per cent.
This Bill would amend that provision of the Interest Act which has not been changed since 1911 and would provide that people could pay off their mortgages after one year with a three-month penalty, rather than after five years.
February 8, 1983


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,394, 4,551 and 4,618.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What effort is made by the management of VIA Rail Canada Inc. to provide adequate space for all passengers between Kitchener and Toronto?
2.	Since January 1, 1982, on what (a) dates (b) trains in either direction between Kitchener and Toronto was inadequate space provided for all of the passengers wishing to travel by VIA Rail?
3.	Would any incidents indicated in the answer to part 2 have resulted in denial of service or of seating to VIA Rail customers who had booked their trips several days in advance?
4.	On June 13, 1982, was the 6.15 p.m. train to Toronto delayed for more than an hour while police and VIA Rail officials tried to get up to 25 passengers to leave the train and, if so, at what time did the train leave?
5.	At what time (a) was the train scheduled to arrive in Toronto (b) did the train arrive in Toronto?
6.	For what reasons did VIA Rail (a) try to persuade the passengers to leave the train (b) decide to allow them to stay on the train?
7.	Where did the passengers for whom there were no seats ride?
8.	How many passengers were added to the train at Guelph?
9.	How many passengers wanted to join the train at Guelph, but could not because of overcrowding?
10.	Did the chief executive officer of VIA Rail have to ride in the baggage compartment of any of VIA Rail's trains because of overcrowding?
11.	Does the management of VIA Rail feel such incidents encourage VIA Rail passengers to take the train?
12.	Are efforts made by VIA Rail to compensate customers for missed connections or serious inconveniences caused by such incidents and, if so, what are such efforts?
13.	What steps have been taken since June 13, 1982 to prevent such occurrences on the Kitchener-Toronto line in the future and does the management of VIA Rail feel that such steps will be adequate to prevent such incidents in the future?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of VIA Rail Canada Inc. advises as follows:
1.	Travel between Kitchener and Toronto is unreserved. The only method of ensuring sufficient space for all passengers is to review previous handlings and apply a growth figure. This is done on a continuing basis by VIA Rail management.
2.	Since January 1, 1982, no passengers were turned away because of inadequate space on train service between Toronto and London operating via Kitchener. Although VIA is not always able to provide seating to all its passengers, statistics
Order Paper Questions
are not available on individual incidents involving lack of seating.
3.	See reply to 2 above.
4.	Yes. The train departed Kitchener at 1922 hours, (1 hour and 5 minutes late).
5.	(a) 1955 hours, (b) 2053 hours.
6.	(a) The operation of train 668 is the responsibility of CN Rail and, from information provided, it was the decision of the train conductor, a CN Rail employee, to refuse passage to patrons who were not able to occupy a seat, (b) The CN official, namely the trainmaster, located at Kitchener instructed the conductor to comply with existing CN instructions contained in the General Instructions to Passenger Conductors and Trainmen.
7.	Passengers were accommodated in the aisles where there was opportunity to have a handhold to ensure their balance. Some passengers also departed Kitchener in the baggage portion of the car. This is against regulations and measures have been taken to prevent a recurrence.
8.	From information provided by CN Rail, there were 12 passengers detrained at Guelph and a like number entrained.
9.	There were no passengers at Guelph who were unable to entrain. However, since the train was operating late and since they were aware of the overcrowding at Kitchener, there may have been passengers who availed themselves of other modes of transportation or decided to take the later train.
10.	No.
11.	No. It is not VIA Rail's policy to operate trains short of the seating capacity required. However, in unreserved territory and due to unforeseen circumstances, it is the policy to inform passengers when space might be available but all passengers would not be able to occupy a seat.
12.	Yes. Station staff have the authority to hold connecting trains, provide restaurant facilities and/or hotel connections in instances of missed connections or serious inconvenience.
13.	Canada Coach Line bus went on strike during the week previous to June 13. Also, on that particular Sunday there was a matinee performance at the Stratford Festival. While VIA Rail was cognizant of the additional patronage due to the festival, they were not aware of the number of additional passengers who required transportation because of the Canada Coach bus strike. Since June 13 an extra R.D.C. car with a capacity of 76 seats has been assigned to train 668. There have been no further incidents of overcrowding between Kitchener and Toronto.
dnd-contracts for combat boots


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence award three separate contracts in the amounts of $1,426,909, $558,031 and $322,661 to Warrington Inc. of Kitchener, Ontario for combat boots and, if so, for what reason were three separate orders issued to the same firm?
2.	Are the boots sold to the troops and, if so, is the Department or the Receiver General reimbursed?

February 8, 1983
Order Paper Questions


J. Gilles Lamontagne: I.	There are only two firms in Canada with the equipment and tooling required to produce combat boots. These firms are Greb Industries Division of Warrington, Kitchener, Ont. and Sunbeam Shoes, Port Colborne, Ont. Although both of these firms may be awarded contracts based on costs and timely deliveries the Department of Supply and Services ensures that each of the firms receive at least some share of the DND business in order to retain their production capability.
author of paper J. H. Lubin, U.S. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, second author Patricia Burns, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta. This study was supported by the Medical Services Research Foundation and the Alberta Heritage Savings and Trust Fund.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence did award three separate contracts to Warrington Inc. in the amounts stated in the question. These three contracts constitute part of DND's combat boot requirements for 1982/83 and 1983/84 but do not cover the entire supply program for this item. Therefore, all contracts awarded for the supply of combat boots for fiscal years 1982/83 and 1983/84 are listed below:
Company
Awarded
Contract
Warrington
Sunbeam
Warrington
Fiscal
Year
Requirement
1982/83
1982/83
1982/83
(Special order because of abnormally high
Warrington	1983/84
Sunbeam	1983/84
Date	
Awarded	Amount
Sept. 81	$ 558,031
Sept. 81	788,000
Aug. 82	332,661
usage of combat boots)	
		1,426,909
-	515,000
2.	Combat boots are not sold, but like all other items of operational and environmental clothing are an issue to entitled personnel.


Mr. Mitges: Is there any information or studies connecting breast cancer in women with the consumption of dairy products which normally contain the hormone estrodial?


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: From an epidemiological study in the United States*, an association was made between milk fat consumption and mortality from breast cancer. A later study in Alberta** did not show a similar association.
The estrodial content of cows' milk is extremely low and National Health and Welfare is not aware of any information relating breast cancer to the level of estrodial in dairy products.
* "Breast Cancer Mortality and Diet in the United States". Published in Cancer Research, 39:3628-3637, 1979, Senior author of paper Sharon Gaskell, Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Texas.
** "Dietary Factors and Breast Cancer Risk". Published in International Journal of Cancer, 28:685-689, 1981. Senior


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs; and the motion of Mr. Hawkes (p. 21697).
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, during the two minutes when I spoke before the luncheon adjournment, I was interrupted by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) on a point of order. It was not a point of order according to the ruling of the Chair, and in addition to that the Hon. Minister was completely in error. He said that on this side we were having difficulty getting speakers. Perhaps we should look at the record. This morning alone there were ten Progressive Conservative speakers but not one Member of the Government stood up to be recognized. That is a ratio of ten to none. In this entire debate only three Members of the Liberal Party have spoken, apart from the Minister and her Parliamentary Secretary. Of course, they have to be here to support the Bill; indeed, they have no choice but to support it. But only three other Members of the Liberal Party have stood to support it, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette), the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) and the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).
There is a long list of Progressive Conservatives and New Democratic Party Members who oppose taking bread out of the mouths of the children of this country, but it is sad that Members of the Government do not even stand up to support the Bill. But, when the time comes for the vote, however, no doubt they will vote for this legislation, which should have been withdrawn weeks ago.
February 8, 1983

Let us look at some of the facts in connection with the legislation. The Minister said that there are about 3.6 million mothers who receive the Family Allowance and then said that the indexation will not affect two-thirds of them. That leaves
1.200.000	mothers whose indexation will be affected. It is like the man who looks at a bottle of whiskey and says that it is half empty. The Minister says no, it is half full. There are
1.200.000	mothers who will be affected by this legislation.
Do Hon. Members realize what havoc that will cause to the great majority of those families? While some do not need the Family Allowance, each family decides how to use that benefit. Family Allowance was a declared policy in this country so that young people would have an income of their own that would be sent to the mother or the father. It was to be used for the benefit of these boys and girls. Every family has used the money in different ways.
One family I know has put that money faithfully into a trust account each month. When their children reach 18 there will be money available to send them to university or college. That family has made excellent use of the Family Allowance. Their children will receive a better education and make a better contribution to the country.
Other families must use their Family Allowance to keep bread on the table. When I was in high school I did not like returning on the first day of school, not because it was not wonderful meeting my friends after the summer vacation, but it was the day when children were given a list of books to buy.
I hated the thought of going home with that list of books that we could illafford to buy. We had a large family and at that time the mines were not operating. There was no Family Allowance or other income coming in and we had to stretch our money in order to keep bread on the table. My mother went without food very often in order that the children could have something to eat. However, when I showed this list of books that I needed to buy, they found a way to scrape the money together so that I could get through school. Sometimes I would borrow books until we were able to buy them, and occasionally it was the end of October before I could get them all. Fortunately, I had understanding teachers who knew I could not afford the books, but through the sacrifice of my brothers and sisters and my parents I eventually got them.
Parents who are sending their children to colleges and universities today are faced with a great problem. They must buy books and clothes for their children. There are also tuition fees and other fees at particular colleges or universities, as well as for room and board. These expenses cause great worry to the parents in this country. Now their Family Allowances may be cut. This will affect those children in high school and those who enter university before they are 18 because their future education will be jeopardized. In other words, the future of our young people is being affected by this legislation.
If the Government needs money, I can think of a dozen better ways to get it than taking it from the young people of this country who are the future of this nation. Our young
Family Allowances Act, 1973
people should be encouraged to get an education, but this measure will only encourage them to quit school and try to get a job since it will be difficult for their parents to supply their books, clothing and other needs.
Young people are proud. When I went to school many boys wore long trousers when they went to high school. I did not get a pair of long trousers until I got to grade 12. I was embarrassed many times because I did not have long trousers like the other kids. I came from a mining camp and others came from the east end of Drumheller, but I always had sympathy and help at home.
This Government is telling mothers that it will not longer give them this allowance. It will take away an average of $17 per child over a year. That $17 is enough to buy three or four of the books that the child needs. It is enough to buy milk for the baby. Some may say "What is $17?". I remember when I thought $1 was an awful lot of money. I remember the time when I wished that I had 25 cents in my pocket. That $17 does not sound like much when one receives a big salary, like $800 a 'day for Mr. Macdonald. Incidentally, he will not even pay his own expenses. He will get $125 to eat out at the Imperial Room, of course, not at the greasy spoon down the street where many others have to eat.
This Bill is completely wrong because it attacks the wrong people. If we need the money, why do we not take it from some of the Government's advertising budget? I received a letter today from an editor of the Cochrane Times. She asked me what the cost of all this advertising was. She said that she was throwing these advertisements into the wastepaper basket. Here it is, a fancy card in big envelopes. These are being mailed out to many people. I suggest that not even one out of 200 stop to read it.
Furthermore, the Government has set up this Law Reform Commission. Has the Government yet followed one precept that this committee has recommended? The committee has only made recommendations, which is misleading. People will think that this is the law but it is not. It is only what the commission thinks should be the law. While the Government spends thousands of dollars on this type of document, it is taking the bread out of the mouths of the kids in order to keep the Government operating. It is a shameful act by this Government.
I see you are indicating that I have one minute left Mr. Speaker. I am almost through. I would not only like to see this legislation through, but thrown out. I ask Liberal Members, since they did not speak, to vote against this legislation and show the people of this country that they will not take the bread out of the mouths of the children.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, once again, I think the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) always manages to find

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
the right word to express his sentiments. However, he should be careful not to let his eloquence become pure rhetoric. I think all Members of this House want family allowances to be granted to those who need them. I also believe that this Government has always preferred to grant family allowances on a universal, rather than a selective, basis. After listening to the Member for Bow River, I feel that his rather unusual approach may give the impression that the present Government intends to remove family allowances, a measure aimed at helping families by providing them with a supplement so that their children can get an education and have a decent standard of living. It is perfectly normal and legitimate that Members on both sides of the House should try to safeguard a measure that was introduced after a long struggle, namely, the family allowance, to ensure that families get the maximum benefit.
However, I believe that for the information of the House, 1 should perhaps point out that the difference between what would have been given under full indexing, and what will be given with indexing capped at 6 per cent, is not more than $1.40 per child per month. The fact that the previous speaker made such a big issue of this merely goes to show that he is overly fond of dramatizing the situation. Certainly, it would have been more attractive to grant full indexing, and even more, to the families that need it most, but if the tax burden is to be shared by all Canadians more or less equitably, it was necessary to find a way to help all Canadians get out of the recession without undue difficulty, so that the 6 and 5 program as applied to family allowances is just as fair as when it is applied to old age pensions or all public service employees. In addition, many provincial governments and private enterprises have adopted the same measure to fight the effects of inflation.
Mr. Speaker, at this stage, it is important to make the point that if we succeed in bringing the inflation rate down from 12 to 9, from 9 to 6, and then to 5 and 3 per cent, the 6 and 5 program will automatically cease to exist. What really matters is not the six and five program. The important thing is to bring inflation down to zero, because the six and five program in itself is meaningless unless we intend to reduce inflation gradually down to nothing. One important fact-and 1 am convinced that my colleague opposite will agree with me-is that Canadian families want to see an end to inflation, mindless of the six and five restrictions. They are hoping that our economic system will be rid of inflation once and for all. That is important.
Hon. Members opposite should stop dramatizing in this House and wasting hours in needless debates on this Bill, because they are not helping the Government of Canada and the people in our ridings. As I said earlier, an amount of $1.40 per child will be deducted from the monthly allowance cheque, and that will work out to about $13 a year. But there is something else which may be even more significant since family allowances help a family meet its expenses. 1 am referring to the child tax credit, something which the Hon.
Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and some of his colleagues could have mentioned.
The child tax credit was implemented three years ago and it will not be affected by this Bill. To enlighten Hon. Members, I would add that the child tax credit enables a family to save $400 per year per child, non taxable, in addition to the family allowances mentioned earlier. In my opinion, the tax credit is basic, quite valuable and more important even than the family allowances. Hon. Members might be interested to know that two thirds of our Canadian mothers are entitled to the child tax credit which enables their families to get that additional assistance from the Government.
When Hon. Members opposite say that this Bill is totally unfair to families, and histrionically claim that we are depriving those families of much needed social benefits, I think they are on the slippery slope towards demagoguery and ought to be more careful. Naturally, the ideal solution would have been to let Canadian families enjoy full indexation and provide them with as much help as possible. As in anything else, however, expectations are unlimited, but the ability to pay is limited indeed. That is why we have to make a choice. I think that anyone in this House who honestly looks at this measure and makes a non-partisan judgement on it will readily admit that justice is being well served. The only thing that might be said is that it would have been desirable to have full indexation, but even if we had agreed to that, families and workers in Canada would have been worse off in the long run. In an economic system undermined by inflation, which year after year is eroding the purchasing power and boosting prices to the extent that each month families are faced with higher prices for food and clothing, I think that if the rates were to stay at 20, 12 or 14 per cent, the first who would unjustly be most affected are those we want to protect today.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when you really think about it, the Government has no alternative but to cut back the so-called full indexation of benefits which we have had for four years and which have caused prices to nearly double in eight years and played havoc with our economy. If we compare Canada with some other industrialized countries, we realize that their action is perhaps much more drastic than ours because they are trying to completely abolish family or social assistance. If we look at the extremely drastic measures proposed by the United States and at the action taken in Germany and even in France, it is very easy to see that the action taken here does not come near what has been done in other industrialized countries of the free world. These are the things we should consider instead of trying to make political gains over a reduction of $1.40 per child in the basic amount of family allowances. I believe that the complementary legislation which will provide a non-taxable tax credit of $400 per child for two-thirds of Canadian mothers more than compensates for the $1.40 which each family will lose every month per child because of the six and five program.
February 8, 1983

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, if we look to the future, we can see that the six and five program will, in the long term, provide more purchasing power for the goods which a family needs. Moreover, Canadian families will then have full value for their money, and this is what Canadian men and women have been asking for two or three years. They want to have once more a balanced purchasing power based on the income generated by their wages and industries. As a matter of fact, this is the real problem in Canada. We cannot simply say that because of some piece of legislation a certain group in our society will temporarily be deprived of a minimum amount compared with another group. What is important is to know whether this minimal amount represents less than the income which people will have because our economic system will no longer be affected by inflation. In other words, what is important is to determine whether a child tax credit of $400 a year really represents a purchasing power of $400 and whether these $400 are worth more than $500 because with $500, people can only purchase goods for a real value of $350 or $400. That is the problem of inflation we face at the present time. It is this inflation the Government is trying to fight in an effort to put more money in the pockets of Canadians than there is at the present time. Otherwise, inflation will increase and everyone will lose more every month and every year.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, my speaking time being very limited, I simply want to invite Hon. Members to support this Bill because, in the long term, it will be of benefit to all Canadian men and women.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we are today debating the report stage of Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973. This really should be called "an Act to cut the baby bonus". The Government is again using the sledge-hammer tactic of limiting debate. In effect, the Government is forcing closure in order to get this dangerous and degrading Bill out of public scrutiny.
This sledge-hammer drives home yet one more of the six and five coffin nails. First we had Bill C-124, which broke Government contracts negotiated with its own employees concerning wages and salaries. Then we had Bill C-133, which cut the pensions of former public servants who had already paid for their pensions. Then came Bill C-131, which cut the pensions of the poorest group of Canadian seniors, many of them widows. Now we have Bill C-132, which will cut the baby bonus Canadian mothers receive to clothe and feed their children. This Government has used its power to attack the poorest and most defenceless sectors of our society.
It is interesting that as we debate this Bill today which will cut payments and support to mothers we had the announcement, to which reference has already been made that a former Finance Minister is to get $800 a day or, as someone has calculated, if he worked five days a week he would receive approximately $200,000 a year to head a Royal Commission. This Royal Commission will study our economic situation, which is bleak, to a large extent because of the mistaken
Family Allowances Act, 1973
policies of the Liberal Government of today of which he was a Member.


Cyril Keeper: You don't need $800 a day to know that.


David Orlikow: I predict the coffin nails which the Government is driving home are the nails that will seal the coffin in which this Liberal Government will be buried the first time Canadians have the right to vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: What about an alternative to this Government? Many Canadians believe that the Progressive Conservatives are the alternative. The views of that leaderless Party on issues such as Family Allowance are less than inspiring. Last spring, the spring of 1982-


Miss MacDonald:: Where were you in committee?


David Orlikow: -the Conservative Party held a policy conference. Its members did not discuss resolutions. They were afraid to do that, to show how divided they were, so they issued a questionnaire. One of the questions concerned Family Allowance, and 62 per cent of the delegates at that conference supported reductions in Family Allowances. Only 5 per cent felt that Family Allowances merited an increase. That is the real thinking of the Conservative Party.
What people watching this Parliament will see is the leaderless, right-wing, pseudo-Reaganites in the Official Opposition trying to pretend opposition to a Bill which they themselves might have sponsored if they formed the Government, and the Liberal Government cutting and slashing at mothers and pensioners in order to please their supporters in the corporate boardrooms and in order to pretend that they have a program to deal with the problems of unemployment and inflation.
Is six and five a serious economic program, as people in Canada are being told by the Liberal Government? If inflation is down, it is not because of six and Five. If inflation is down somewhat from what it was last June when the Government brought in six and five, it is down for two reasons which have nothing to do with six and five. It is down because we and rest of the world are in a profound recession, and it is down because international oil prices are coming down so markedly. The Government knows that, and Government documents made public some time ago revealed that the program was conceived, more than anything, as a public relations campaign to give the Government a veneer of action while shifting the pressure for economic problems to the private sector. The terrible human costs of this cynical venture will, of course, be borne by those who are not organized to strike back, namely, mothers and pensioners.
It is argued that the cuts will not affect those who cannot afford it. It is a specious argument which does not consider the fact that the base on which Family Allowance increases are based will be reduced from now into the future, and that with its $50, one-shot increase in the Child Tax Credit, the Family

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Allowance benefits will become selective. They are no longer a universal right as they have been since they were first implemented, but they come closer to being a handout for the really poor.
Family Allowance payments are now $26.91 a month. This guarantees Canadian mothers some cash to deal with the needs of raising children, to provide their clothes, food, school expenss, etc. This Bill will reduce Family Allowances from what they would have been by $16 in 1983 and by $35 in 1984. The Government argues that those most in need will be sheltered from this real decrease in Family Allowance payments by the one-year increase in the Child Tax Credit of $50. On the face of it, families with children will not lose any money. That is true, in an absolute sense, but our national social security system will lose an immeasurable amount because the base for future Family Allowance increases will be permanently reduced from here to eternity and, further, the amount lost will be paid back to some on a selective basis.
It has already been mentioned that, of the more than 3.5 million Canadian mothers who receive Family Allowance, 2.5 million also receive the Child Tax Credit. This country has accepted Family Allowance as being a universal right since we first began the program. With the Child Tax Credit, we divide those needing help into two camps; those with some need and those with more need. With this Bill, we would move closer still to making a permanent two class system, a ghetto type Family Allowance. One might say that with a ghetto type Family Allowance, we would be able to do more for the really poor, but as soon as one splits mothers into two groups, those who receive it and those who do not, those who do not will lose interest in the whole program.
We say that this program must not be used for selectivity. If some in the upper income brackets do not need the benefit of assistance which they receive from the Family Allowance Program, the money should be taken back from them through the income tax system. That is the most effective and stigma-free way to accomplish that objective.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: The poor who receive the Family Allowance will never make up the losses in these payments which this Bill will inflict. It cuts away at the shelter of those with low incomes and those with fixed incomes. We need to protect them from inflation, not to increase their payments, but simply to meet the day to day price increases which inflation represents.
The Liberal Member who spoke just before me tried to imply that this is not nearly as bad as what many other countries are doing. The Government is again trying to spread the illusion that Canada is one of the big spenders in terms of social programs, yet David Ross, in a book entitled "The Working Poor", which was published in 1981, states:
Using 1974 data, Canada ranked thirteenth of seventeen OECD countries when expenditures on income maintenance were expressed as a percentage of gross national product.
Therefore, we do not have a great deal of which to be proud. We are not in the forefront. We are just one of many countries which are trying to do the right thing and, in this case, we are obviously doing the wrong thing. We need more progress in order to catch up with other countries.
This piece of legislation takes us two steps in the wrong direction. Family Allowance is the only program we have that acknowledges the cost of parenting and recognizes the importance of children to Canadian society. It is estimated that it takes $500,000 or more to raise a child, counting out of pocket expenses, the extra hours of labour by parents and the income the mother could have earned if she had not interrupted her working career. In the end, this huge investment benefits society as a whole, rather than the parents. However, in comparison with this huge expense, the Family Allowance is a very small amount, and to reduce this amount even by a little bit is, as I have said, both illogical and unjust.
A couple living in one of Canada's largest cities is poor if they have an income under $11,800. If they have a child, they require an additional $4,000 in income. Family Allowance supplies much less than $4,000 a year, less than 10 per cent of that requirement. Yet it is precisely that kind of program which the Government, in its heartless and unthinking way, proposes to cap.
It is for the reasons which I have already indicated that we intend to vote against the Bill, as we have done until now.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was rather touched by the crocodile tears which were wept by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) over the social policy of the Progressive Conservative party. I can tell him that I would be even more touched if 1 found that some of the efforts which he expended were put into coming to committee occasionally and discussing social policy measures so that he would know who takes part in what and who puts forward amendments, to which the NDP will not even give support when they would do much to improve social legislation in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: Name one, Flora. Hypocrite.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What we have seen in the last few days, indeed in the last few weeks, has been a determined effort by the Government to push social legislation of a detrimental nature through the House at any cost. We have seen this with Bill C-133, which was the Bill to limit the indexation of pensions of superannuated public servants and Armed Forces personnel. We have seen it with Bill C-131, when the Government cut off debate on the Bill to limit the indexing of old age pensions of every senior citizen in this country over the age of 65. Today, and on Thursday, the Government wants to cut off debate on the Bill which is before us, Bill C-132, which will limit the indexing of Family Allowances paid to some 3.6 million Canadian families, which affect almost seven million children in this country. Those are the Bills on which the Government is boring in and saying, "You cannot debate them
February 8, 1983

any longer". They are not the only ones. There is a host of other bills. No matter how complex or complicated the measure, the Government stills says, "Cut off debate". Now I understand why they are doing this, because in doing so the Government is openly admitting that the way it runs the economic and social programs of this country simply does not bear scrutiny. That is why it wants to cut off debate. It believes it would be much better to stop people from talking, to limit investigation, to restrict witnesses, and to tie down Liberal backbenchers so that none of them get up to speak. One lone Liberal backbencher gets up to speak once in a while.
The Government will do anything at all to get unnecessary and uncalled-for legislation through the House. That is what we are finding here this afternoon, with limitation on the report stage of Bill C-132, because the Government has been unable to explain, right from the very outset of this Bill, why it is singling out one or two social programs for attack in its overall restraint program, legislation that is aimed against children and legislation that is aimed against the elderly of this country.
I do not know, and the Minister has not been able to explain, the backbench members have not been able to explain, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister who is in the House has not been able to explain, why these particular Canadians are expected to bear the brunt of the Government's battle against inflation. Why should they be singled out when the Government does not impose the same restrictions on its Government advertising, on its ministerial travel, or on its consultants? These are not treated the same way. The government goes on as if there was all the money in the world to spend.
The Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais), when he spoke, made the comment that the Government has no other choice but to zero in on the elderly citizens and the children of this country. The Government has no other choice, he says. There must be a great many people in this country today, a great many senior citizens, a great many mothers, who are wondering, with amazement and perhaps with great anger, why the Government grabs a few measly dollars from them at the same time that it pays $800 a day plus expenses to Donald Macdonald and other members of the Royal Commission. Why is it going to take away the few dollars, that the Hon. Member for Manicouagan spoke about, from children of this country so that Donald Macdonald can be paid $800 a day? That is exactly the equation. That is what we are seeing. Take the money from the elderly, take the money from the mothers and children, and give it to Donald Macdonald so he can live off the fat of the land at $800 a day.
I can tell the Hon. Members opposite and I can tell the Government that $800 a day is the total income that many old age pensioners have for a two month period. They have to get by on that over a two month period, not one day or a week or two weeks, but for two months that is all they get. The Government says we have to take away a few of their dollars each month to make up that $800 to Donald Macdonald.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Do the Hon. Members opposite realize that $800 would do for a single Family Allowance cheque? It would pay that Family Allowance cheque for two and one-half years, that $800 for one single day. That is the equivalent, that is what it would be. The Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) says the Government has no other choice. The Government has a lot of choices. It does not have to pay that kind of fee to a member of a Royal Commission. It does not have to take the money from children and from senior citizens in order to pay out that kind of money, not only $800 a day but $125 a day in expenses. That is incredible; it is just appalling.
Canadians are not prepared to put up with that sort of thing. There are a great many more senior citizens in this country, a great many more mothers of families in this country than there are Royal Commissioners, and those people will be speaking out against the Government because of these measures, on an ongoing basis, and the Government will hear far more from them than it ever does from a few Royal Commissioners.
When Bill C-132 was in committee, we heard from a limited number of witnesses, and I just want to list who they were because it gives some idea of the kinds of organizations and the people who are concerned about this particular Bill being put forward by the Government and about the restraints that are being placed on families and on the elderly. We heard from The Canadian Council on Social Development, from The Ottawa Women's Lobby, from The University Women's Club of Ottawa, from the Ottawa Council for Low Income Support, From the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women and from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
It is obvious that many of these witnesses appearing before us spoke out on behalf of families in this country, and every one of them condemned the measures that the Government is taking both in this Bill and the Bill limiting the indexation of old age pensions. Every one of them condemned the ad hoc methods of the Government in restricting these particular programs. Many of the witnesses felt that the time was long overdue for an over-all review and examination of our total income support and retirement income policies.
I want to tell you what Terrance Hunsley, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Council on Social Development, said. He appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on December 13, last. He said this:
-I am concerned about the overriding influence the recession might have on social policy development. We are witnessing that influence in Bill C-131, Bill C-132 and Bill C-133. To a certain extent, all these initiatives appear to be inspired by a perceived shift in political opinion, rather than by rational policy development. Of course, this is a very dangerous way to develop priorities, since perceptions can be illusory-
He went on to say this, and I will finish with this quote. He
said:
-we would recommend two types of social policy initiatives. The first is to review and adjust existing programs in order to seek maximum efficiency, and to eliminate areas of social injustice.

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
That is what he recommended and that is what we have been recommending throughout, not this ad hoc approach but a total review of all programs so that we can eliminate the inequalities and injustices that still exist in our social programs.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, we are here debating again one of the three Bills that are zeroing in on those segments of the population that can least afford it and that should be the least penalized. Having brought the Public Service and the pensioners to their knees, the Government is now turning to the families. With the Public Service, the Government has broken a contract. With the old age pensioners, I would say they have broken faith, and I think a good many would agree with me there. Therefore it is only natural that the families come next.
As was mentioned by the previous speaker, there are 3.6 million families and 7 million children who are going to be affected by this Bill. 1 agree that the amount is not great. I believe the difference will be about $1.60 a month with a 6 per cent increase rather than 11 per cent.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) introduced this amendment in the belief that it would make it a little less punitive. The intent of the amendment is to remove the capping for the year 1984. Unfortunately, it leaves in place the capping for 1983 which is still unacceptable to this Party. 1 hope that Members across the way will see how hard we have been going on about this and they will change their views. However, judging from past performance, it will not work that way.
As I mentioned, closure has been imposed on each of the three Bills. Closure has been brought in on this Bill and, with the Government majority, will receive third reading sometime Thursday evening. It will then go to the Senate where it will receive the stamp of approval. Families, single parents and those in the low-income bracket will feel this slight decrease in the amount they were to receive originally. 1 repeat that there are other ways in which the Government can get additional revenue.
Compared with certain Government expenditures, the amount that will be saved as a result of this Bill is insignificant. The Government has been practising-that's a joke-has been preaching about the need for restraint, and the ceiling of six and five per cent. However, time and again Government expenditures in different Departments have increased by 23 per cent. The Government tells Canadians to stay within six and five, and then squanders money at 23 per cent.
Highlighted in the news today is the amount to be paid to a former Minister of Finance, the Hon. Donald Macdonald. He is certainly not in the lower-income bracket. He is associated with one of the most prestigious law firms in Toronto, in fact in Canada. He was attracted to this Royal Commission with a stipend of $800 a day, plus up to $125 a day expenses. 1 presume he will set his own work hours. When you are hired on that kind of basis, you may as well work five days a week.
In fact, the odd time there may be overtime. Possibly this contract allows time and a half for overtime, or even a higher percentage.
This Royal Commission is to look into the problems facing the economy of Canada. We know what the problems are. One of the greatest problems is this Government which has not been able to produce. That is most important. Literally millions of dollars will be spent on this Royal Commission before it comes down with some great pronouncement three years down the road. That money could be used for programs that will provide jobs now.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was asked earlier to comment on the suggestion that many young people might be interested in joining the Armed Forces for a two-year period. Not only would they receive excellent training, but many could be taken off unemployment insurance. It would be of great assistance to those just coming out of school with no job and no unemployment insurance. Again, the money could be spent in a much more advantageous manner. Let the Family Allowance remain constant.
There are many other areas where this money could be taken from. The Government is hitting approximately half the population when you include the senior citizens, families, pensioners including civil servants, RCMP and Armed Forces pensioners who have contributed greatly to our economy. They worked hard and now they are being singled out.
This amount of a dollar something a month or $13 or $14 annually is not great. It is insignificant. The Minister responsible for this must have had great misgivings when it was suggested by Cabinet. Why is this segment of the population being hit harder than other segments?
None of us like the income tax, but it is the most fair tax. There is no question about that. Additional taxes should be imposed on those who are wage earners. The federal Government is well aware that income tax revenues have dried up considerably, with over 1.5 million people unemployed. In his wisdom, the previous Minister of Finance decreased the amount of tax from 62 per cent to 50 per cent.
I see that you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude. The Government should get the money from those who earn the most and leave the Family Allowance alone.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to rise to speak to this Bill. It is almost seven months since the former Minister of Finance announced in his June 28 budget that we would be going to six and five. It is interesting that when the Bill finally goes through, the old age pension increase will be reduced by 50 cents a month, and with this Bill, the decrease will be $1.40 to $1.50 per month. That is the difference between what the Government will be paying out and what it would have paid out given the present rate of inflation.
What happened is that the inflation rate came down to the 6 per cent level. Therefore, the differences are very small, especially in the old age pension where there are quarterly
February 8, 1983

increments. We are at the point where the amounts become very small.
For some of these things we have a system of gauging inflation that is extremely archaic. At this stage we talk about an inflation rate of 9.5 per cent. That is made up of something less than 6 per cent for the last two or three months plus 11.5 or 12 per cent for February, March and April of last year. We have an index which is based on all of those 12 months. Most other countries limit that period and also project into the future. So that one, I believe, could see an inflation rate, especially since we do not expect any oil increases this year, which would be in the area of 4 per cent or 5 per cent, and perhaps even less than that. It is ridiculous for this House to be sitting at this stage some seven months after the fact, dealing with a Bill which in many ways has actually achieved what we attempted to achieve.
I would like to see this Bill passed today so we could get on to other legislation, particularly since once this Bill is completed we can begin to talk about Bill C-139, which will make it possible to pay the Child Tax Credit, the extra $50, to those families who are going to need it. The people who need the $1.40 or $1.50 a month very badly will receive their $50 per child. This is the kind of thing which has to be done, but we are unable to pass this Bill because of these other three Bills which have been in Parliament since the end of October, as I recall. This is at least the third time I have spoken on one of these Bills, and it shows how slow and antiquated our rules of Parliament are. It is certainly not the Government's fault that there is so much time spent in getting Bills like this through.
I believe there is a much larger issue here which has to be fought. 1 listened very carefully to the latter portion of the speech of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). Because I have a feeling that when she speaks on this subject she speaks with a good deal of conviction and feeling, I do not belittle what she says at all, but I have the feeling she should be saying the things she is saying to Members of her own caucus. I have the feeling that if that kind of thing had been kicked around two weeks ago in Winnipeg, we would have received some strange results, because I believe there are a lot of people in that milieu who would say, "Look. We should get rid of Family Allowances. There should not be universality. We should just give it to those who need it and that is it." And the universality argument is one, I believe, which has to be brought up.
We are one of the few Government which has not really cut back in social services in any significant way. The last time I spoke on one of these Bills, 1 mentioned that the President of the United States, President Reagan, went to Houston in June. He spoke to 3,500 people who paid $1,000 a plate for lunch. At the same time, the State of Texas was putting out a brochure saying that no one should come to Texas for welfare because they would get $34 in food stamps and $34 in welfare a month. That is not the kind of Government we have in this country, and I do not want to see that happen. Yet, I hear some rumblings among the neo-Conservatives, the Reaganites around this country, that that is precisely what should happen.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
We in this Party had a major debate on that subject at our last convention. We were almost unanimously in favour of universality on all of these subjects and in favour of maintaining the Family Allowances across the board. I believe it is important that we maintain social services in this country in a full way. These are the real issues in this debate.
There is a segment in our population, and I do not deny them their right to speak, of those who would abolish these things, who would like to get us back to a medical system similar to the one in the United States. I believe that that argument is one which we must continue to keep in front of us. We on this side of the House believe very strongly that universality is a basic right of Canadians. The Family Allowance is part of that, as is the old age pension and our public medical services, and so on. These are the kinds of things which we will defend. In spite of the fact that we have a recession and a large deficit, we have not in any material way cut back in those services.
I am very concerned about the direction in which we are all moving and I feel impelled very strongly to talk about how we can spend a good deal more money than we are spending on the services as well as on creating jobs to make sure that Canadians are able to afford the basics of life. It seems to me that at this stage we have to begin to pay a lot more attention to the kind of rhetoric which we hear about our deficit being a dreadful thing and how the economy is going to be destroyed by such large deficits, and so on. I would remind you of a recent study carried out by the University of Toronto Institute of Policy Analysis which looked at our deficit, and this is what people are complaining about in terms of social services. The study showed that our deficit is a short-term, not a structural, deficit. They took the recession out of the economy and found that without a recession we would have a small surplus, about $1.2 billion this year. On the other hand, a similar kind of study on the American economy would show the deficit was in the order of $60 billion to $90 billion after you remove the recession. Therefore, if this is a short-term deficit, a recession deficit, most of it caused by declining revenue and not so much by Government spending, then it appears to me at this stage of the game it should not be a reason for not going ahead and spending large amounts of money in job creation. I am talking about $6 billion, $8 billion or $10 billion. I would suggest this has to be short-term spending, not long-term, so it does not become a part of a permanent structural deficit. We should use this money in such a way that we can create the maximum number of jobs for people who basically need them and not, as someone suggested, so that we could decrease taxes.
I believe one of the problems we face right now is we have to redistribute money to people who will spend it. There is far too much saving in our economy, 13 per cent, 14 per cent of our Gross National Product. If we are going to achieve the kind of equity and support for people on lower incomes and create jobs for Canadians, we are going to have to make sure that money gets to the people who will spend a good portion of it.

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, here we are again. This is the third week in a row that we find ourselves debating a Government proposal on social legislation under the restrictions of time allocation. We went through the debate on the pros and cons of that yesterday. Today we are on the more narrow part of the report stage, debating an amendment by my esteemed colleague behind me, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), on the wisdom of changing this iniquitous legislation by reducing the capping to one year only. We thereby avoid prolonging the erosion of the base which is going to keep up the Family Allowance payments in the future. If the Government sees fit to accept this amendment I am sure it would help all the families and children across Canada and they could carry on in the years ahead with a lesser erosion than they would have under this present Bill. 1 compliment my colleague for Calgary West on seeing the wisdom of advocating such an amendment. I hope the Government sees the light of day.
The last speaker from the Government side, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae), devoted most of his deliberations today to the issue of universality. Before I heard him speak, I had already planned to comment about that because yesterday the Minister, in speaking to her motion for time allocation, seemed to launch into a tirade against the Official Opposition on the issue of universality. Both I and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), and perhaps others, have in the past tried to teach her a few lessons about plain, ordinary English-I dare say even French, too-and the meaning of the word "universality". I dare say there is no difference in either language. The Minister has a somewhat bizarre understanding of what universality actually means. Of course, she is torn between the divergent and mutually exclusive concepts of universality on one side, and her desire to help those who need it most on the other side. But it is absolutely impossible to have both at the same time. There is just no way. As you read the Minister's speeches from day to day, or even on the same day, you will find her saying first one thing, and then advocating the opposite.
As an example, before she got very far into her speech on time allocation on Bill C-132 yesterday, she accused the Official Opposition of wanting to abolish the concept of universality. Let me at this point establish the definition of universality, Mr. Speaker. According to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, universality is something applicable in all cases. Well, at the present time most of the Government's programs are not applicable in all cases. The Guaranteed Income Supplement, which is becoming a greater part of the Old Age Security system, becomes less and less a universal program because it takes over a greater proportion of the payments made to the elderly. The same is happening in the Family Allowance program where the Minister, by cutting the Family Allowance component of the total contribution made to
families, is moving further and further away from what used to be the concept of universality. But the Minister refuses to recognize that.
Let me use universal suffrage as an illustration. I am sure the Minister would agree that the concept of universal suffrage is something that gives each person, male or female, one vote. When the Minister talks about universal social programs, she is not talking about everyone getting the same thing; she is talking about everyone getting perhaps $1, and then a decent amount being given to those who need it most. I am not arguing with the validity of helping those who need it most, but the Minister must not try to ride two horses at the same time because it is impossible to have a universal program and at the same time give the same benefits, as you do in universal suffrage, to the same people. It is just impossible, but the Minister does not seem to be able to grasp that at all.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, after attacking us on the problem of universality, she said she was dealing with the issue of the importance of fighting inflation and the six and five program, this big marketing program we have been subjected to across Canada. In discussing the first objective of fighting inflation the Minister said, and I quote from page 22572 of Hansard:
But we must not do this on the backs of those most in need, who in this case are the mothers.
But that is exactly what she is doing. Although she says she must not do it, she turns around and attacks the Family Allowance Program, the one progressive part of the total aid to families' program. This is just another indication of the duplicity and willingness to attempt to convey a message to Canadians about something which in fact is not being done through legislation of this Government.
One can go on and talk endlessly about a number of issues related to this Bill C-132 and its impact on families across Canada. It is affecting mothers and children in particular. It strikes out at the ones who are least able to defend themselves. It was pointed out to me a few minutes ago by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West, that one aspect which has not been mentioned is the attack on families through the institutional care given to children who cannot be handled at home. This capping of the Family Allowance is going to affect all these institutions in Canada where children are housed because they receive these benefits. They are going to suffer a relative reduction in remuneration from the federal Government, and they are among the ones who can least afford it. Many of these institutions are in desperate straits now, and this will throw an added burden on them. It is just another example of the thoughtlessness of the Minister in attacking that part of society least able to defend itself. The situation has probably been most ably described by Terrance Hunsley, executive director of Canada Council on Social Development, who said before the Committee:
After 1983, in which low-income families will receive a one-time bonus payment of $50 per child, they will begin losing over $30 per child on a permanent basis and this loss is, in fact, indexed. In 1985, it will be about $36 per child-
February 8, 1983

The Minister seems to think there is some virtue in this Bill because it is going to help save money for the federal Government and therefore help in the fight against inflation. Well, the statistics seem to suggest about one twentieth of 1 per cent of total federal budget spending is going to be saved by virtue of Bill C-132, or something in the order of $10 million to $15 million. So it is very difficult to see how we are going to get any effective change in inflation as a result of this Bill.
In conclusion, I just want to say that when the Minister goes on the attack about universality, she forgets the words of Shakespeare when he said, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much". Finally, I would like to quote Louise Dulude of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women who appeared before the Committee. She said:
We feel these changes will do three things-or would do three things; there is still hope. One, they would endanger the integrity of the Family Allowances Program. Two, they are unfair towards parents in general and mothers in particular. And three, they represent a step backward in establishing a coherent family income policy in Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: This afternoon I would just like to make a few comments on all the accusations and counteraccusations between the Liberal spokesmen and the Conservative spokesmen about the commitment of either of those Parties to the principle of universality. When it comes to universality, 1 think the level of hypocrisy is higher on the Conservative side than it is on the Liberal side.
Perhaps I should start by referring to a question that I put to the then minister of National Health and Welfare on November 5, 1979. I asked the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) who was then Minister, if he could assure the House that the principle of universality in Family Allowances would be upheld. He replied, "I cannot give the Hon. Member the assurance he seeks." He went on to say that all social programs, and particularly those of a universal nature, would be under review because that Government was looking for ways to spend the money in the social envelope more efficiently. In doing so, the Conservative Government was following the trend that, in all honesty, must be said to have been developed before it came to power. That was the trend toward an ever increasing fascination with the notion of selectivity in social programming instead of universal social programming. At that time the Minister claimed, and I think with some justification, that his Department-


Monique Bégin: That is not true.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -was continuing the review that had begun prior to the Conservatives coming into office.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) says that is not the case. In any event, it is true that within the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party there has been a growing fascination with the idea of increased selectivity in social programming.
Regardless of what you think of the principle of universal social programs, Mr. Speaker, only the New Democratic Party has been consistent and unambiguous in defence of them.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Some may want to contend with the position we have held on this matter, but it is not a position that is advanced one day and hidden the next, depending on whom we happen to be speaking to. We advance the notion of universal programs and call for the protection of those now in place, not just because of the economic benefits that accrue to those who receive them- in this case the mothers and children-but because we believe universal programs are a way of saying something about the kind of society we want Canada to be and the kind of community we want Canada to become.
We want a community in which things like family life, through Family Allowances, like a dignified standard of living for the elderly through old age pensions and like post-secondary education and health care, are available to all. There are things that we want to provide to Canadians because they are Canadian. Every member of the Canadian community is entitled to them. We do not want people to receive Government assistance because they are poor or are have-nots being helped by the haves. We think this is too individualistic a view of what community means. We believe that universal programs are the better way to distribute those benefits to which all Canadians are entitled.
We are worried not just because of the amount of money that is being taken from families through a reduction in the increase of Family Allowances; we are also worried that when universal programs like this are altered then the objective value of them is eroded in terms of their place in the total social policy of Government. Furthermore, the public perception of the value of the programs is also eroded. People will come to see-as they should, given the actions of the Liberal Government-that these programs are, in the view of the Government, discretionary and might be endangered as part of an over-all and, in this case, ad hoc, inadequate, economic strategy. This could lead to an uncertainty which is very damaging.
The Bill before us deals with Family Allowances and it will affect the certainty with which families can regard the support the Government will extend to them in the future. It is also true of the erosion of the universality of the Old Age Security payments through the imposition of six and five.
At a time when we ought to be encouraging those who can afford to do so to take early retirement where it is appropriate, so that jobs could be made available in the work place we will find that those whose company pension is not indexed and whose only indexed pension is Old Age Security, are going to be reluctant to retire early. The guarantee that at least one element of their retirement income would be protected against inflation has been removed through the imposition of six and Five on the OAS, which is a breach of trust on the part of the Government. 1 think of the people in my riding who retire from the CNR. They do not receive an indexed pension, although they should. The OAS is all they can rely on for protection against inflation.
I am interested in the whole debate on universality versus selectivity, Mr. Speaker. The Conservative Party should get its act together and do a favour to the Canadian political process

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
by deciding where it stands on the issue. In my view, through the whole six and five debate, that Party has been particularly two-faced. Maybe it is suffering from a genuine schizophrenia, but in any case, its Members have been talking out of both sides of their mouths regarding six and five.
I recall that the Conservatives often called for that kind of program when they were in opposition, and they seemed intent on bringing it in when they were in Government. History robbed them of the opportunity, however. But it is not unusual for the Conservative Party to have two spokesmen on every issue, however. They have people for the Crow and people against the Crow; people for low interest rates and people for high interest rates; people for human rights in Central America and the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) who supports all the right-wing regimes in Central America that violate human rights. They have people, only a few, mind you, who are against testing the Cruise and a whole bunch of people who are for testing the Cruise, including their leadership. They have people who are for medicare, but who never ask a question on medicare in the House except in a way that is complimentary to Tory provincial Governments that systematically undermine medicare. They have two policies on Crown corporations-two policies on almost anything you can imagine. In some ways, I admire this diversity within the Progressive Conservative Party. Perhaps it is their way of trying to move us closer to a congressional system of government. It certainly makes it difficult for the Canadian people.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Bill, which will obviously pass through the House at third reading because it is now going through a time allocation procedure, will impose an economic hardship on many children in this country. I also firmly believe-and this happens to be the position of my Party since we believe in the concept of universality-that we will look back on this day as the day when the Government decided to do away with that concept of universality. That is exactly what this Bill does. It tampers with the original principle behind Family Allowances, that they shall be universal.
Of course, we know that Family Allowances were originally introduced to help offset the economic burden of raising a family and to help give people who were raising families some reasonable degree of equality of opportunity.
As one of my colleagues has already said, this Bill will also impose an unfair burden on some institutions in this country that care for children. For example, there is an orphanage in my constituency that cares for boys of all religious denominations. It is operated by the Order of Christian Brothers. This legislation will cause them serious problems because it will unfairly cut into their income. This happens at a time of serious downturn in our economy. They have seen their public support diminish by virtue of high unemployment, high inflation and the general deep recession which the country is presently going through. From all points of view, this is a mean, cruel and unfair Bill which should never have been introduced. Certainly it should never have been subject to time allocation or closure.
Let us look at the context in which this Bill was introduced. A few days ago, Statistics Canada released its unemployment figures. Those figures indicated that unemployment in Canada has risen by 100,000. There are now 1.6 million people officially unemployed in this country. When one takes into account the hidden unemployed, those who have given up hope of looking for a job, there are two million people unemployed in Canada in real terms.
My Province has the highest rate of unemployment. It is over 17 per cent. That unemployment problem, with all of its social implications, is compounded by the fact that the duration of the recession and the longevity of unemployment has meant that there are 100,000 unemployment recipients a month who are coming off UIC because their benefits have expired. Where do those people turn? They have no choice but to become subject to a means test and apply for welfare.
That is the context and time frame within which we are considering this Bill. Among the two million unemployed and the 100,000 who are coming off UIC benefits every month, I would suggest that it is not unreasonable to say that many would be heads of families. Again, this will erode their ability to care for their families. This is a mean and niggardly thing for this Government to do.
If I did not participate in the debate on this Bill, my conscience would bother me as, I am sure, the conscience of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) must be bothering her today. This Bill is not consistent with the social conscience that we recognize the Minister has and that she has brought to her portfolio up to now. I do not believe that she is at all happy about this Bill. I do not believe she is happy about doing away with the principle of universality. I do not believe that she is happy about the application of the six and five formula to this country's very important social benefit.
We may say that the amount of money concerned is not very much. Hon. Members can argue that it will be made up by the Child Tax Credit. However, many people will not qualify for the Child Tax Credit. Many lower and middle-income Canadians will not receive enough from the Child Tax Credit in the long term to make up for the loss in the Family Allowance benefits. What does this mean for unemployed people with large families? It means that their children may have to go without a pair of shoes. It means that their children may have to go without adequate clothing. In many instances it means that children in this country will have to go without an adequate diet. That is one of the consequences of long-term unemployment today and the expiration of unemployment insurance benefits. It is a consequence of the burden that has been placed on some of the poorer Provinces that have had an increase in the number of welfare recipients and decrease the benefits to some. There are many families that are facing hardship and are no longer able to cope in terms of being able to clothe their children adequately and provide an adequate diet.
February 8, 1983

The figures show that we still have double-digit inflation. Of course, the perverse argument would be put forward that this is the reason for the six and five formula. It will not hurt a Member of Parliament very much to hold him or her to a 6 per cent increase. As a matter of fact, 6 per cent of $100,000 amounts to a $6,000 increase. However, it becomes a very cruel act to hold a $26 a month Family Allowance benefit to that six and five formula. It means that the family will be deprived of the indexing that will allow it to offset the detrimental effects of inflation in a small way. The high cost of food, shelter, clothing and transportation which can be seen in the Consumer Price Index every month is what imposes the hardship on the people who have the burden of raising families today.
Quite frankly, I just do not understand the concept behind this Bill. I am ashamed that this Government would not only introduce this Bill but impose time allocation on it. Poor people have to pay inflated rates for clothes. Poor people have to pay inflated rates for footwear. Poor people have to pay taxes. We see taxes going up. Municipalities have had to raise property taxes, and those taxes are going up constantly.
In my Province the sales tax has risen from 11 per cent to 12 per cent. Sales taxes are going up in all Provinces across the country. Tuition fees are going up as well. Yet we hear the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) tell the young people of Winnipeg not to expect jobs this summer because of the slow progress in an economic turnaround. There will be hundreds of thousands of young Canadians coming on to the job market in April and May who will have no jobs or income to support themselves for another year of university or no way to offset the burden on their families because they could not get a job last year. That is the mess that has been created in this country.
I can understand the rationale behind trying to curb inflation by bringing expenditures under control. Perhaps at another time we can bring unemployment under control. The argument might even be made for capping indexing of Family Allowances. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Minister that there is no argument that can support the introduction of this Bill at this particular time, because the reverse is true. Instead of bringing in a Bill to cap Family Allowances to six and five, we should be providing additional help to families that are faced with the burden of double-digit inflation, increased shelter costs, increases food costs, increased taxes, increased tuition fees and the additional burden of young kids not being able to find jobs to help finance their university and post-secondary education. I believe this is a cruel and an unnecessary bill. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be ashamed of herself for bringing it in at this time.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention to rise in the House this afternoon, but because of the
Family Allowances Act, 1973
time allocation, I want to make a positive contribution regarding this Government's refusal to listen to the Canadian people as a whole.
It is a fact that in committee, several organizations have reminded the Minister responsible and other Government Members that this bill is not most timely at this time, in view of the present economic conditions. The previous speaker has dealt with some quite specific and relevant points, and in the name of a true social justice, I feel he was right in calling on the Government to withdraw this Bill because of the present economic conditions.
At a time when Canada is faced with record unemployment, how can we honestly support this legislation designed to cut government spending? Having experienced and witnessed this Government's gross mistakes and mismanagement, how can we help cut its spending at the expense of those who can least afford it? How can we co-operate and at the same time support its decision to save money on the backs of small wage earners and have-nots? Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has urged us repeatedly to help him bring about his so-called just society. I feel that words such as honesty and justice have become meaningless for the Government.
Mr. Speaker, it is on behalf of some 6 million Quebecers that I rise today to tell the government, like so many of my colleagues who have done a great job, that this legislation is not good enough. How callous Government Members must be if they can turn a deaf ear to our appeal on behalf of the millions of Canadian families and children who will be affected. They will ask, of course, why we are making such a fuss about a few dollars. On the very day when we are asked to reduce the incomes of Canadian families at the risk of causing even more harships to our children, the Prime Minister informs us with a smile that a certain Mr. Macdonald will only be paid $800 per day to carry out a study over the next two or three years.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people who can see and hear us will finally realize what are the priorities of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. One may readily admit that $800 a day is not an unduly large amount nowadays, and yet the Government will deduct from the mother's family allowance $1.40 a month for each child, something which will affect millions of families.
Mr. Speaker, it is our duty to warn the Government that it has breached every rule of common decency, and that is why I chose to speak this afternoon because I do have in my riding families who simply cannot accept this legislation. We know full well that there are essential needs and minimum limits which must be respected, and we have to keep in mind the current economic situation, unemployment, difficulties and hardships which this Government has created as a result of its mismanagement and its deliberate unemployment policies over the past 15 years. Remember that we had 300,000 people unemployed then as compared with two million today. And the

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Government comes up with such inhuman and cruel measures! I would think that any Member who feels a minimum of responsibility towards his constituents cannot remain silent, and 1 fail to understand why the Government does not listen to us when we are making representations for the benefit of all Canadians.
What we are talking about today has nothing whatsoever to do with party politics; we are talking about the minimum requirements of our fellow citizens, and the Government stubbornly insists that millions of Canadians will have to pick up the tab even though they are not responsible for its mismanagement and its wrong decisions. We saw the other day that pensioners will have to pay for the damage caused by this Government, senior citizens will also be victims of its mismanagement, and, today, Mr. Speaker, they are going after the children. I must speak up against this measure and this attitude, and I urge the Government Members to have enough decency and honesty to vote against this Bill. Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Minister would have been more sympathetic towards mothers. Her behaviour is a great disappointment to me and I am very sorry to see that she is still cooperating and going along with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and her Cabinet colleagues to penalize people who do not deserve such harsh treatment.
Mr. Speaker, these are my reasons for urging once more these Members whose ears must be plugged up to think first and foremost of serving their constituents just as I and my colleagues are trying to serve ours. They have clearly forgotten their basic duties in this House. For all these reasons, I hope that the Government will at least agree to add to the Bill the amendment moved by one of my colleagues which will somewhat improve it. However, even with this amendment, the Bill would be unacceptable on the basis of principle, justice and integrity.
Mr. Speaker, these are a few comments I wanted to make at the end of this debate in the hope that if, Government Members on the other side of the House, can but obey the Minister or the Prime Minister who are forcing them to vote for such a callous Bill, they will at least have the decency to be absent when the vote is taken. I cannot believe that these Members will try to justify such a despicable Bill before their constituents. I can hardly wait to meet them, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hope that, at the last minute, Hon. Members opposite will seriously reflect on this legislation which all Canadians find totally unacceptable. It is obvious that they are trying to kill the principle of universality which they used to advocate. It is not the first time that I see them go back on their commitments. How long will this go on? Will Canadians be able to forget such despicable action? I do not think so! Because of all that we have heard today, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this Government will soon ask the people to pass judgment on their action, and we shall then see whether the Canadian people will long stand for such repressive measures. This being said, Mr. Speaker, I hope I have appealed to the feelings of some Hon. Members opposite in the best
interests of the country and in keeping with the deepest sense of justice which we must show toward those who have elected us.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to put some remarks on the record with regard to Bill C-132 and to touch briefly on the history of those two Parties in relation to where they have been in recent years concerning Family Allowance. I would first like to deal with the Tory amendment which would really limit the provisions of the Bill to this year. It is a pretty weak amendment. I will be supporting it, not because I think it is a particularly useful instrument in terms of Bill C-132 and the capping of Family Allowance but, rather, because it would limit it to one year rather than two years, and really would do nothing more.
We have seen a lot of wriggling from the Tories in the last couple of days with regard to Family Allowance. We have not seen anything from those on the Government side. I think that when the Government introduces legislation, its Members have a responsibility to stand up and explain why it is so good, why it is being brought in and why it will help solve some of the problems of the country. As well, I like Liberal Members to put their thoughts on the record so that 1 can send copies out to Liberals in my riding so they know exactly what their Members here in Ottawa are doing for them.
One Hon. Member, representing Thunder Bay, rose and said that it is really just a few dollars and does not matter too much. However, as my colleague from Newfoundland pointed out, a couple of dollars per child per month means a great deal to many of our constituents across the country. It does mean shoes, busfare and food. It does mean whether or not a child gets an opportunity to participate in some kind of bowling club or other type of extracurricular activity.
The Liberals keep saying that the cut will amount to just a couple of bucks. However, it is not simply a question of shifty bookkeeping so that they can get a few dollars to go out and make some kind of flashy headlines that they are providing a job creation program, or whatever. It is really a violent and vigorous attack by the Government side. I will be reading some quotations to illustrate that it is coming from Cabinet. It is not supported by too many backbenchers. They do not really know what their leaders in Cabinet are up to, what the grand design is, approaching the Speech from the Throne, concerning the Government direction. However, I will be putting on the record where the Cabinet has been throwing money in the last couple of years.
Bill C-124 is something to which we must return. 1 think Canadians have a right to understand where the Official Opposition is coming from and where the Government has been concerning Bill C-124, because I can recall very vividly the slobbering faces of many Tories who have spoken in this debate trying to get in front of cameras, saying, "Right on, six

February 8, 1983

and five, that is what the country needs. Let us get at it". However, during that period when they were out trying to make an impression on the business community that they were right in there on six and five, they were not telling the pensioners what they had been telling us in speeches here.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), really hit the nail on the head. The Tories do have Hon. Members speaking for and against everything that comes under the sun. If they are trying to reach a certain kind of group, then they send a certain kind of Hon. Member to speak. That is the kind of immorality which has come to permeate this place in terms of political Parties, particularly the Official Opposition and the Government side, in not taking an issue and being forthright with Canadians. It is why, for the first time in Canadian history, politicians are generally seen as being in the same category as convicted sex killers. The entire institutions are coming to be seen as a black eye in Canadian society.
Government Members and Members of other Parties have a responsibility to stand up and speak on policies that they have held for 10, 20 or 30 years, not ones they have held for 15 minutes. The Tories voted for Bill C-124, but now they have come up with all kinds of excuses as to why they were for six and five a couple of months ago and why they are now consistently against it, whether concerning Old Age Security or taking money away from public servants who had paid for the indexation. They paid an extra per cent from their pay to ensure that their pensions were indexed. Money is being taken away from retired people and is actually being taken from the mouths of children. I will be speaking about that in the context of my own riding where this Bill will affect tens of thousands of children and will mean that tens of thousands of dollars every month, or half a million dollars or more a year, will be taken out of our local economy. Those small items which those children would have received otherwise are important.
It is also important to consider why the Government is going ahead with this without the approval of Parliament, just as lawyers are glad to say, "Oh, well, we think it is legal". We all know, in our heart of hearts, that if something is not passed by Parliament, it is illegal. How often will someone go before a judge in Vancouver, Ottawa, Montreal or in Newfoundland to say, "Oh, Your Honour, I thought it was legal. You must let me go"? That argument does not sell. If Parliament now tries to start selling that concept across this country, we will see incidents like the Litton bombing. We will hear people saying, "I am so frustrated with those guys. They can do one thing, but we are not allowed to do the same sort of thing.
If we are to run this institution and gain some respect across the country, we must state our positions. I have respect for the Tories to my right who have stood up time after time and have been consistent. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is an example. Long in tooth, he has been in politics for a long time. 1 know exactly where he will stand, and I respect him for that. However, there are others who one day
Family Allowances Act, 1973
are in opposition to six and five if they are addressing pensioners or their constituents, but if they are addressing businessmen, they are in favour of it. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, described that as being some kind of schizophrenia. Maybe it is honestly held schizophrenia, but I think there is a real need in this country for the Parties to come clean as to where they stand.
While the Official Opposition formed the Government, the press releases were pretty clear. On the front page of the Toronto Star, it stated, "Clark to Chop Family Allowance", and on the front page of another paper it stated, "Clark to Chop Bonus". There must be a limit to the kind of political dishonesty which goes on in this place. We know that the former President of the Treasury Board was quite open and vocal in a number of interviews that he gave. One headline stated, "Social Programs May Stop Being Universal", and he described that as "gutsy". The article stated:
Asked if he felt the Government had "the political guts" to abandon universality, Johnston pointed to the decision to limit indexing of the basic Old Age Pension to the Government's restrained levels of six and five per cent for the next two years.
That, he said, is a "very gutsy" move.
There is the attack. The attack is on the concept of universality. We know why these two Parties, the Liberals and the Tories, are combined on that. Otherwise, if we are to have universal programs and yet not have consistency, the argument could be that there are people who do not need it. I agree that people who make $30,000 to $70,000 or more a year do not require the full impact of that Child Tax Credit or Family Allowance. Because there are so many holes in the tax system at the upper end, if the Government wanted to be consistent and were able to demonstrate to the Canadian public that those universal payments would be taken back, it would mean that there would have to be an honest revamping of the top end of the tax system to demonstrate that the amount of $25 or $200 or $500 was being taken back through the tax system.
That is why that Party opposite is staying away from that subject. It is much easier to chisel away from pensioners and attack public servants by holding their wages down. The business community is the driving force. In other words, if one is not attacking social benefits, education, hospital care, medicare and that type of thing, then one must be going after the business community and saying, "Oh, you are not really paying your fair share". There is an abundance of information which should be on the record and made available to Canadians as to why the Government has opted for this "shifty bookkeeping", as I describe it. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) pointed out, the amount of money that is going to be taken away and re-shifted in this bookkeeping is about the same as the cost of a wingtip of an F-18. It is shifty bookkeeping, but it is the first part of the attack. If the rate of inflation goes up again, if interest rates go up again, we can be sure that this is not a two-year program but will be permanent. There will no longer be indexation. Children will be forced to eat less and receive less, in other areas, and we are talking here particularly about the impact on poorer families.
22640

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Few people are aware that Government assistance to business in the form of tax relief and grants in 1980 alone totalled SI5 billion. The option to choose is either to choose to retain proper health programs and educational and social programs and turn the attention away from attacking public service employees or to choose business and military spending. That is the kind of material we need in this debate, not only honesty from the Parties involved in this debate, but also debate on where the money is to come from, from tax breaks and benefits, and so on.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to say a few words on the report stage of Bill C-132 dealing with Family Allowances, and especially on the amendment that we are now considering that has been proposed by the Flon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). It is also pleasant to follow the knight in shining armour who last spoke, the bearded avenger of the NDP. If there was a single word of truth in what he said, I do not think I would be able to live with myself. However, the facts of the case are somewhat different.
The amendment that we have before us today would in fact split the argument down the middle. The Government has come forward with a proposal to limit the indexation of Family Allowances for a period of two years. There have been many arguments presented which indicate that this may not be the correct thing to do. We know that we would be unsuccessful in defeating the Bill, but I think there is some chance of success for passage of the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Calgary West. It is a kind of compromise deal, and I would urge all Members of the House to vote in favour of that amendment.
We could live with the Bill, as we propose to amend it, for a year, and after that time we could assess the effect that the reduction in Family Allowance payments has had. If we feel that the reduction has not had such a deleterious effect as some people are predicting, we could continue in that vein; and if not, we could go back to full indexation. I would hope in the spirit of compromise that all Members of this House would vote for that amendment.
I, like other Members on this side of the House, am rather disappointed that the people on the Government side have chosen not to speak this morning or this afternoon. They spoke vehemently yesterday when the subject matter of debate was closure on the issue of Family Allowances. Having achieved that, having voted to close off the debate, they no longer seem interested. 1 do not think that they have advanced sufficient argument to support their point of view, and I was rather hoping that this afternoon we would hear arguments as to why, in their opinion, we should not vote in favour of the amendment. These arguments have not been forthcoming, and I rather suspect they do not exist.
Yesterday, while speaking on closure on this matter, I referred to the little guys who have been thrust out onto the firing line by the Government in the so-called fight against
inflation, whereas the Liberal fat cats have stayed behind the lines, at the back of the scene of action, and they have not been suffering at all on account of the Government's so-called six and five program.
Today we have seen another manifestation of that. It has come to light that, by Order in Council, the remuneration of the Hon. Donald Macdonald, who is heading the Royal Commission inquiring into the economy, is to be paid the exorbitant sum of $800 a day, and $925 a day when he is on the road. I do not buy at all the explanation given by the Prime Minister earlier in this House this afternoon when he said in fact that figure is only $400 because the other $400 goes to pay his office expenses. He could quit his law firm and he would still be making $800 a day. It is not necessary that the overhead expenses of his office be paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. That is just another illustration of the Liberal fat cats behind the lines who are not taking any cutbacks themselves, but passing those cutbacks on to the little guys at the front of the line.
I could mention also Michael Pitfield who is enjoying a nice paid holiday, and Ed Clarke, the architect of the National Energy Policy, who is enjoying himself in the south of France. There are all kinds of illustrations that can be given to underline that argument.
Apparently, the Parliament of Canada has over a number of years come to the conclusion that there is a need for Family Allowances. If that need exists, then I think it is only fair and honest that a system of full indexation be applied to those Family Allowances. I can remember the debate in this House a little over a year ago when a new budget was coming in and we were talking at that time about the indexation and there were suspicions on this side of the House that the Government was contemplating deindexation of programs such as this one and deindexation of certain aspects of the Income Tax Act and other taxation acts. At that time we had reassurance after reassurance after reassurance from the Government front benches that the Government was not considering any system of deindexation. It was not, in that budget, but a year later in comes the deindexation.
Even if partial deindexation was retained, as is proposed in this case, the value of the moneys granted by way of Family Allowances or any other scheme are very rapidly eroded. If the difference between the real rate of inflation and the indexed rate, as it is to be in this instance, is something like 4 per cent or 5 per cent, it will only take less than ten years, probably eight years, until the actual real value of those allocations has been halved.
We on this side of the House have consistently supported the idea of full indexation, whether it be applicable to the Income Tax Act or other acts, in calculating deductions against income, or whether it be in this form of payment. Without full indexation, this leads to the kind of political manipulation that we have seen before on the part of the Government. It brings in a program such as Family Allowances with an amount of money attached thereto that means something to people.
February 8, 1983

Because that amount does not keep pace with inflation and because it goes down, in real terms, that allows the Government at the time of the next election to come out with a great announcement that it is going to increase these payments. It is a way of buying votes without bringing in any real new program. We have seen that before with Family Allowances.
I remember a few years ago when the rate was $6 per month per child. Originally that was a reasonable amount, but it came to be worth very little. At that time the Government could have gone two ways. It could have got rid of the Family Allowance altogether. It would not have hit people very hard. On the other hand, it could do what it did at that time, come forward with a great increase to $20. I am sure that was done with electoral machinations in mind.
The Bill we are debating here today, C-132, will allow the Government to do precisely the same thing. It will allow them to engage in yet another publicity stunt at the time of the next election. If the Government was sure that the six and five program was going to work, and if it had done those things that are necessary to curb and abate inflation, if it had reduced its deficit, these measures would not be necessary because inflation would be less than 6 per cent and we would not have to cap it at that.
In closing, I should like to say that all Members of this House ought to support the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Calgary West and, if that fails, to go against Bill C-132.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak on Bill C-132, which is just another Bill in a series of Bills directed toward the Government's six and five program, I cannot help but think about the way the Government has proceeded with this piece of legislation. They are in such a hurry that they implemented the provisions of this Bill before it had even received the approval of this House. One has to wonder about the ethics of a Government which does that.


Dave Nickerson: They don't have any.


Neil Young: As my friend points out, perhaps they do not have any. There is certainly some aspect of truth in that.
I rather suspect, and I have had many of my constituents suggest this to me, that these six and five Bills and the whole six and five program has very little, if anything, to do with this Government pretending to fight inflation. The Government's attempts to fight inflation go back at least 14 years. I remember at that time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) making such promises as wrestling inflation to the ground, that fighting inflation was the only way to increase employment opportunities, etc. Today we still have high inflation, but now it is coupled with high unemployment. We have the worst of both worlds.
I am still waiting to see this Government come forward with real programs that actually fight inflation. We have a program that has less to do with fighting inflation than with leaving the impression in the country that there is actually some leadership, some focus, that the Government has in fact regained
Family Allowances Act, 1973
control of the economy when we know that the opposite is actually the case. What burns me in this whole process of the Government, responding to political demand in the country that real action and real programs be to put in place straighten out the economy, is that it has followed a course which Governments have followed over the years. When entering into a program of restraint or restraining financial expenditure, they consistently aim their attacks at those least able to defend themselves.
We saw that in Bill C-131, and we know that the seniors of this country are not a politically organized group. They are not organized to the extent that they can fight back against that kind of restrictive measure. The Government did the same to public servants. Even Government spokesmen pointed out in this House that that was because the Government believed the public servants were not very popular in this country and therefore it was safe to attack and blame them.
We now have Bill C-132 where the Government in its assessment, and probably as a result of public polling, has decided that those who are recipients of the Family Allowance are not a highly organized group. They are not organized like the banks and the corporate sector. They fought very strongly against restrictions which the Government brought down in the infamous budget of a year or so ago. Because of their political strength, they managed to persuade the Government to change those elements in the budget which they felt were detrimental to their interests. The seniors of this country do not have that kind of clout with which to fight back.
The way the Government has brought this program in, it has convinced people that under the six and five program they will receive a monthly increase in any event and that the reduction will be extremely small, probably not noticeable. At the end of that two-year period, the reduction for recipients of the Family Allowance will be a lot more than the 50 cents a month which the Government has been trying to persuade Canadians is what they will lose as a result of this legislation.
In committee the Minister explained to Canadians the Government's position in introducing the six and five program. I wish to quote from the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of December 7, 1982. The Minister said this:
The Government's philosophy in the Cabinet discussion, which is what you want to understand, was made like this: In the June budget, we decided we had reached the time where the psychological dimensions of the too-high inflation we were witnessing in Canada had to be recognized and dealt with by another psychological weapon, which was a sword-and I know the words might make you smile-a sword of a national campaign of solidarity of all Canadians, mobilizing all Canadians toward cutting in half the forecasted rates of inflation of 12 and 10 to 6 and 5. It was an arbitrary-to my knowledge-choice of common purposes for Canadians to try to embark all partners into, as I said-to mobilize all partners.
I fail to see how the Government can use the sword against the elderly and children of this country to fight inflation when everyone knows the facts. Figures from the Government's own agency, Statistics Canada, clearly show that those groups being asked to mobilize with swords, tanks and everything else the Government can dream up to launch the fight against

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
inflation are the very victims of inflation. The reason the Government is victimizing those people further can only be put down as crass politics, sadism.
When we take a look at this Bill, and I would like to refer to some written notes now, we find that under the provisions of this Bill, the Government expects to save-and that is their terminology,-$155 million over the two-year period, that is, $25 million the first year and $130 million the second year. It proposes to do this by limiting indexation of Family Allowances to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984. Without the budget, Family Allowances would have been $358.44 for each child, which was $29.87 per month per child in 1983. However, under the provisions of this Bill, the amount will only be $342.24.
The Government contends that most families, in reality, will not lose any money because it is going to make up the difference by a one-shot increase in the refundable Child Tax Credit. However, Mr. Speaker, there are several problems with this logic. First, of the 3.6 million mothers who receive Family Allowances, about 2.5 million also receive the Child Tax Credit. This leaves 1.1 million families who will have their Family Allowances reduced with no compensation at all since they are not eligible for the Child Tax Credit. To qualify for the full credit of $343 per child, a family must have a taxable income of less than $26,330 per annum. For families above this income level, the total is reduced by five cents on every income dollar. For two-child families the credit disappears at the $40,000 level. For one-child families it disappears at $33,000. Even at this high income level, there are some women for whom the Family Allowance represents the only money they can call their own.
In conclusion, I would simply urge Hon. Members of the House to follow the advice of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women in their presentation to the Committee on Health Welfare and Social Affairs, that it behooves every Member of this House, Liberal as well as Tory and New Democrat, to vote against this measure when it comes up for a vote this evening and the final vote on Thursday.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in my speech today, I would, first of all, like to draw the attention of the House, as my colleague from Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has done, to the lack of participation by Quebec Members who, with the exception of the Parliamentary Secretary for the Department concerned, failed to take an active part in the debate today. Yesterday, I think they may have shied away because of closure. They like to impose closure over there. Meanwhile, we are considering a proposal to cap indexing of family allowances at 6 and 5 per cent. In money terms, this is peanuts. It is hardly a matter of principle. Mr. Speaker, if they were really serious about wanting to control Government expenditures . . . They have programs, and it seems that within
the administration of those programs, there is a limit on the number of public service employees allowed. This is a time of austerity measures, but take a look at the hundreds of people who are hired on contract. They are not permanent employees, but they are temporarily permanent. It is, in fact, a permanent situation. There is an entire sector of the population of the national capital that is employed in this way.
That is where the money is going. Here in the House, there are expenditures that could have been eliminated. Take the administration of the House. You are aware of this, Mr. Speaker, since you have been to meetings of the Committee on Management and Member Services. We have seen the level of bureaucracy that has invaded the House of Commons. It is a very expensive bureaucracy. That is why we are now providing for a larger number of Members in the House. That is going to cost us millions of dollars. In the amendments to the Standing Orders of the House, it is proposed to establish a secretariat for the Committees of the House. According to the present system, Mr. Speaker, this represents a minimum expenditure of $50,000 per committee, in other words, another million dollars, and that is only the beginning.
As my colleague from Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) said earlier, we must support the amendment of my colleague from Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), notwithstanding the comments made by the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who said that we are inconsistent and were playing politics with the issue. No other amendment except this one could be proposed. It is impossible. Of course, for people who really want to simplify things the Bill is already quite simple, since you can hardly amend a Bill that only has one section, unless you want to amend a paragraph by eliminating either the 6 or the 5 per cent after one year. If you try to eliminate them in two years, the amendment will not be acceptable, because it would be a double negative. It would amount to voting against the Bill.
Quite sincerely, one may well ask what the Members from Quebec are saying at home. They are supporting the capping of family allowances. In the past, I remember it was around 1972, after the election, when we were considering funds appropriated under Governor General's warrants-I am sorry, I do not know what it is in French-which were supposed to cover family allowance and unemployment insurance benefits, the Members from Quebec were rising all over the place to attack the Opposition for having the nerve to criticize the way the funds were used, because we would be cutting off payments that Quebecers were waiting to receive. Today, those same benefits are being cut, and not a word of protest did we hear after the Government introduced this negative policy. In 1969 and 1971, when they started to implement the indexing program, they did not have the guts to deal with the problem of inflation. They did nothing, apart from indexing. They added a cushion here and a cushion there. Now the cushion is getting too big, and they want to let out some of the feathers. But what are they going to do if they fail to control inflation within a year or eighteen months? What are we going to do?
February 8, 1983

Are we going to keep on cutting? Are we going to find something else? Why family allowances? They would not dare touch veterans' pensions but here they give with one hand and take away with the other-that is called revenue transfer.
Mr. Speaker, in Canada we have now reached the point that it is becoming increasingly difficult to do business. Members of the New Democratic Party are saying that people who are in business are going to be taxed to death. People who make money because they are clever and ambitious and energetic and dedicated-they are going to have to pay through the nose. That is what they can expect. People looking for handouts, the bums who come forward and say that they need this and that, not because they need it but because they want it. That is the social policy of the New Democratic Party, closely followed by a number of Members on the Government side who feel that if "bums" and the poor ask, they should receive. These Hon. Members should have attended the public hearings of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs when it received representations from the public on taxation. They would have heard what businessmen had to say. If business is not good, who is going to pay the wages? If we cannot sell our products abroad and make money, how is the farmer going to make a living? All of this is involved, but it is easier to say yes, 1 will give it to you, than to say yes, but earn it first.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are going to rise. I just want to add, that quite honestly, the sensible thing to do would be for the House to support my colleague's amendment.


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to take just a few minutes to shed some light on the comments the House has heard this afternoon.
Hon. Members were indignant that the Minister should impose closure on this debate. They were shouting and there were howls of rage, and now the Hon. Members opposite are accusing Members on this side of the House of not participating in the debate. We refrained from taking the floor to give Members opposite a chance to debate extensively, because they said they had a lot on their minds. Now they have been caught unawares. They have no more speakers to continue the debate. They are looking high and low, and they have the nerve to say that it is shocking we should not participate. I call that hypocrisy of the lowest order. They have been asking all kinds of questions, they have been indignant, they have been asking why the Government is imposing these restrictions on people with low incomes, and so it goes on. It is a matter of principle, and they know this. The Government has imposed the measure on all Canadians under our jurisdiction. Everything is fair and square, and they know this perfectly well. Now they are just trying to evade the issue.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
I was listening to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who said, in quite excellent French, that we were responding to people asking for handouts, the bums and the poor. Those were the expressions used by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West. I repeat: People asking for handouts and the bums and the poor, and he said quite clearly that we were listening to these people. When I heard those words spoken by the Member for Edmonton West, I thought: There you have the Progressive Conservative philosophy in a nutshell. That is exactly what the Progressive Conservative Party thinks of the poor and the needy. The Hon. Member also mentioned, and he certainly did not know what he was talking about, family allowances that would not be fully indexed, and once more he expressed his indignation. He ought to know that the basic exemption of $200 per child has been increased to $343, as a result of which people on very low incomes stand to benefit far more than if we had left indexing at its normal levels, without adjusting the basic exemption.
I merely wish to point out the inconsistencies uttered by the Members opposite, who all day long have been making all kinds of accusations aimed at Members on this side of the House, accusations without rhyme or reason, and then to realize that the same Hon. Members literally howled when we imposed closure, claiming that they had a lot of things to say. They have nothing left to say now, however, and they are actually surprised that, out of courtesy, we refrained from speaking to give them every opportunity to express their views. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) was saying earlier: I was not going to speak, but 1 have to. Since they have nothing left to say, some time or other they will have to stop playing games. Those were my comments, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for permitting me to say a few words before you have to rise to interrupt the proceedings. I feel very much as does my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath); I am a little disappointed, and it would have been on my conscience were I not able to say a few words in regard to this important issue. It never ceases to amaze me, Sir, how we can all stand up in this House to defend certain principles and yet be so far apart in the approach we advocate to achieve these principles and goals. There is probably no one in the House who does not have compassion for children, particularly for children of families who live on fixed and low incomes. There is also a general consensus and agreement that it would not be fair to apply assistance such as the Family Allowance system unfairly. The concept of universality is pretty well accepted and recognized and promoted by all Parties. But the only universality left in the system is the universality of fear and the lack of confidence the Government has created-the universal misery it has dispensed over the last few years.

February 8, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
There are some very serious consequences of the Minister's new measure to put limits on the indexation of old age pensions and Family Allowances. Low income families in the North find it very difficult to have their incomes reduced, even by S30 or $40 per month. Their resources are taxed to the limit already. The Hon. Member for St. John's East said that some children may have to go without shoes and without proper nutrition.
An even more serious impact of these measures is that people are losing their trust and confidence in this institution and in the Government. It is quite obvious that the Government has no intention of making a firm and unequivocal commitment to the contract we have entered into with Canadians. People are developing psychological barriers, saying, "If they can take that away from me now, what about my pension when I retire? Perhaps there is something in the fine print, and the Government will rearrange its priorities so that the pension will not be there for me when I need it." They are asking about unemployment insurance, saying, "I thought I would have it if I were ever laid off, but maybe the benefit can no longer be paid because the Government is running out of money. They have to pay Mr. Macdonald $300,000 a year to study the economy and perhaps buy some more service stations to ensure Canadian content in the energy sector of the economy. Perhaps there will be all kinds of different priorities." Certainly there is now doubt about the security and the legitimacy of the social contract we all thought we had arranged for people.
The damage done by the measures now before the House will probably never be corrected, Mr. Speaker. It is little wonder to me, and it should be little wonder to the Liberals, that people are becoming cynical about this institution and about the system we thought was fair and equitable for all Canadians, especially those in need. They become cynical about the political process and the promises and by politicians. They see that when it suits their political purpose, they default on those promises.
This is a very serious measure we are concerned with, Mr. Speaker. It places the whole process in question. We shall fight this measure with all the power we have-and it is precious little as you know. The Government has no qualms about closing off debate at any time in the House, saying, "We know what is best for Canada. We know what is right. You in the Opposition are just tolerated here." This institution no longer makes policy; it no longer has control of public spending, Mr. Speaker.
I should have liked to go into detail about how devastating this measure is for families on fixed incomes and families in the North where the cost of living is one and a half times or twice that of families in the more populated areas of the country. I should have liked to demonstrate what it means to people in the North who are paying a penalty for manning the frontier. Their children are deprived of the social amenities enjoyed in more organized areas of the country.
These are very serious matters and the consequences of them will be far-reaching. I would ask the Liberals, and my
friends in the New Democratic Party to come to their senses before it is too late.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, February 7, 1983, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of report stage of the Bill.
Accordingly, the question is on the motion of Mr. Hawkes. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will
please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is defeated. Motion (Mr. Hawkes) negatived.


Monique Bégin: that the Bill be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Family Allowances Act, 1973 Madam Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the Members. Can we dispense with the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the Ffouse?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Ogle
Orlikow
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines) Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)


Madam Speaker:: It being 6.20 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to the Standing Orders.
At 6.20 p.m., the House adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, February 9, 1983