1983-02-10

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be read the third time and do pass.
She said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-132, which is in front of us today for a third and final reading, contains only one provision, which is to limit to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984 the Family Allowances indexation. It is not a difficult amendment to explain in terms of the Family Allowances program, but I wish to emphasize that it should be viewed in the context of the complete six and five program.
The measures announced in the budget of June, 1982, which related to the six and five program, have only one specific purpose, which is to bring down inflation to 6 per cent and to 5 per cent. That is the objective of Bill C-132. I insist on that because many distortions have been nurtured during the debate of this Bill. This means, technically, that all Family Allowances which were at $26.91 per month in December last, except in Quebec and Alberta where they vary the federal rate, will be $28.52 in 1983. Next year, most probably, if inflation remains at 5 per cent or higher, it will be $29.95. So there is an increase in each of the years, but it is less of an increase than anticipated.
There is something very deeply dishonest in not acknowledging that this Bill caps Family Allowances, but the next Bill on the Order Paper, Bill C-139, a tax Bill, increases by $50 the Child Tax Credit on top of the full indexation, to be paid to mothers this spring. Those in need, therefore, and in this case I must say perhaps more than those really in need, namely two-thirds of all the mothers in Canada, those who get a partial or total Child Tax Credit, will receive an additional full $50 to make up for the loss in indexation of Family Allowances.
This I want to make very clear. It is not written in this Bill because to achieve that we have to change another Act, the Income Tax Act. That is why this Bill deals only with one Act, as per the custom. The next Bill, Bill C-139, gives the additional special $50 to cover the relative loss of indexation for the two coming years, 1983 and 1984.
Speaking of the Child Tax Credit, I believe Hon. Members, and surely all mothers, will be interested in certain information
I have just received from the National Anti-Poverty Organization, usually referred to as NAPO. NAPO is almost the only national organization still in existence which represents the lower income people of our society and, of course, many of them are women, particularly mothers. As some Hon. Members may recall, I asked the representatives of NAPO at our last meeting what the reaction of their members would be to the possibility of delivering the Child Tax Credit monthly, or four times a year, instead of annually as we do right now.
When the program was created, many professionals, especially in the field of social services, joined the ranks of many Members of the House of Commons in insisting on the Child Tax Credit, which at that time was $200 a year, being distributed on a monthly basis. Both I and the Government resisted that because it seemed to me that one of the characteristics of poverty is never being able to get out of it because of daily expenditures eroding any savings that can be made.
Once a year a big amount of money, originally $200 for one child, possibly $600 for three children, which now means close to $1,000 non-taxable, is exactly what a mother living in poverty can never reach. I was told, and one just has to read the speeches at the time in this House, that they would abuse that money. All sorts of innuendos or direct accusations, I must say, were made. They would drink it away, etc. They would waste it. But we know mothers and they have used that money for special needs in their budget. It could have been that some would say they will buy a bicycle for the child. Well, good, that is exactly what the purpose is. It is for the good, the well-being, of children in the family.
I thought, Mr. Speaker, since the Child Tax Credit is now a much bigger sum of money, almost double what it was, and since times are tougher economically, what would mothers in need now prefer? I apologize to Canadian mothers who are not at the lower end of the scale for not having asked them through a national survey, but I thought I should start with those most in need who I think are a priority amongst the priorities. I received information from NAPO, which they made public very recently, and it gives me the clear preference of families saying that they, of course, want to keep the Child Tax Credit but they want to keep it annually. They do not want, for different reasons explained to me, to see it distributed over several payments a year.
So 1 just want to inform Members that I will therefore not develop any plan for distributing the Child Tax Credit differently. At a later date we will see if any new need develops, but

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
for the time being I want to confirm to all mothers that the Child Tax Credit will remain an annual payment and not be distributed monthly or every three months.
I say that, and I have to link the Child Tax Credit to the Family Allowance because it is linked in fact although not legislatively speaking, because many Members opposite-I must say this to my great disappointment because I do not accept that type of politics; I think it is really dishonest-have used unbelievable expressions in English-the speeches were all in English-saying that we were taking away food from the mouths of children, taking away the bottle of milk from children, and so on and so forth.
I will not waste my time or the time of anyone around me by listing all the stupidities and literary abuses I have heard in this House on capping the Family Allowances, but 1 would like to say that no one is a fool and we do see the game being played. I hope the public also sees it. We are not doing any of that.
For the first month of the year mothers received more money but a little less than anticipated. They had a loss of about $1.40 a month on the Family Allowance cheque, my Parliamentary Secretary confirms to me, and that is true. They had an increase but a relative loss for the first month of the year. But then the special increase in the Child Tax Credit will offset all of that; they will have it in their hands before the other months of the six and five program. We are therefore not taking away a penny from two-thirds of all Canadian families with children. That means all people with the lowest income and many, many people with middle-class incomes as well. All young couples who have not yet reached a higher socioeconomic group will receive that benefit.
I have met Members of Parliament whose wives are receiving these Child Tax Credits because they have many children. I have met journalists in the same category. There are many people in this environment which I would not qualify as being in poverty. These people do receive at least a partial payment of the Child Tax Credit, because two-thirds of Canadian mothers do. If anyone should try to make the public believe, like the Conservatives in particular do, that food is taken away from the table, that is such an abuse and exaggeration that 1 suppose it speaks for itself. I could go on, but I do not believe it is necessary.
I want to explain, in this final stage of debate on Bill C-132, what we are attempting to do, which is to reduce inflation, not savings, as many Members have tried to say. It is easy to prove, and I have proved it in committee, because the sums saved are not that extraordinary. That was not the intention. The intention was to have a package of measures involving as many Canadians as possible to mobilize ourselves to fight inflation. It is succeeding. There is no reason not to keep our word and enforce the various pieces of legislation needed. No one can prove one way or another, as I said at the Senate committee, that this particular measure, even the complete set of Government measures regarding the six and five program,
have been the cause of bringing down inflation. Nobody can prove that because economic signs are so controversial and made up of so many schools of thought. But nobody can disprove it either.
One thing is sure. We did take action. It has mobilized Canadians, there is no doubt about that, as statistics on credit cards have proven. People have started changing their consumer patterns and paying back their debts instead of living above their means. We have all done that, but now something has changed. Where this Bill fits exactly is impossible to demonstrate but it is part of a package that seems to have worked.
One thing is important, and that is the only one that counts with many mothers. A basket of food now costs less than it did last year, because inflation is being brought down. That means that mothers, despite not receiving the full indexation, will be compensated because of the increase in the value of their dollars.
That is the objective that I pursued for the common good through the programs for which I am directly responsible. There was surely a full and frank discussion of these objectives. People have been aware of the exact figures involved for months.
I will finish by saying that the success of the six and five program is crucial to the well-being of Canadians, in this particular case mothers of families, and I think that is why that objective is so easy for me to defend, despite the appearance of being unpleasant.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I have several questions, which I will put one at a time. The first question to the Minister is that with this change in the law I believe revenue is being cut out for those children who are in institutional or public care. Does the Minister have any compensation plan to provide more money to those kinds of institutions?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, no. I said earlier, and that is why I did not repeat it this morning, that this Bill does not affect children receiving what is called a Special Allowance, which means children below the age of 18 who are maintained by Government institutions. None of them will be affected. They will receive the full increase in the cost of living.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, why did the Minister allow Family Allowance cheques to go out with the indexing already reduced to 6 per cent when the Bill had not been passed and there was no parliamentary sanction for the action? Does she not agree that this was unethical and insulting to mothers and children as well as being illegal? Also I would like to know why this was done just for this Bill and not for the other six and five Bills as well.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, it was surely not unethical, nor was it illegal. I explained that as well, and I am sorry if I did not repeat it today. In cases like this-and this happens all the time for programs which are translated into direct cheques for people-we take the legal advice of the Department of Justice.
February 10, 1983

According to the nature of existing legislation, the answer given by Justice is one way or another. Because 1 am not a lawyer 1 cannot give the exact details which were already given in committee, but because of the drafting of existing legislation concerning seniors, we could not apply the capping before Parliament had changed the exact amount of what would have to be paid. The way the Family Allowance legislation is written, the clear advice of Justice was different and indicated that the payment could be made properly right at the start.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister in her presentation this morning indicated that in relation to the six and five program as it applies to Family Allowance under the provision of Bill C-132 it cannot be supported on the grounds that the Bill has lowered the inflation rate in Canada. She indicated very clearly that she could not prove that the effect of this provision was to decrease inflation. She added, of course, that neither could it be proved that it did not add to inflation.
Is there not an onus or obligation upon her and her Government that presented this measure to the House of Commons and applied this measure to the children of Canada to stand here and say that it does reduce inflation and that is why they are putting it forward? That was the claim of the budget which announced in advance the six and five program. That was the claim of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) that this would reduce inflation. Now the Minister stands in the House of Commons and says that she does not know whether it does or not. Is that justification for this measure which is taking money out of the pockets of Canadian families, over three million Canadian families and six million Canadian children? Now she says that she does not know whether or not it is doing any good.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the Member is playing unintelligent partisan politics. He very often does that. I do not know why he does that. He has interpreted instead of listening to what I said. I come from research; that is the training I received. I am unable to play the sort of mean game he would like me to play, and I will not. I will just repeat. What I have said is that economists will not be able to demonstrate the direct link. I believe there was one. That is why I subscribed to and supported entirely the six and five program. I could explain it in greater detail to him, but surely he is intelligent enough to grasp that.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that whenever someone disagrees with the Minister they are partisan, but she is always objective and never partisan! The Minister tried to imply that the ill-effects of the capping of the indexation will be dealt with and that there will not be very serious ill-effects because of the extra $50 that will be given in the form of the Child Tax Credit.
Is it not true that the $50 extra Child Tax Credit is a one-shot affair? The capping of the indexation at six and Five for the next two years will mean that if and when-and I say "if'
Family Allowances Act, 1973
because if the Government can change the rules once it can again-full indexation begins two years from now, the base from which the indexing of Family Allowance benefits will start then will be substantially lower than it would have been without capping. Beginning from that lower base, the amount paid in Family Allowances every month for the entire period the mother is entitled to receive the Family Allowance for her children over the period of 16 or 18 years will be very much less than it would have been if there had been no indexation, despite the $50 Child Tax Credit.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, concerning the $50 first, that sum will be given in one sum through this spring's income tax returns. But it does amount to the total needed, probably a little more, over the two years 1983 and 1984, to cover the loss in indexation. In other words, mothers will have it beforehand in the family budget. That is the reason. It is fiscally distributed over two years as an expense. It is split over two years as an expense, I think, but that is an accounting procedure and does not affect the mothers' cheques.
As for the second more basic question, the fact stated by the Hon. Member is correct. We said that, but not in the dimension he expresses. If indexation compared to real inflation is reduced, the base will be reduced slightly. The Hon. Member said "enormously" and he gives the subsequent 18 or 20 years as a reference, but he is forgetting something. He and his party always use seven-month-old figures instead of the more recent figures reflecting inflation.


An Hon. Member:: Why don't you publish the new figures, then?


Monique Bégin: When we introduced that measure seven months ago, we thought inflation would be around 11 per cent. Therefore, mothers receiving only 6 per cent indexation would lose about 5 per cent. But they are not losing more than 1.2 per cent, or something in that vicinity, because in that seven months inflation came down a great deal.
A few minutes ago I was a witness at a Senate committee hearing regarding seniors, so I have the figure of anticipated inflation which should apply to this Bill as well. I think it was for the fall of 1984. The figure was below 5 per cent. In fact, the figure I quoted was 4.8 per cent. Therefore, there is no need to say that mothers will lose a penny. They will receive full indexation next year. That has to be verified monthly according to the variations in inflation. Right now inflation is coming down. Therefore, a loss in the base exists, but it is very slight because inflation has already declined. There is a loss in the base but a very small one. Next year it is possible not one penny will be lost.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to ask the Minister a couple more questions but I guess there is no value in asking short questions because we move on to longer ones and then we do not have a second round. We can all learn from that.

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
The Minister described the Opposition in such words as "dishonourable" and "unbelievable". I suggest to Canadians watching today that by the time the debate is over they can judge for themselves who is trying to be dishonest and who is trying to be unbelievable.
When you cut through this legislation and the history of the Liberal Party in the last six years, Mr. Speaker, you come to an inescapable conclusion. The economic support provided by the Government of Canada to families through the tax system, the Child Tax Credit, the income tax deduction and the Family Allowance, has been shifted away from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).
As I stand here today contemplating the fact that the Liberal Party will pass this legislation later this day and that they have already acted as though it were passed-whether it is legal or illegal we will probably never discover-I know with a sense of certainty that about 60 per cent of the support for families will be coming from the Minister of Finance. The legislation which affects that will be examined by the economic committee of this House, and those Members who serve on the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs will only be examining 40 per cent of that support. That has been the trend line over the last six years.
If you go back far enough in history, it was the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the standing committee which determined the level of support for families with children. I feel very uncomfortable, and every Member of this House should feel the same way, that we are passing over control in a legislative sense to the Minister of Finance rather than to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I might suggest that different people serve on those committees and they have different interests. We are continuing to set a very dangerous precedent.
We tend to treat this as an isolated piece of legislation, something that is happening in January and February of 1983. I remind Members of this House and the Minister of National Health and Welfare that, under her stewardship and the stewardship of the Cabinet, in the year 1976 indexing of Family Allowances was suspended by the Liberal Government. The base of the Family Allowance was eroded in 1976 by a majority vote of Liberal Members in this House.
I remind the Members of this House that in 1978 the Family Allowance had grown to $28 per child. In 1978 the Liberal Government pushed through a Bill to reduce the Family Allowance to $20. They transferred that $8 to the control of the Minister of Finance. They took it out of the hands of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Standing Committee.
I stood in this House in late 1982, four years after that 25 per cent reduction in Family Allowances in 1978, and I stand in this House today recognizing that we are being encouraged by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to erode the Family Allowance even further by passing this legislation. I
suggest to the Members of this House that they might be well advised to consider the future. Do we really want a Minister of Finance determining family social policy in this country? Do we really want that Committee of this House to determine what family policy should be? I say with all the sincerity I can muster that I do not want that and my Party does not want that. We do not think that is in the best interests of the Canadian people.
After this Bill passed second reading stage in this House, we received it in Committee in December. The Liberal majority on that Committee made it patently obvious that they would use their majority to ram the Bill through Committee in a very short period of time.
We debate this Bill for one day in this House because it is under closure. The Liberal majority has silenced the Members of this House of Commons. They have denied us our opportunity to exercise freedom of speech in this Chamber through the use of closure on this Bill and the two pension Bills. What is not apparent to the Canadian public is that the Liberals did the same thing in Committee. They used their majority to push this Bill through Committee and back to this Chamber in a hurry.
What happens when you push a piece of legislation through Committee in a hurry is that you are restricted in the number of people you can hear as witnesses. Members of Parliament are denied the right to examine public views on whether it is a positive or negative piece of legislation. On each of these Bills which cut pensions to senior citizens of this country and support for families, the Liberal Government has used closure to cut off debate in the House of Commons and has used its majority in Committee to deny Canadians the opportunity to be heard.
That is an abomination of the democratic principle. It speaks to the continued attempts of this Government over three years to ram a Constitution down our throats without adequate public examination, to ram through an omnibus piece of energy legislation on which we had to ring the bells for two weeks, simply for democracy and simply to be heard. They tried to ram through two MacEachen budgets which were disastrous for this country. We see it time and again.
We have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and a Cabinet which do not believe that the voters of this country have sent to this Chamber people who care, people who work for others and should be listened to. Government Members pay absolutely no attention to a contrary view unless you hit them over the head with a two-by-four. You have to hit them again and again or they do not even consider the logic of your argument or the argument of the Canadian public.
In those brief days when the Bill was before the Committee, we did hear from some witnesses. I wish to remind Hon. Members of the categories of those witnesses and the comments they made regarding this legislation. We heard from the National Action Committee, a group in Ottawa which represents women all across the country. Their message was clear: "Don't pass this piece of legislation".
February 10, 1983

We heard also from labour union groups. The message was the same. The labour unions called these three Bills perverse, perverse in the sense that they would accomplish the opposite of what was needed in this country at this time.
On this piece of legislation we heard from a group from Ottawa who have joined together in a poverty group. They came as witnesses before Government and Members of Parliament on behalf of Canadians who live below the poverty line. Their message was very clear: "Don't pass this piece of legislation".
It is wise for Members to be reminded, and those who were not in Committee may not have heard about it, that the poverty group told us that they had put in place in the City of Ottawa a transportation system, cars and buses, to take those on low income, those below the poverty line, to known grocery stores in the City of Otawa in order that they can get groceries for their children at the lowest possible price. They stated that if they put that transportation system in place the day before the Family Allowance cheque arrived, they would not have any customers. They very deliberately put that transportation system in place for the day after the Family Allowance cheques arrive. That is the point at which single mothers and low-income earners have cash in their hands and can go to a grocery store and buy the kind of nutritions food which their children need to have an equal chance of growing up healthy, of being able to have the energy to participate in school activities, to study and to succeed.
For the Minister to stand in the Flouse and say: "I am the defender of children, and it is my decision and that of the Liberal Party of Canada to take some money out of those monthly cheques", which are used to buy food, and to lump it into a sum which occurs one time only, an extra $50 one-time only, not paid every year for the next 50 years, and then to say: "We have done nothing to hurt the poverty-stricken people in this country", is pure, unadulterated nonsense. When one is discussing a reduction of $1.40 a month, for a mother with two children it amounts to $2.80 a month, and that is a big start on providing transportation or a bus pass. That amount buys a lot of macaroni and cheese or provides three or four litres of milk a month. If a mother has four children, it means the loss of $5.60, which will buy even more. Throughout the lifetime of those children, whatever age they are today, until they reach the age of 18 this piece of legislation will affect their parents' income and ability to buy milk, bread and other food.
This is the third time in six years that the Government has done this. It did it in 1976, in 1978 and now in 1983. We have a policy shift which is significant, important and not well understood. We get nothing but bafflegab from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She is taking family policies, support for children, and she is saying: "I do not want to have very much to do with them as Minister of National Health and Welfare; I prefer the Finance Minister to be the champion of children in this country".
Family Allowances Act, 1973
In my time in this House I have watched Liberal cabinets form and reform, and I have yet to see a Minister of Finance that I would want in charge of family policy in this country. I have yet to see an economic committee that I would want to see in charge of family policy. The proper place for it is in the portfolio of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and in Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare. We are abrogating our responsibility to Canadian children and families if we lend our vote and our voices to the transfer of that responsibility from the Department of National Health and Welfare to the Department of Finance. All one must do is review Canadian history and the record of Ministers of Finance in this country. Ministers of Finance do a very important job and have a very important responsibility, but they will not have the time to give the attention to the development of family policy that it deserves.
We have one day left in which to debate this legislation. This very day is the last opportunity for Members of the Liberal Party who have a social conscience, who believe in social justice, to stand in this Chamber and tell their Cabinet that it is on the wrong path and that, in a time of economic difficulty, one does not attack people who live at or near the poverty line. We have done this twice in the last two weeks. Liberal Members have stood in this House and made life more difficult for the pensioners of Canada. Last Thursday evening, one week ago, Liberal Members stood in this House and said that all senior citizens who make $750 a month or more will have their incomes cut. On Monday of this week, they wanted to pay one man, Donald Macdonald, $800 a day, yet they want to cut income from every pensioner who makes $750 a month. That is a perversion of what this place and this country is all about.
Before I resume my seat, I will move a motion, a procedural motion, which, simply stated, proposes that this piece of legislation be considered six months from now rather than today. It is called a six month hoist and effectively makes a public statement without causing a Government to collapse or causing a general election. It is simply a means whereby people of conscience in this Chamber can stand up and send the message to the Cabinet that they do not applaud this piece of legislation, that they do not agree with the direction it has taken. I encourage Members of the Liberal Party to stand up and support that motion.
What I would prefer is that Members of the Liberal Party stand up during the vote at third reading stage and turn the Bill down, saying: "We will not stand for it; we will not tolerate it". I would prefer to put the issue to the Canadian public. I stood in this Chamber last Thursday and said that every taxpayer I know would contribute 15 cents a month to the federal treasury simply to stop the Government from cutting money from pensioners, and I believe it. I have yet to encounter a taxpayer who would not be willing to pay 15 cents a month if he or she knew that the Government would not cut money from the cheques of pensioners.
I say to Hon. Members opposite that Canadian taxpayers believe in children and in helping those in poverty. They should

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
understand the Minister's own testimony in Committee. The Minister came to Committee and told us that we have now slipped into a system, which she has largely created, where one receives maximum support for one's child if one's gross income is approximately $40,000 a year. If one's gross income is $40,000 a year, all of the pieces of legislation in place will give support of about $800 per child. If one's gross income is $12,000, it will be closer to $700 per child. We have a system which peaks at a gross income of $40,000. I think the taxpayers of this country would prefer that those people with incomes of $12,000 received more for their children than those with incomes of $40,000.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: This Party believes in that kind of a system, and it is incredible that so many Members of the Liberal Party do not. It is incredible that so many Hon. Members will stand in this Chamber later this day and vote for a piece of legislation, followed by the next one, Bill C-139, which would guarantee that those with gross incomes of $40,000 would receive the most from the tax and benefits system for their children, not those with incomes of $10,000, $12,000 or $16,000. That most clearly exemplifies the fact that we have a Government which has gone absolutely berserk in terms of its social and spending priorities.
I would like to repeat my plea. I have an amendment to move, and the force of that amendment would simply be a signal to Cabinet that this Chamber and all the Members in it have had enough of this perversity. It is time to reconsider the social priorities and do what is just and right. It is time to bring that perversity to a halt.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be not now
read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day six months hence".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid, Kenora-Rainy River):: At
this time I should inform the House that there is a ten-minute period in which the Hon. Member, who has just taken his seat, can be questioned, but first I will read the motion.
There is an amendment to the order for third reading of Bill C-132 as follows: moved by Mr. Hawkes, seconded by Mr. Halliday:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be not now
read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence".


Mr. Schroder:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member would explain how you can have "this day" one year hence?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid, Kenora-Rainy River):: apologize, that is the Chair's fault. The motion reads "that it be read a third time this day six months hence". I might say to the Parliamentary Secretary that that is a standard motion taken directly from Beauchesne.
At this point we have the ten-minute question period. Are there any Hon. Members who wish to question the Hon. Member?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), since he has been the key spokesperson for the Conservative Party on this Bill, what the official policy is of the Conservative Party regarding universality as it applies to Family Allowances. We are very confused about this because when the Tory Government was in power, the Minister of National Health and Welfare at that time refused to give any commitment at all to universal Family Allowances. I understand that there was a poll taken of Conservative Members and 62 per cent of the Hon. Members wanted to dismantle universal Family Allowances and reduce Family Allowances. I would like to hear now officially on behalf of the Conservative Party what its position is on universal Family Allowances. Are they for them or against them?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation is an attack on the principle of universality and we are voting against it. Every speech we have made is in accordance with that principle. I guess the translation of the truth which has come out of the New Democratic Party's propaganda machine, and did so about three and a half years ago when the then Minister of National Health and Welfare was the Hon. David Crombie, is a piece of propaganda which has lived on with a sense of truth in the NDP.
I believe it is wise to review the fact that in Committee in the month of December, the current Minister of National Health and Welfare gave us a sense of the contribution to family and child care in this country which comes from the tax deduction, the Family Allowances and the Child Tax Credit. That particular presentation made it crystal clear that the support system peaks at $40,000 a year.
I would remind the NDP that a study was put in place by the Conservative Minister of National Health and Welfare, and what the Minister did was to ask the officials in the Department to conduct a study of the economic support for children, all parts of the system, so that we would have a data base which a committee of Parliament could look at and make recommendations to the Minister.
The principles involved in that approach are, first, the gathering of facts; second, a belief that Parliamentarians can deal with the facts, that they will do it with sensitivity, and they will make recommendations to a Minister instead of having a Government where the Minister says-


Mr. Manly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could the rule of relevance apply in asking the Hon. Member to answer the Hon. Member's question, which was: What is the official policy of the Tory Party with regard to universality?
February 10, 1983


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have made several speeches on this Bill here and in Committee where in I pointed out that of the three parts of the system, the only one which delivers the maximum amount to the poorer segment of society is the Family Allowances part. Therefore, it is the best part of the system. I also point out, Mr. Speaker, that Parliamentarians need to have the facts, to have an open inquiry, and we, as Members of Parliament, should be proposing legislation to the Ministers instead of the other way around, especially in the areas of social policy. That is a much more fundamental democratic principle which, if I have anything to say about it, the next Government will follow, and any Clark Government will follow.


Mr. Ogle:: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to direct a question to the former speaker, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). I must say I did not understand his answer to that particular question because it did not seem to be an answer. Nevertheless, I would like to ask about another area because I know he is a serious person and he is seriously thinking of policy.
He criticized the Government for its lack of family policy, and I realize there is not a great deal of time to make a statement to that effect, but I would ask the Hon. Member as a person now, if he were the Minister, taking the situation as it exists in Canada today with such stress on families, the breakdown of traditional family units, the large number of separated families, single parents, a whole new situation, would he make a few remarks about what he would consider to be a good family policy today?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What a topic, Mr. Speaker! You have to start with an understanding of this nation, its diversity, its large geographic size, and you need to be sensitive to the fact that policies have to be flexible. When you consider northern parts of Provinces, or the Yukon versus a large city like Toronto, you must have systems which are culturally concordant with the lifestyle, geography, and economic situation in which people find themselves in this country.
I believe it behooves a Government at the federal level to be supportive of local communities, local groups, provincial Governments, and so on, in the development of social policies with the view to strengthening family life, single-parent families or the more traditional two-parent family. Federal Governments can provide some moral leadership, support and co-ordinating function, but you do not start by one person in a Cabinet saying: "This is the way it should be for everyone", trying to lay that kind of "trip" on the nation, whether it is in health care or family policy.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, this is my last opportunity as the New Democratic Party critic on social policy to speak against Bill C-132. I intend, therefore, to summarize the position of the NDP regarding this retrogressive legislation, and refer again to the reasons we so strongly object to the six and five capping on the indexing of Family Allowances. I hope as well to present some positive alternatives which we of the NDP believe would benefit
Family Allowances Act, 1973
families and children and which we hope the Government, and indeed all Parties, would consider.
I must also, of course, reiterate our criticism of the Government for introducing such a punitive Bill. This Bill further victimizes families and children who are already suffering a great deal from high unemployment, from the inflated cost of living and, of course, from increasing chronic poverty, a fact which was pointed out just yesterday in this House with reference to the recent studies of the Canadian Council on Social Development. We believe that Bill C-132 erodes the basic principle of universality, the universal social programs which we believe in very strongly, and I will speak to that shortly.
I must for a moment, however, point out once again, following up on the inability of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) to answer my question about the Tory position on universality, the hypocrisy of the leaderless Tories, who really have no clear economic or social policy to offer Canadians. We had a very good example of that recorded in Hansard just a few minutes ago when I asked the Hon. Member for Calgary West about the Conservative position on universality at it applies to Family Allowances. He could not answer, and Hansard will substantiate that.
The Conservative Party supported the Government restraint Bill by voting in favour of Bill C-124, so they are in favour of the whole concept of six and five restaint. We know that very clearly. As I mentioned, they also voted 60 per cent in a survey to dismantle universal Family Allowances. However, we know it is not particularly popular with voters to mention these intentions of the Conservatives in public; therefore, the Conservatives are joining us in public to vote against Bill C-132 as it applies to Family Allowance capping. They do not do this as a matter of principle, Mr. Speaker, but really because they know it would be unpopular to take any other stand.
We have opposed the total six and five restraint program of the Liberal Government because it is unjust, illogical and punitive. The Minister said in her remarks this morning that Bill C-132 should be viewed in the context of the total six and five program. That is certainly the context in which we will be discussing this Bill, and I think it is illogical for the Conservative Party to do otherwise.
The Government, supported by the Conservatives as I just said, introduced and passed Bill C-124 last Spring imposing six and five wage restraint on Public Service workers as an exemple to all workers in the country. In doing so they took away collective bargaining rights from those same workers. Then they brought in Bill C-133 to reduce indexing on pensions of retired civil servants who had paid into their pension plan themselves and who had every right to expect they would be fully protected against inflation when they retired. Not satisfied with this, the Liberals also brought in Bill C-131, passed last week over the strong opposition of those on this side of the House. That Bill reduced indexing on old age pensions, thus penalizing elderly people in Canada who must pay the full

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
and real cost of food and shelter. They are struggling very hard to survive on fixed incomes which are at a very marginal level for the majority of senior citizens. I have spoken before at length about the particular impact of that Bill on elderly women in Canada.
Having imposed its will on workers and pensioners, particularly older women, the Government finally had to attack the most vulnerable group in Canada, women and children. Bill C-132, forced through this House by closure, is an outright attack on Canada's children and another slap in the face for Canadian women. It is no wonder that child abuse and wife battering are on the increase in Canada, Mr. Speaker, with this kind of Government example.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Government abuse.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Government abuse, as my colleague says. The Liberals could not even wait until they had forced this legislation through the House; they went ahead and capped the indexing on Family Allowances for the month of January. This was not only immoral, it was illegal and I think the Minister was really quite disappointing this morning when she tried to justify that. I think this indicates the lack of respect the Liberals, and the Minister in particular, have for women and children as well as for the laws of this land.
We have documented in many speeches why we oppose Bill C-132. Family Allowances, fully indexed, are a basic right of Canadians, developed and accepted from coast to coast many years ago to help with the cost of raising Canada's children. This allowance is the means by which the state, society as a whole and childless taxpayers in Canada, contribute to future generations and recognize the important function of parenting.
The Family Allowance is a monthly payment paid directly to the mother, and perhaps it should also be extended to fathers where they are the primary parenting person. It is the only cheque that many women receive in their own name. We believe this allowance should be increased, not decreased, in order to help meet the increasing costs of child care.
We believe the Government restraint rationale is fallacious. Reducing indexing to 6 per cent will not affect inflation. The Minister, referring to the Government restraint program in Committee, called it "a sword, a psychological weapon", not a financial weapon which was going to put money into job creation in any appreciable amount or have much impact, if any, on inflation generally. We agree it is a sword and the facts show that it will net very little financial return to the Government.
There is no real financial reason why this action was taken by the Government. It unfairly penalizes every family in this country with children under 19 years of age. As my colleague the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) pointed out very clearly in questioning the Minister, it imposes a permanent reduction in the basic amount of the Family Allowance Program which will affect lower income families as well, even though there will be a temporary, one-year increased bonus for the Child Tax Credit if another Bill goes through.
Families need a fully-indexed Family Allowance cheque. We heard this over and over again in Committee from the groups which appeared there, particularly low-income families and groups representing low-income people. We know that many if not most families rely during tough times on that Family Allowance cheque to cover basic family expenses at the end of the month. I have said before, Mr. Speaker, that many families on welfare or unemployment insurance use this cheque to buy groceries, indeed to go out and buy food because the cupboard is empty as the end of the month draws near. Even for higher income families there is a value inasmuch as the cheque goes to the mother, recognizing the important role she has in parenting. In those cases also, although the husband may be wealthy and have a higher income, there is no guarantee, as we have heard from women's groups, that the woman in the house has money or income in her own name.
Every single organization, and there were quite a number of them, to appear before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs opposed Bill C-132 because they thought it was a regressive Bill. We heard from the Canadian Council on Social Development a very fine analysis of social programs generally, and I would hope that we would be getting at some of the broader social issues which they raised and the need for a general review and reform of all programs which affect families.
The National Council on Social Welfare, again a very sound group which does excellent research on the impact of legislation on low-income groups, also presented briefs opposing this measure, as did the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, representing hundreds of women's groups across Canada. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women also opposed it. Low-income groups that appeared, particularly some from Ottawa, opposed it very strongly and told us in very emotional terms how much the Family Allowance cheque meant to them. We heard from Public Service labour groups as well.
Finally, we object strenuously to Bill C-132 because it denies and erodes the principle of universality in favour of a limited-so we are told-temporary gift of $50 on the Child Tax Credit. We have yet to see this.
We believe fully-indexed, universal social allowances like old age pensions and Family Allowances are the soundest method of providing social security in Canada. Universal Family Allowances eliminate the stigma and the cost of a means test. They recognize equally all children in Canada, and mothers, equally each month. The cost is retrieved partially through an income tax-back provision from higher income earners.
We believe there must be major tax reforms to make this system work more equitably and to the benefit of lower income families. On this subject, I would like to refer to an interesting proposal called "Family allowances: How to save and pay to all" in an article by Jonathan Kesselman, Professor of Economics at the University of British Columbia, which was
February 10, 1983

published in the December 11 issue of The Financial Post and is a very interesting article. This is directly related to the Bill C-132 debate and I hope that the Government will study this proposal seriously. He proposes more fundamental reforms in the tax transfer treatment of dependent children and points out that, and I quote:
A child in a middle-income family generates greater total benefits than a child in a low-income family-
This is a result of our regressive child tax exemption, the Child Tax Credit and the Family Allowances system, and he gives figures in support. He says that the net benefits rise again for upper income to high-income families, which is just the reverse of the way such a program should work.
A new scheme which he proposes would begin by abolishing both the Child Tax Exemption and the Child Tax Credit. It would raise Family Allowance payments by 145 per cent to a 1982 level of $65.93 monthly or $791 annually per child, and maintain the universal basis of the allowance.
The taxability of Family Allowance would be replaced by a tax-recovery device in the federal income tax to recover increasing portions of the Family Allowance at higher family incomes.
I do not want to take the time to read more from this article, Mr. Speaker, but I would refer Members to it and remind them also that we in this Party have called for a complete review of social programs, both tax exemptions and income support programs, as they apply to families.
1 made a statement in the House recently I, on behalf of my Party, in which I criticized the thoughtless and prejudiced statements of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women when she advocated doing away with spousal tax exemptions. At that time we proposed a complete review of programs affecting families, with emphasis particularly on increasing the Family Allowance as proposed in this article to which I have just referred.
We believe it is very unfortunate that Members in this House, particularly the speakers on this side of the House, have had to take so much time to oppose a Bill which should never have been introduced in the first place. We could have used this time much more profitable and enlisted the support of many groups across Canada much more profitably to debate a progressive and major tax reform that would benefit families and also to look at social programs and policies in a much more comprehensive way. We believe that there are ways that should be instituted now to use present expenditures much more effectively and equitably. We believe the time for reform is long overdue. We also must look at a new version of the whole question of income support programs and guaranteed income. There is an urgent need for a major review of social programs, and we join with Canadians in asking for this review. We will be pleased to participate fully in such a review.
As my colleague just mentioned, the nature and fabric of family structure in Canada is rapidly changing. There has been a great increase in single-parent families. I will just quote quickly the 1981 census figures which are very dramatic. The
Family Allowances Act, 1973
number of children under 15 years of age has decreased by 7 per cent while the number of persons over 65 years of age has increased by 17.9 per cent. The number of divorced persons has increased by 65 per cent, which affects half a million children. This means a tremendous increase in the number of single-parent families. We also know that there is a tremendous increase in the number of families with two working parents, and we have a new pattern of extended families developing in Canada. We must look at our policies and income support programs with these changes in mind.
Poverty is on the increase. It is increasing because of Bills such as the one that is before us today. It has increased because of Liberal economic policies which have deliberately increased unemployment. Increasing unemployment to control inflation is a Liberal policy with a very irrational goal. It has also increased because of the kind of restraint programs that have been brought in by the Liberal government in all of its six and five Bills.
We know also, from a study of demographic projections, that our total population in Canada is changing markedly and will change more in the next ten or twenty years, with a marked increase in the aged population and a decrease in the child population. We are rapidly reaching a position where we will almost have a zero birth rate in Canada. It is very important that we do everything possible to strengthen families, to protect them against the ravages of inflation, to provide services and financial support for parents so that they can choose the best way, for them, to raise their children, and to give equal opportunity of employment at decent wages, with universal child care. It is very important that we give the children of Canada the very best possible start in life that we can.
Bill C-132, which takes away full indexing on Family Allowance cheques, denies these goals. It undermines an absolutely essential universal family support program which Canadians have established as a right which they expect to be fully maintained by their elected Government. The Liberal Government, through Bill C-132, has betrayed this trust.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, one of the points that I have mentioned in several speeches is the fact that the NDP stood in the House in December, 1979 and defeated a budget that was judged the fairest to poor people in this country in the decade of the seventies. I would like to know whether they did that without understanding that it was a budget which was very supportive of families, or whether in fact they are saying one thing and acting in a different fashion.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that this is relevant to Bill C-132, but I would be very glad to give a number of reasons why we opposed the Conservative budget. We did it on principle because there were a number of items in it that were very much contrary to things that we believe in, including doing away with PetroCan. If my memory serves me right, this was a proposal at that time which even the Conservative Party changed their mind on.

Family Allowances Act. 1973
As I mentioned earlier, there has been no clear statement from the Conservative Party as to what their social policy, if any, is. The Member asking the question said that a little earlier.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Tell him that the people of Canada voted them out.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: As my colleague says, of course it was the people of Canada who voted the Conservative Government out, not the New Democratic Party. They could have even avoided having an election if they had been a little smarter in a number of areas.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, earlier today we talked about propaganda machines. The Petro-Canada policy was to encourage people to provide voluntarily more money to that Company so that it could drill more oil wells, create more jobs, and improve the economy. The Leader of the New Democratic Party misinterpreted the report, and I guess those Members believe his interpretation rather than the thrust of the report and the policy. In this current time of high unemployment, they might have been wise to look at the actual recommendations instead of following what their Leader said about them.
I ask the Hon. Member to explain how that budget was in violation of the principles we have discussed in the Chamber today. It contained many tax credit proposals of assistance to senior citizens and to families. It was designed to bring down inflation at the same time. It would have created jobs at the rate of 40,000 a month. Where is any of this a violation of NDP principle?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I would be pleased to answer that. I recall that the Conservative budget at that time was a restraint budget, just as Bill C-132 is a restraint Bill, except that it was restraint in all areas of the economy. I recall the statement "short-term pain for long-term gain" of the Minister of Finance at that time.
Actually I have already answered the Hon. Member's question. From my point of view as critic on social policy, the budget did nothing to ensure that universal social programs would be upheld as a matter of principle. Also it was part of the Conservatives' economic policy, if one could call it a policy, or part of the pragmatism at that time, just the same as it is with the Liberals today. They are trying to control inflation by increasing unemployment, and this Party will not go along with it.


Mr. Anguish:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question as well. I would like to know, yes or no, if it is true that it was not a coalition of Liberal and NDP Members that defeated the Conservative Government in 1979, whether or not there were Family Allowance provisions in their budget. Also I would like the Hon. Member to clarify whether or not the vote which defeated the Conservative Government was not necessarily viewed as a confidence vote; it was on a Liberal amendment and a New Democratic Party
February 10, 1983
amendment to the amendment. If I understand it correctly, that budget dealt with Family Allowances. When the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), the Hon. Leader of the Opposition now-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: He is not the Leader; use the past tense.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I am sorry. But was it not true that it was the indiscretion or the last-


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems that the ten-minute question period after a speech was set up in order to ask specific questions relating to the issue. The issue here is Family Allowances, but the Hon. Member is now getting involved in a political debate. I suggest that he is entirely out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will continue to recognize the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) and other Hon. Members who may wish to rise on points of order as well. The Chair is struck that perhaps it was not the intention of the reformed parliamentary procedures to encourage an Hon. Member to ask another in his own Party questions which do not appear to have a great deal of relevance either to the Bill before the House or perhaps to the Hon. Member's speech.
I warn Hon. Members that I am very hesitant, as I have said before, about setting down rulings, particularly on the issue of the ten-minute question and answer period. Because it is a new technique, I think it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that Members themselves feel out how they want to handle the ten-minute period. But I point out that I have some question in my mind as to whether we are going about it in the right way.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of Members outside the speaker's own Party wanting to ask questions, I think it is appropriate for a Member within that Party to ask questions. Also I might suggest that when we find a Member who belongs to the same Party as the speaker filibustering part of the ten minutes, the Chair might make an accommodation and not count the time spent so that there is adequate time for the rest of us to get to the heart of the question.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, my colleague was questioning the Hon. Member with regard to the former Conservative budget as it related to Family Allowances. He was doing the same thing as the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). The Hon. Member for Calgary West raised that matter. If it is not relevant when we ask the question, why is it relevant when a Member of the Conservative Party asks the same question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake on the same point of order?


Douglas Keith Anguish: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on a point of order. I would like to continue with my question, if I could. The only reason I asked the question in the form I did is that the Hon. Member from "Eric in Wonderland", Calgary North or whatever, made reference to Family Allowances and the
February 10, 1983

budget which the Conservative Party brought down in 1979. I was trying to point out that it was not because of Family Allowances and the coalition between the other Parties that they were defeated at that time. The Leader of that Party in 1979 went to the Governor General, after being defeated on an amendment to an amendment to the budget, and asked to go to the country, to call an election. I think it was incompetence on the part of the then Leader of the Conservative Party. His inexperience as a Leader shows now because of what happened to that Leader of the Opposition. I think the hindsight of the Conservatives will only get them into all kinds of trouble. I would like to ask the speaker whether or not this is in fact true.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) is rising on a point of order.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering when the Hon. Member would get to his question. He started making a speech. He has now ended up with a question and I suppose he is through, so I will sit down.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My understanding of the reformed rules is that after a speech has been made we could either put a question or make a comment, that in fact comments are not out of order and are quite legitimate in the ten-minute period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member's interpretation is correct.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: 1 was asked to answer the question very briefly. I certainly concur completely with the statement made, and my answer is yes-oui.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. She mentioned that there was no social legislation introduced by the former Conservative Government. Who introduced the continuation of the spousal allowance between the ages of 60 and 65 years when a pensioner passed away? Could the Hon. Member tell us who introduced that?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I would like to correct the assumption of the Hon. Member. I did not say that there was no social legislation introduced. I said that the Conservatives have never produced any long-range social policy goals and principles. Of course, the spousal allowance was introduced at the time the Conservative Government was in power. 1 think it was actually a result of many years of work and advocacy on the part of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as well as many sincere Members of the Conservative Party. I am sure the Hon. Member who raised the question would be one of those.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is rationalizing. Everything is wrong unless it is done by the Liberals or the NDP.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps I should recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) for
Family Allowances Act, 1973
reply and then I will recognize the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we will take full responsibility for our New Democratic Party policies, but we certainly dissociate ourselves completely from the Liberals who, as far as I can see, have no more policy, either economic or social, than do the Progressive Conservatives.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, when 1 listened to the question put by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), I was reminded of John Diefenbaker's comment that there are more people who talk their way out of the House of Commons than ever talk their way in.
May I ask the Hon. Member for Vancouver East why the New Democratic Party throughout these three pieces of legislation, two affecting pensions and this one affecting Family Allowances, has not used the rules of the House of Commons to move amendments to cause extra days of debate to occur? If the New Democratic Party wants to be the champion of senior citizens and families in this country, why has that Party not used the rules of the House of Commons to work with us to try and bring the Liberal Government to its senses?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we have not introduced amendments because we oppose this Bill in principle. By introducing amendments you are in effect giving approval in principle to the Bill. There is no way in all conscience that we could introduce amendments.
However, I might point out to the Hon. Member that we have had a disproportionate number of speakers in relation to the size of our caucus on all of these Bills. We have carried the debate and the Opposition day after day after day. Often we have more Members in the House than the Conservatives. Furthermore, the Hon. Member should look at the voting record of the Conservatives on the motions relating to this Bill. On closure, 47 Conservative Members were away and did not come to vote.


Mr.   de Jong@: Obviously they don't care.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Calgary West has a supplementary question and then I will recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think the record should show that on Tuesday of this week there were 18 Progressive Conservative Members, four NDP Members and three Liberal Members who spoke to the Bill. That is the Tuesday record, the most recent day of debate.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member in the New Democratic Party whether or not that Party thinks the children of the country will grow healthier if they eat principle or food.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I do not think that comment deserves a reply, Mr. Speaker.

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, commenting on this matter of Family Allowances and the six and five, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) wanted to know why we did not use the rules of this House to bring this matter to a halt. I must once again remind this House that the Tory Party has demonstrated its capacity in this House to stop legislation if it chooses. It did that with regard to legislation affecting the oil industry. I am still puzzled why the Conservative Party does not join us in fighting this Bill in a very vigorous way in order to stop the legislation, to ring the bells, so that families in this country can be protected. It is a puzzle, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is well known: it is to achieve restraint. That in itself is a very worthy objective and is worthy of our support. However, the objective is only worthy as long as it accomplishes its principle. In this case the program may prove to be both inequitable and counterproductive in assisting the most innocent victims of this recession, our children. The poorest of poor Canadians, those at the lower end of the economic spectrum, those who do not pay income tax, are also those who are in the greatest need and may, in fact, receive less than those in the middle and upper-income brackets. If there were no other reason than this one sense of inequity and injustice, this Bill should not pass.
Let me be graphic and state what this Bill will mean to Canadians. Once we have torn away the rhetoric and gone through the bureaucracy, the end result will mean that my oldest son, who is a young family man struggling to meet his family commitments, will receive less benefit for his son-my grandson-than I will receive for my son's younger brothers, my sons. I will benefit more from this legislation than will my son.
My son must compete in an economic market where 23 per cent of his age group are unemployed. Almost one in four of his age group are unemployed. I know how difficult it is for him to try to struggle to survive in this economy so as to pay his rent, make a payment on his car and provide basic food and clothing. Can you imagine what it is like for those who are receiving even less, those on unemployment and on welfare? What about the very poorest of the poor? We have the lower end of the spectrum, the working poor who earn $8,000 to $10,000 per year who are not receiving supplemental Government benefits. They are just on that line. Those people will receive less than I will or other Members' children or grandchildren will. That is not right. It is not right by any common-sense standard, by any standard of justice, equality or any principle for which this country and this House stand.
I have not heard this inequity refuted by any Member on the Government side. How can Government Members vote in support if they can neither dispute it nor find an amendment that will not allow the weakest of our nation, the most innocent victims, the children, to be adversely affected? They are the ones who will receive less than 1 will as a Member of Parliament and will receive less than others who are employed in the middle and upper-income areas.
This particular debate, while it focuses on one area, has three major financial elements in the current system to provide support for families and children. The one element is, of course, the Family Allowance itself. Second is the Child Tax Credit, and third is the income tax deduction or the child tax exemption. For a family with two children with a taxable income of about $26,300, those three elements provide approximately $800 a child per year.
The $800 figure is a particularly interesting one as we debate this Bill today. The family with two children will receive $800 for each child a year. That is what they will receive to support their children to give them extra benefits. That $800 a child is the $800 a day that is to be paid to Donald Madonald. Is that not astounding? This Government pays $800 a day to one of its own ex-ministers, yet that same $800 is the total for a whole year paid for a child in Canada. Think of a child of a person unemployed, a child of a person on welfare, a child of a person employed at the lower end of the economy but poorer than those on welfare. That amount of $800 a day to be paid to Mr. Macdonald has to stick in the throat of every Canadian. This is the injustice of the whole system. Donald Macdonald, a perpetrator of the recession, is to receive $800 a day while the victims, the most innocent victims of that recession which he had a part in perpetrating, will have their $800 a year reduced.
For a person to receive in taxable income $800 for each of two children, he would need a gross income of around $35,000 to $40,000. Surely in a just and humane society one would assume that the poorest people would receive at least a little over $800 per child rather than less. Under the current system, however, the poorer segment of Canadian society, those families who do not even earn enough to pay income tax, receive less than $700 per child. That will be the end result of this legislation.
We must judge this legislation by its numbers and not its words. How much money does this legislation put in the hands of families for the support of their children? I wish there was one Member who could stand up before this debate is finished and say that the poor receive less is not the case. I would like to hear that said, but it is not possible because the contrary is the fact.
Rather than imposing this kind of inequity and injustice on Canadian families, the Government should be rationalizing and revamping the whole concept of the Family Allowance. This Bill is just another example of the Government's tinkering with the Family Allowance concept. We need to look at the child in the nuclear family, we need to look at the nuclear family itself and develop programs that will support both. We must consider what the legislation that we debate in the House will in fact deliver to the people in our society. This rethinking or revamping of the Family Allowance concept is unlikely to occur because the Government is apparently bankrupt of new ideas and initiatives to give Canada the forward thrust that it
February 10, 1983

needs to carry us up and out of this recession and into economic recovery and security for Canadians.
New social programs that are introduced are almost always born out of sound principles of need, equity and social justice. In fact the Family Allowance was created with those sound principles in mind. We began tinkering and adding to that basic Family Allowance with the introduction of the Child Tax Credit. The more that program was added to and changed, the more bureaucracy became larger and the final cheque delivered to Canadians smaller.
The Government is adding to the distance between the taxpayer who is able to give through his Government, and individual Canadians who are in the most need. This measure makes the less strong the weakest. This legislation is a good example because we are talking about children, particularly children of the poor. The present system keeps growing in the middle but the taxes that are contributed do not reach those who are in need. We must reconsider this concept and find more efficient ways to administer the program.
As a result of passing this legislation, we are suggesting that there is no better way. However, better methods have been suggested to the House. My colleague for Calgary North (Mr. Wright) suggested the Kesselman concept and I was pleased to see the NDP pick up on that suggestion. I would like to elaborate on that concept. It is not a complete answer to the problem but an interim step which may accomplish two things. If we were to accept a six-month hoist on the Bill, the Committee could then study this concept and others like it.
The Kesselman concept claims that it would save the Government $500 million. According to the current proposal, the Government will pay an extra $95 million. Instead of paying $95 million, why not save $500 million? At the same time we could see Family Allowances rise by 145 per cent through a direct payment program. Does that not logically meet the objectives of restraint since $500 million-perhaps more-could be saved and a 145 per cent increase in individual Family Allowances could be realized?
My first reaction to this is to wonder if there really is that much in the middle. However, according to the actuarial tables which I have here, this would, in fact, be the net benefit or Mr. Kesselman's program. If this is the case, it should be examined. Let me repeat those simple and common-sense proposals. There can be $500 million saved by restraint and a 145 per cent increase in direct payments to individuals.
I would like to explain this further because time is running short for Liberal Members to realize that a six-month hoist would be in the interest of Canadian children. They should be our first concern. I would hope that a delay would allow us to examine not only this proposal but others that would go into much more detail. The fact that this concept was proposed and that others might be proposed is reason enough to allow a hoist. Perhaps consideration of these ideas might mean that this Bill would not need to be introduced again a year from now. I believe, therefore, that the Government should consider this amendment.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Let me present this idea in more detail. I am sure Mr. Kesselman would be pleased to appear before any committee to expand upon it further. For each child under the current system, the system displays a bizarre pattern in relation to family income. A child in a middle income family generates greater total benefit than a child in a low-income family. The net benefits rise again for movements from upper middle-income to high-income families. This pattern results from a combined effect of taxable Family Allowance receipts of $26.91 per month, or $323 per year, the child tax exemption of $670 per year and the Child tax Credit of $293 per year, minus 5 per cent of parents' combined net income over $26,330.
The scheme proposed by Mr. Kesselman would begin by abolishing both the child tax exemption and the Child Tax Credit. As I said, this is one suggestion. The Committee might look at other suggestions and may want to expand the concept of the Child Tax Credit or the child tax exemption. However, we cannot keep layering program upon program, bureaucracy upon bureaucracy and form upon form until the housewife has to become an accountant in order to fill out the forms she requires to get the basic, small amount of money that comes back when the process is completed.
This particular scheme does call for the Child Tax Credit and the child tax exemption to be deleted. This would raise Family Allowance payments by 145 per cent to a 1982 level of $65.93 monthly or $791 annually per child. It would also maintain the universal basis. The taxability of Family Allowance would be replaced by a tax recovery device in federal income tax to recover increasing portions of the Family Allowance at higher family incomes. In particular, this proposal would remove various deficiencies which would arise with the Child Tax Credit in imposing an income test before disbursing net benefits. It would eliminate the need for 1.5 million non-taxable mothers to file tax returns each year to claim their Child Tax Credit, and it would eliminate 350 person-years of work needed annually just to process the 1.5 million forms which must be filled in. It would do away with those forms. Would it not make sense to do away with 1.5 million forms? Think of the work hours spent by the mother, the father, the accountant, or whoever had to help, to fill in those forms, let alone the 350 people required just to process and circulate these forms.
The expanded Family Allowance would be paid automatically and would not require annual applications, and this would avoid the non-participation of some eligible families at lower incomes and in remote areas which arises under the Child Tax Credit.
The monthly payment of Family Allowances would also reduce the budgeting problems of the recipients from the once-annual payment of the Child Tax Credit. Monthly Family Allowance payments are more likely to be used for the child's regular maintenance than a lumpsum payment. We all know

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
the experience of trying to wait for income tax returns or adjustments. At first it is April, then May, then June, and finally some of them arrive in September or October. By the time they have arrived, they have been pre-spent, perhaps on some bulk item, whereas if they were to arrive with the Family Allowance on a month to month basis, they would be spent at the end of that month to provide that little extra bit of food or those extra items that are so often provided to children from the Family Allowance cheques.
The universal payment of Family Allowance and a tax recovery system would make the net benefits to each family instantaneously responsive to change in income position. The larger income tax form is automatically filled out anyway, and the adjustment would be made on an annual basis. Payments through the Child Tax Credit, in contrast, are slow to respond to changes in family income. For example, higher income families losing their employment earnings from January, 1982 onward will have to wait until about April, 1983, fully 15 months, to receive a Child Tax Credit based on reduced income.
Under the proposed scheme, the tax recovery of Family Allowance would be accomplished by withholding tax on earnings at source with final reconciliations made in the annual filing of tax returns. Rates of tax recovery would be based on parents' combined net incomes. From the inception of Family Allowance through 1946, a tax recovery was used to prevent duplication with child tax benefits at higher income.
The proposed scheme would increase gross Family Allowance payments to $5.4 billion from the current $2.2 billion. In addition to this $3.2 billion increase, the federal Government would lose about $400 milion from the removal of ordinary tax ability on Family Allowance. Offset against these costs, there would be a revenue gain-that is money coming to Government-of $900 million from abolishing the child tax exemption. There also would be a revenu of $1.2 billion from abolishing the Child Tax Credit and $2 billion from the Family Allowance tax recovery. That is assuming an average 37 per cent rate of tax recovery.
The net result would be a saving to taxpayers of $500 million, tax dollars which Canadians currently cannot afford to pay, tax dollars which would help to reduce the size of our bureaucracy, help reduce this middle bulge which prevents Canadians from receiving direct benefit from their tax dollar. Larger budgetary savings of up to $ 1 billion per year could be achieved if desired by smaller Family Allowance increases or higher tax recovery rates.
This $500 million, I am suggesting, is used to give that magic benefit of about $800 a year, and I think $800 a year is about where it should stick. The reason I think it should stick is that we should try and stick it with Donald Macdonald's $800 a year. I like that tie-his $800 a day and the Child Tax Credit of $800 a year. That is a good relationship and would be a good symbol for this kind of Bill or course of action.
The Provinces, in fact, would gain about $180 million from joint abolition of the Child Tax Credit and the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. Perhaps he may wish to seek the unanimous consent of the House to continue, since his allotted time has expired. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to complete his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I will end my remarks, out of respect for Hon. Members giving me unanimous consent, by saying that what I have been presenting today is a positive proposal. I am not really harping or carping at the Government. What I am trying to say is that there are other answers, and these answers have been brought forward by the Conservative Party. They have now been picked up by the New Democratic Party, and apparently meet with its approval, as another idea. If we can just carry this positive idea to the other side, maybe we will have something positive happening for Canadian children and families. That is the tone and intent of what I want to do here today.
As I mentioned, I want to give credit to the system of collecting information which comes through to this House of Commons. As Members of Parliament, we read, we hear, and we gather information from the news media. The article I have in my hand comes from The Financial Post, and I give The Financial Post credit for seeking out Mr. Kesselman and bringing this proposal forward, and I am glad that Members of Parliament have brought it forward here. Now that we have made the connection, will in fact the message be heard?
This particular concept is not the total answer to the question of the protection of the economic security of children. Other more equitable adjustments to the Child Tax Credit or child tax exemption could also be examined. That would be a major objective of this amendment. The Bill being presented on the floor of the House has brought forth irreconcilable inequity and has also brought forth the plight of thousands of Canadian families. We have heard each Hon. Member from across the House standing and saying that they are seeing in their offices families which cannot cope with the recession; they are seeing abuse of children resulting from economic insecurity. These children are the victims. These victims, the most innocent victims of the recession, must be protected in this period above all. They must be protected and supported. It is a different matter for those who are older and stronger, but we have the highest obligation to the child who cannot understand. Let the Government not do this to those children, the poorest of the poor.
The Bill, through our amendment, will allow an opening and a new committee structure to examine the reality of not only children as innocent victims of Government-induced recession, but also the growth and development of children's individual potential as our most precious resource.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in asking the Hon. Member a question. According to my figures, the Bill now before the House would result in a decline in Family Allowance payments of about $1.50 a month per child. The
February 10, 1983

Hon. Member has put forth a proposal which would result in an expenditure saving to Government of about $500 million in any one year.
With the kind of response that the Government has received from the Opposition with regard to a proposal which would reduce expenditure level by $1.50 a month per child, could he explain the kind of reaction he would expect that the Government would receive from the Opposition if we put forth a proposal which would reduce the level of expenditures on behalf of children in Canada by $500 million a year?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The Hon. Member must realize that the figure of $1.50 which he has used is a very nice figure because, in order to reach that figure, an average is taken across the board. The inequity which I wanted the Hon. Member to address is that there could be as much as a difference of $100 a year between the middle-income person earning $35,000 to $40,000 and the person earning an income in the $12,000 to $20,000 block.
Instead, would the Hon. Member answer my question in this case or, in the form of a comment, state that in fact this is not so? This inequity is in fact in the Bill. Can he assure me that he will bring an amendment forward to correct this inequity? Is he in fact doubting?
I am quoting figures from an economist. The Hon. Member is an economist himself. Is he questioning these figures? If he wants to question these figures, then he had better not have closure today. The Government had better refer this matter to a committee so that this man can be brought forward to present his facts and figures. It is common-sense logic that if you cut a big bureaucracy in the middle, there has to be a big saving. If you make direct payments, it is common-sense there would be a saving to the Government and you would increase the amount of money received by individuals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think the Chair should indicate that it is past one o'clock. I want to remind Hon. Members that the period for questions and answers is to continue immediately following the Question Period. By my calculations, there would be approximately eight minutes left in the time remaining as soon as we go to Orders of the Day following Question Period.
It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, as Vice-Chairman of the External Affairs and National Defence Sub-Committee on Latin America and the Carribean, I had the honour, last August, to lead a parliamentary delegation to South America.
During our stay in Uruguay we had the privilege to meet Father Luis Perez Aguirre who is Uruguayan Co-ordinator of the Nobel Prize winning Peace and Justice Service of Latin America. For nearly two years Uruguayan authorities have threatened Father Aguirre, calling him to regular investigation sessions and banning his organization's information bulletin. His support of the Mothers Committee for the Disappeared, and support for relatives of political prisoners, had resulted in strict surveillance and repressive action on the part of the police and the armed forces. In fact, the day before we met Father Perez Aguirre in Montivedeo last August, he had been informed that charges would be laid as a result of his human rights work. Conviction would have meant imprisonment and probably torture in La Libertad Prison.
Upon our return, we were resolved to bring the plight of Father Perez and his unjust treatment to the attention of Canadians. In particular, my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) took the lead in informing the Canadian public.
As a result of representations made to the Government of Uruguay, Madam Speaker, by many Canadians and Members of Parliament, I am pleased to state that today I have received information that all charges against Father Perez Aguirre have been dropped. This is a testimony to the action of many Canadians and their Members of Parliament who have expressed their abhorrence of human rights abuses in Uruguay. It is also an indication, I hope, Madam Speaker, that the Government of Uruguay is concerned that the past dark decade of repression has become an unconscionable blight on the otherwise enlightened and civilized history of the Uruguayan nation.



MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, the composition of "Big Mac's'' Royal Commission on the economy continues to be astounding. If Mr. Macdonald is intent on building up a "Team Canada", he should concentrate on filling positions other than left wing.

February 10, 1983
Recently two more Saskatchewan re-treads, Messer and Shoyama, responded to a call to further NDP policy at yet another level. This war is too important to rely on generals from the left wing, and hiring halls for re-treaded socialists. Heaven knows there is an abundance of expertise out there waiting to be tapped, men and women with sound marketplace experience in agriculture and industry.
The rates of pay for the Chairman and the Commissioners are far too generous in the light of the Government's six and five program. The Government's generosity has placed a favoured few well above the poverty line. The per diem rates are distasteful, disgraceful, and obscene. My disgust is best expressed in the words of the Bard of Dromore:
Big Mac, Big Mac, Canadians have had their fill,
You've got your arm too far into the till!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I share the concern of Dr. C. B. Mueller, a professor of surgery at McMaster University, and other physicians who have contacted me, that the measures currently contained in the "Canada Health Discussion Paper" would place the physician in the role of an employee of the state, that is, a civil servant, thereby distorting to a degree the traditional doctor-patient relationship. This relationship is a very special convenant. In the framework of an employer and employee contact, the patient is the employer and the physician the employee. In this single specific relationship the physician has no other obligation than to care for his patient. When the physician is employed by an agency, or by the Government, this special relationship between patient and physician is blurred.
If the employer is either the federal or a provincial Government, the physician will be unable to carry out his responsibilities to the patient and the patient alone, without considering other influences or directions laid down by the Government of the day. In such situations, despite his or her best intentions to the contrary, the doctor would experience difficulties with the time-honoured precept that the physician's first concern should be the good of the patient.
In my opinion the right to "opt out" of Ontario's model medicare creates an essential freedom for the medical profession and must be retained. In this way the doctor's primary responsibility to the patient rather than to the state will not be breached. I do not advocate "opting out", but I believe that it does provide a safety mechanism through which physicians-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges).



HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, home owners who insulated their homes with urea formaldehyde foam all across Canada have applied for and received assessment reductions averaging 20 per cent to 25 per cent to reflect the adverse effect of urea formaldehyde foam insulation on the market value of their properties. In small communities, particularly, this has had the effect of reducing the tax base to the extent of about two mills or more, because their main and sometimes only source of revenue is realty taxes.
Since it was in fact CMHC which approved UFFI for home insulation in the first place, as a safe and non-hazardous product, it is only fair to state that the federal Government should be assuming some responsibility for financial assistance to those municipalies. As well, the Government should issue a statement setting out the Government's long-term policies with respect to urea formaldehyde so that municipalities may have some idea of the long-term effect of these value reductions on their tax base.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) has been made aware of this important problem, and it is my hope that he will discuss this with his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), and that a favourable solution will be reached and reflected in the next budget.



EXPORTATION OF LIGHT CRUDE OIL

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, in 1972 the then Minister of Energy, Joe Green, said that Canada had 932 years of natural gas and 390 years of crude oil supplies. Less than six months after that statement, Canada began importing large quantities of crude oil, something which continues to this day. The oil industry, and certain political groups, have cruelly misled Canadians to believe that energy exports, particularly of light crude oil, are in our nation's interest. The Liberal Government of today, Madam Speaker, claims that additional light crude exports of 40,000 or more barrels per day are all right by it. This, added to the export of 200,000 barrels per day of heavy crude, makes a sham of the proposed "energy self-sufficiency" by 1990.
Canadian consumers paid out $3.16 billion in 1980-81 under the Oil Import Compensation Program, which is nothing more than a tax on consumers, drives up Canada's adverse balance of payments, and pours additional millions into the coffers of the multinational oil barons.
The Public Accounts Committee of this House, and the Auditor General, raised this matter last year, and the "ironclad" Minister of Energy promised to take actions to improve the domestic market for domestic crude and thus lower the level of imports. As a result of inaction, western oil has been
February 10, 1983

shut in and the producers have found the new Minister an easy mark to sell out Canadian consumers for quick oil company profits.
Surely, Madam Speaker, the solution is to expand the capacity of the Trans-Canada Pipeline so that Canadian crude can access eastern markets. This would create jobs in steel and construction, improve sales of western producers, increase taxes for Canada and western Provinces, and reduce our balance of payments.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I am rising because over the past several months, like many Members opposite and on this side of the House, I have received calls from small business persons, small entrepreneurs, who have been facing difficulties with their banks and financial institutions when their loans have been called. The world economy is facing a shutdown, and one of the results in our country has been difficulties with high interest rates which have been experienced by all Canadians. The Government has taken measures to protect the people hit hardest, home owners, small businesses, and farmers. We have adopted the six and five program, the essence of which is that all Canadians have a responsibility to share and bring about our economic recovery.
Our financial institutions have a critical role to play in that recovery, Madam Speaker, and we would hope that, at a time when the banks may consider themselves over-extended, be it internationally or with large domestic loans, they will not forget their responsibilities to the small people of Canada, the home owners, the small businesses, and the farmers. We all have an obligation to work our way through this recession together.



TRUST COMPANIES


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada knew that Greymac Mortage Corporation and Seaway Mortgage Corporation were operating in contravention of the provisions of the Loan Companies Act and Trust Companies Act in March, 1982. Yet the Government of Canada deliberately allowed those corporations to continue to suck money out of an unsuspecting public, and to continue to operate in an unsound and improvident fashion until they were finally closed down by the actions of the Government of Ontario. The Government of Canada has powers under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to remove deposit insurance from member corporations.
Greymac and Seaway were member corporations, yet they continued to have all the favours of this Government.
This Government stands indicted, Madam Speaker, for the loss of millions and millions of dollars by persons, municipalities, and boards of education, which were led to believe these companies were sound. This Government has an obligation, having taken the clear position that Greymac and Seaway should be allowed to continue to operate, to compensate all those who were led down the garden path by the Government's refusal to act responsibly.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take the opportunity today to focus on a problem within the Province of New Brunswick respecting broadcasting. I want to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) that, after these many years, as Madam Speaker will appreciate, Canadians in New Brunswick, certainly northern New Brunswick, feel it is time that the CBC allocate the funds necessary to install production capacity in New Brunswick for English CBC broadcasting, which does not exist today.
I would implore the CRTC, the Department of Communications and the CBC, to look seriously at allocating the permits and approvals necessary for CBC to install these facilities in what has to be one of the last Provinces in the country to receive Canadian broadcasting television production capacity. At the same time I would like to encourage the CBC to get on with completing their radio broadcast facilities for English programs in that Province.



AGRICULTURE


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, in November of last year PFRA published a report entitled "Land Degradation and Soil Conservation Issues on the Canadian Prairies". I quote from page 18:
Almost four decades have passed since any form of concerted effort towards soil conservation has existed in Canada. Clearly a situation exists where an effective response to emerging soil degradation problems by both federal and provincial Governments must be considered essential.
The Government's downgrading of PFRA over the years, and its lack of interest in and minimum funding for agricultural research, must be condemned, as should be the Minister's recent cutback of 26 researchers in the West. As stated in the report, the responsibility for solving the problem is a joint one,
22704

February 10, 1983
provincial and federal. Unless there is co-operation and coordination between these levels of Government, there will never be an effective program of research and development in the area of land degradation and soil conservation.
1 believe it is essential that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) table the document in this House and refer it to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for consideration. At the same time it is essential that the Minister enter into discussions immediately with his counterparts on the Prairies to develop a program of co-operation which is so important if we are to have an efficient and effective program of research in this field.

The excise tax adds 63 cents to the field price of $1.72 for natural gas, plus the 14 cent Canadian ownership tax and the five cent PGRT. This is excessive taxation, is increasing the cost of food for everyone, and is therefore inflationary. Any tax which increases the cost of food and discourages farmers from producing is ill-conceived and wrong. I recommend that the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) remove this burdensome tax in the forthcoming budget.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, yesterday in Bonn, Germany, Ex-Chancellor Brandt, Ex-Prime Minister Heath, and Sir Shridath Ramphal, Commonwealth Secretary General, issued a statement on North-South relations which carries back to their commission's work of two years ago. In this statement they indicate that the recession they predicted in their report of two years ago is now slipping toward a world depression unless there are immediate steps taken to curtail it. They point out that U.S. Reaganomics is one of the major reasons for there not being an economic upturn around the world and why Third World countries have fallen into an even greater and more difficult situation than they were in before.
I would like to call the attention of this House of Commons, of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and of the Government and the people of Canada to the fact that the report of two years ago should be seriously looked at again, that the new recommendations made yesterday be looked at, and that we take the serious and important step of seeing that they are put into effect, otherwise the world could, as they indicate, fall into a depression.


SIZE OF FEDERAL DEFICIT
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and of the Minister of State for Finance, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am sure he is aware that this week's Government bond issue has been a total failure and that this is a clear signal that investors are expecting interest rates to rise again. Practically every pre-budget submission received by the Minister of Finance has stated that interest rates must come down in the near future or the economic recovery and increase in employment that we desperately need just will not happen.
Since the failure of this bond issue is directly related to the fear that Canadians have about the size of the Government deficit, which is out of control, will the Prime Minister respond to this concern by telling the House what order of magnitude the deficit is going to be in the year just ending, and next year?


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I am quite happy to correct the Hon. Member and tell him that today the Bank of Canada rate dropped 15 basis points. That has to be good news.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXCISE TAX
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the enactment of the excise tax of 63 cents per gigajoule, which is approximately one million BTUs, was ill-conceived and counterproductive. It reduced the sale of natural gas and products made from natural gas. Thus it did not produce the desired amount of revenue, and reduced the amount of income tax. It assisted greatly in the rapid rise of farm bankruptcies in the last two years. It is forcing and has forced farmers to limit the use of fertilizers and chemicals, and compelled producers to increase summer fallow. It has seriously increased the cost of producing food, thus adding to inflation.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The Hon. Member indicates that interest rates are going to be a key factor in economic recovery, and the Minister agrees. We have seen a continual drop in interest rates since last June. The Minister has indicated to all the business and labour people who have come to see him during his consultations that we will continue to put an emphasis on lower inflation and lower interest rates as key elements in our economic recovery.
As for the bond sale, I am happy to tell the Hon. Member that we expect that to continue in a normal fashion, and we expect the bonds to be sold today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, if that Member had been in touch with the bond market he would have been told that the reception for today's issue was the worst in history. That
February 10, 1983

means people are worried that interest rates are going to go up again. If that happens, as the Hon. Member for Willowdale just said a minute ago, the small-businessmen, farmers, fishermen, people who have to refinance their houses and are going to be hit with a knock-out punch before they have recovered from the high interest rates of the past two years.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE RESTRAINT PROGRAM
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I repeat, to the Prime Minister, since this is such a major problem, will the Government take cognizance of the size of the deficit and show some concern for the problems it has caused, by introducing a real program of restraint, one which will defer or cancel any unproductive spending which does not lead to the creation of jobs?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Madam Speaker, again I appreciate the question from the Hon. Member. Again I want to point out to him that we view the sale of bonds today as a normal sale and it will be completed today despite his rhetoric.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Then you do not know what you are talking about.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I would point out as well that market conditions over the past couple of weeks have been soft in both Canada and the U.S., and again he has chosen to distort market conditions for his own purposes.
As to his comments on the size of the deficit, I would like to assure him that this indeed is the emphasis that the Minister has been making in pre-budget consultations. We will be happy to take his ideas as part of those consultations and consider his comments as representations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I will direct my question to the Prime Minister since it is a matter of Government policy. Statistics Canada reports that in the Waterloo region in January 22,000 people were jobless out of a total work force of 152,000. This is a record 14.2 per cent, up from 10.8 per cent last month. This past week there has been more bad news.
Leigh Instruments has announced it will close its industrial products division in Waterloo on April 30, with a loss of over 400 jobs. Since this company has received Government grants in the past, and since attempts are under way to salvage this
Ora! Questions
company, will the Government take some initiative to try to keep the plant open while interested parties are trying to put a deal together.


An Hon. Member:: Is there no one to answer over there?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to take note of the question on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary.


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, I see that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is now about to enter the House. I wonder if I could ask the Minister to answer the question. In light of the unemployment situation which is serious in Waterloo region, which I have just outlined to the House, and in light of the announcement that Leigh Instruments will close with a loss of over 400 jobs in April, will the Government take some initiative to try to keep the plant open while interested parties are trying to put a deal together?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, first of all I want to apologize to the Hon. Member for not being here at 2.15 p.m.
I am not familiar with the specific details of the operation of Leigh Instruments, other than what I have read in the press, because we have not received any official information. As the Hon. Member knows, the Government of Canada did designate the Kitchener area for I LAP, which was one of the first seven or eight areas in Canada so designated, so that area has had some success already. I will take the Hon. Member's point and will look into that specific situation.


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for his reminder of ILAP, and the designation.


INDUSTRY AND LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, as the Minister will also know, yesterday B. F. Goodrich Co. Ltd. announced that it is seeking to sell its engineering products division in Kitchener, putting in jeopardy 545 people's jobs, 116 of whom will be laid off on March 11. As attempts are being made to find a buyer for the expendable Leigh and Goodrich divisions, continuing federal Government support is vital. My question to the Minister: in light of the ILAP designation at the moment, is the Minister prepared to indicate to Kitchener-Waterloo that the ILAP designation will be extended, as has been requested?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, even from his own colleagues in the area, there are a substantial number of

February 10, 1983
Oral Questions
requests from communities all across Canada, first of all, to be designated for 1LAP. I think Kitchener has had a jump on everyone else and some substantial benefits have accrued as a result of designation by the Government of Canada. His specific concern will be considered.


FINANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Member for Vancouver East was asking the Prime Minister questions concerning the fact that we now have more than 3.5 million Canadians who are living in a state of poverty. Neither he nor the Minister of National Health and Welfare expressed any undue concern about this reality. Indeed, it was suggested that the Government would have no new programs in the forseeable future to help the poor. My question to the Prime Minister is this: is he aware that we have a Bill before the House now at second reading stage that will in fact put a disproportionate tax increase on the poor, in comparison to the rich?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the assertion of the Hon. Member when he says that we are doing nothing to help the poor is obviously wrong. There are a whole series of measures particularly affecting the poor who are unemployed, which are in train now, and which are going to cost the Government and the people of Canada about $2 billion. So it is a slight exaggeration to say we are doing nothing.
As to the poverty line, the Hon. Member knows that that is a figure which is arbitrary in many ways. It is in dispute by the Council of Welfare which itself uses these statistics. The definition of poverty is not one on which there is any agreement, and I think it is a bit simple to just draw a line and say that everyone below that line is below the poverty line. That line is very much higher than it was several years ago. It is a moving line. It means that the people of Canada generally are getting richer. It means, since the average Canadian is getting richer, therefore the average poor person becomes poor at a higher level than he did ten years ago. So it is a conceptual notion which is debatable and which I would be happy to debate with the Members back there who are shaking their heads in ignorance.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to reveal his deep and abiding concern with the problems of the poor. One thing is certain. A Government that cared about the poor would not increase taxes on the poor at a higher rate than on the rich. That is clear.


EFFECT OF TAX LEGISLATION ON LOW INCOME FAMILIES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister in this context, since the Canadian Council on Social Development has said that a family of three living on $18,000 a year is living in poverty, does he think it is reasonable that we should be debating a Bill in this House which will increase taxes on this family living in poverty, by 23 per cent, but increase taxes on a similar family of three earning $100,000 a year by only 10.5 per cent, less than one half. If he does not think that is fair, will he at least have the decency to make a commitment to the House to amend the Bill so that this unfairness is removed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member is debating the Bill itself. There will be ample time to do that during the meetings of the House. If the NDP wants to move amendments, it can find out from the Member sitting next to the Leader how to move an amendment in this House, and what process is used to debate it.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it is obvious the Prime Minister just does not care. He looks after his rich friends, puts Pitfield in the Senate and puts Macdonald in a $900 a day job in a Commission, but does not do a thing about the poor of the country. That is the Prime Minister.
He has just talked nobly about an NDP amendment. I would like to ask him, and put him on the spot, if the New Democratic Party moves an amendment to remove this injustice which taxes the rich in terms of increases at half the rate it is going to impose on those at the poor level, will the Prime Minister for once act, instead of just talking about noble principles, and will he commit his Government to supporting that amendment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is saying, instead of talking will we act. If the Hon. Member would act and move his amendment, then we would know what he is talking about, maybe.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs I will direct my question to the Minister of Employment. Since there are over
200,000	status Indians unemployed, and because we have not been able to find where the Indian Economic Development fund is, that fund that was announced with the Western Development Fund of some $345 million, of which $45 million should have spent before this month is out, I wonder if the Minister could help the Minister of Indian Affairs find that
February 10, 1983

money. There is between 60 per cent and 80 per cent unemployed on most reserves. The situation is desperate. At the same time, could he assist the House by telling us how many native Indian people will be employed under the initiative that he is now signing with the Provinces?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to respond to the Member on that question, particularly to tell him and Members of the House that, just last Friday, the Minister of Indian Affairs and I worked out an agreement whereby some $21 million under the NEED program would be directly allocated to work on Indian reserves across Canada, particularly to help native people in the development, restoration and construction of housing on reserves. So we have been able to use the NEED programs as a way of providing major assistance to native people in those particular areas.
In addition to that, my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I were successfully able to negotiate and complete a Northlands Agreement with the Province of Manitoba for about $160 million, to provide major employment opportunities for native people. So we are trying to use a number of existing programs that the federal Government offers as a way of targeting directly at those particular needs.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister is aware that there is enough underdeveloped agricultural land in the Maritimes at least to double the output of livestock and poultry in that region. However, with the Minister's proposal to can the Crow, Maritime producers have been put under a tremendous handicap. The cost of feed grain in the Maritime region will now be crippling. Will the Minister address himself to the plight of farmers in the Maritime region and come up with a formula under the Feed Freight Assistance Program which will at least give them parity with their Prairie brothers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I have met with representatives of the Maritime Provinces in the last few days. We are very much aware of their concerns, but we think that a lot of them are unwarranted, for instance the increase in the price of grain. What really rules the price of grain is the Chicago market. The Chicago market will rule the price of corn and barley no matter where it is sold, in the world or in eastern Canada.
They will not be at the disadvantage which the Hon. Member is saying. If the agri-food strategy is developed like we say it should be developed, they will be in a position where they
Oral Questions
will be more competitive than ever. That land will be developed under the programs which we are developing. We intend to work in co-operation with them.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, the Minister will know that what controls the price of feed grain now in the Atlantic region, as across the nation, is the Minister's decisions which he alone will be taking.


DIVISION OF FUNDS BETWEEN QUEBEC AND NEW BRUNSWICK
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. His Department has earmarked $130 million to assist those regions which are not now self-sufficient to become self-sufficient in grain production. I think that is commendable. Will the Minister advise the farmers of New Brunswick what strange formula or strange new math he used in divvying up the particular $130 million which gave Quebec $90 million and the Province of New Brunswick a paltry $4 million?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member has read the agri-food strategy and what it says about developing all potential agricultural areas we have, and how they can be developed. Those which can be developed to the greatest economic advantage will be the ones developed first. We say that New Brunswick, for instance, has a tremendous potential. The Province has a role to play, but for years the Province of New Brunswick neglected agriculture in that Province, probably more than any other Province in Canada. That is not true at the present time. The Minister who is there at the present time seems to want to go ahead and develop agriculture in New Brunswick. We can do that together.
The programs which we have in that Province are commendable. They are good, they are working. The Hon. Member said "a paltry" sum. If one checks the productivity of New Brunswick as against Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Ontario, for example, which receives $16 million, one will see that Ontario has a grain surplus producing area. It will produce a million tonnes of surplus grain to be sold on world markets, et cetera, and that type of thing. I am sure the new program for productivity in New Brunswick will make it what the Hon. Member wants it to be and what we all want it to be-a much more productive area than it is at the present time.


EASTERN APPLE PRODUCERS-REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Will he tell the House what his Department has done with regard to requests for assistance to eastern Canadian apple producers whose orchards suffered severe, irreparable, and extensive frost damage in the winter of 1981, and subsequently?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has brought this to my attention, as have other Hon. Members, especially those from the

February 10, 1983
Oral Questions
Province of Quebec which has suffered the largest loss because of the severe winter of 1981. The damage had to be measured over a period of time because frost damage does not necessarily show up the first year. It can be in the second year and the third year. With regard to the Hon. Member's Province, there has been no representation by the Province saying, "Look, this is a disaster; it is too big for the Province to look after." The producers in Quebec have made that kind of representation. The Province of Quebec has made some representations but has not called it a disaster. The Province of Ontario has made some representations. We are looking at those three Provinces.
The producers of Quebec have made a claim for, I believe, $62 million to replace their losses. I think the damage in New Brunswick is about 7 per cent of over-all losses which have taken place between Ontario and Quebec. Quebec has the massive loss. We hope to have a report in the next few days or the next few weeks.


J. Robert Howie: I thank the Minister for his answer, whatever it was.


REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISION
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, the Minister has been in New Brunswick, in many of the areas which have been affected by severe frost. I am sure he knows about the difficult and severe situation in which farmers in Eastern Canada find themselves through no fault of their own. Would the Minister meet with his Cabinet colleagues and press for an early and favourable decision on the request made to him by eastern apple producers?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is no different from Hon. Members on this side who have the same problem in their constituencies. We are hoping to bring something forward which will be satisfactory, in the not too distant future.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since the new grain transportation policy was announced on February 1, there has been a great deal of discussion in the press and among various groups in Quebec about the fact that western producers will be receiving $3.7 billion, compared to $93 million in Quebec, and it was claimed that these figures were out of all proportion. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether he could inform the House how payments are going to be opporhoned under the new policy, especially to the railways, and perhaps give us a breakdown of the $3.7 billion?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: To be able to give you a breakdown, I will have to limit myself to the conclusion, which is that if we look at how the $3.7 billion the Federal Government is going to invest in this plan during the next four years is going to be distributed, we see that producers will be getting approximately $1 billion over four years, which is about 27 per cent of the total $3.7 billion. I may add that the western grain producer will be paying more for grain transportation, and in the final analysis, western producers are going to pay twice the amount they are paying now under the Crow Rate system, that is twice $150 million, and that is going to mean definite increase in payments by producers.


TIMING OF CHANGE IN CROWSNEST PASS FREIGHT RATE-EFFECT ON EXPORTS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who also represents the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board in the House. The Minister in charge of the Wheat Board was quoted as saying that our international competitors in the grain market have an advantage over Canadian producers due to high domestic subsidies in those countries, and that Canada will have to lower its asking prices in order for its grain to meet the competition. In light of these market realities could the Minister explain why the Government is choosing this particular time to kill the Crow, the one long-term program we have to keep our landlocked farmers competitive in world markets?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, as I said two days ago, the debate on subsidies being paid to grain producers around the world is a long-standing one. In our instance in this particular item, the payments are made for production and transportation. We think in international terms that they are comparable with and lower than what other countries of the world pay in similar areas. The debate, as I see it, is not really one of quality. It is one of quantity. From our point of view, others are doing more in terms of subsidizing their export program than we are.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Minister seems to have missed the point of the question. I was asking why they chose to reduce any semblance of subsidy in this country when it is fairly obvious that other countries are increasing their subsidies because of increasing competition and price cutting throughout the world.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE STUDIES
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam
Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could explain why he has been making statements indicating that both the East and West will benefit from the disruption to the agricultural community as a result of the rapid change in the Crow.
February 10, 1983

Will he table in the House the studies which must have been done to prove what he has been saying, so that we can look at the assumptions to see where the increased production will take place, how it will take place, where it could be sold and, more important, at what price?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member has the documentation. Loads of documentation have been made public. If he has read all of it, the Hon. Member should know which figures and so on that we are using. I do not know of any document that we have used that has not been made public, but I will check and find out if there are others that are available. If there are and if these are working documents that have not been made public they will be because I think that even a blind economist on a galloping horse could see that what we are saying is true.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question, if I can complete it without interruption, is for the Solicitor General. Is he considering reversing his incredibly inept decision to cancel the college and university course program in federal prisons?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I am not considering reversing that decision. But as I indicated at the time, I am encouraging the Correctional Service of Canada and others to come forward with far less expensive methods of providing post-secondary education for inmates.


Mr. Epp:: Private diplomas.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have in mind the types of programs that existed, about which the Hon. Member should know, before the present university contract program was introduced, and other ways.


OFFER OF OFFSETTING EXPENDITURE CUT
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, as one who had a little bit to do with the continuation of that program in the first place, may I present this challenge to the Minister? If we can show the Solicitor General where to save $712,000 annually elsewhere in his Department, will he then reinstitute this very worth-while program?
Oral Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I think it is the responsibility of the Opposition, and of all Members, to come up with ways in which the Government can perform its functions more efficiently.


Mr. Crosbie:: Resign.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would like very much to see the cuts which the Hon. Member would propose.

[ Translation]


MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Minister of National Health and Welfare admitted there would be nothing in the next budget to provide relief for
750,000	elderly Canadians who are living in poverty. Since the Government has already agreed to pay Mr. Robert and Mr. Macdonald between $800 and $900 per day for a study on the economy, could I perhaps ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister, considering the astonishment with which Canadians received the news about these stipends, whether it occurred to him to ask those great Canadians, Mr. Robert and Mr. Macdonald, to take a cut in salary in order to help us build up the country's economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, yesterday, I suggested the Member for Joliette ask the Members for Vancouver Centre and Saskatoon West what they were being paid as lawyers or what they were paid by the Clark Government when the Member for Vancouver Centre was working for that Government. Could he give us some figures and the number of hours per year, Madam Speaker?


Roch La Salle: Fifty dollars an hour!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: How many hours per year, Madam Speaker.


Roch La Salle: He did not work that long.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member forgot to ask and is quoting a figure at random. I am going to ask his permission to check this information. Regarding the statement made by the Minister yesterday, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member completely misunderstood. There is no way anyone can know what will be in the budget because the budget has not even been drafted. Neither the Minister nor myself know any of the details of the budget, and as the House is aware, it will be a while before the budget is brought down. Perhaps the Hon. Member should refrain from speaking in the House if he is going to misinterpret perfectly logical answers given by the Minister.

February 10, 1983
Oral Questions


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary. Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister to inform the House how much Michel Robert had received from the Government during the last three years. I hope the answer to that question will also be forthcoming from the Government side. In any case, since wage increases were considered to be an important factor in the inflationary spiral, could the Minister inform the House today how Canada's intrepid Liberals are going to convince Canadians that wage cuts are necessary to maintain inflation at a reasonable level? I would appreciate it if the Minister would tell me whether or not the credibility of these men will suffer as a result of the remuneration they are receiving from the Government at the present time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, since we are exchanging questions, the Hon. Member mentioned $50 an hour. For an eight-hour day that would be $400 per day. Mr. Macdonald is getting $350.


Roch La Salle: Nine hundred and twenty-five dollars, to be more exact.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member would care to listen to what I am saying and refrain from shouting as he did yesterday when I was trying to answer his questions. Fifty dollars an hour is $400 a day. I also asked him to find out from the Member from Saskatoon what he was charging in his law office. When he does, he will realize what lawyers are being paid. I mentioned Mr. Mulrooney yesterday. The Hon. Member can find out. He has a number of friends in the Progressive Conservative Party who are lawyers. He will see how their figures compare. As far as the fight against inflation is concerned, the Hon. Member knows full well, as I explained yesterday, that we have managed to bring inflation down from 12.5 per cent to around 8 or 9 at the present time. And it is still going down. I think that instead of criticizing for no reason at all, the Hon. Member should support the Government in its efforts to bring down inflation.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. For some time now his Department has been considering a proposal to allow Anglophone unemployment insurance recipients in Quebec to take French language training required for work purposes without losing their unemployment insurance benefits. As the Minister will appreciate, it is almost impossible to find work in Quebec without a knowledge of French, and consequently it is an essential work skill. Would the Minister say whether his Department has made a decision on this matter to allow unemployment recipients to take a language course where
necessary for work, without losing their unemployment insurance benefits?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the Hon. Members for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East and Laurier for having brought this very important question to my attention. I want to report to the Hon. Member that I am personally very sympathetic to the proposal that we adjust the regulations for unemployment insurance to allow language training where it is a job-related matter. What I intend to do, in fact, I have already started the process, is to refer the matter with a recommendation to the Commission to examine the implications and to make a decision within a matter of a week.


FISHERIES
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I was pleased to see that the Minister apologized to the Indian people in British Columbia for remarks made by his Department regarding the 129 Indian people who were arrested on fisheries charges after an entrapment process especially designed for Indian people. Will the Minister request the Minister of Justice to drop all charges based on entrapment so that the Minister of Fisheries can establish a proper working relationship with the Indian people, a relationship that will do justice to their historic rights in the fishing industry and will also protect our fisheries resource? Will the Minister see that these charges are dropped?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, when I met with the Indian people, they told me that an impression had been created leading people to believe they were the worst offenders under the Fisheries Act. That is not so and I have told them that. But let me state it publicly.
Over the last three years in British Columbia 80 per cent of the charges laid by my officers were against white people. If any impression was created that the Indians are the only ones committing offences, that is incorrect. For having involuntarily created any inaccurate impression, I apologize publicly.
As for the charges, it would be completely contrary to my duty to comment on something which is the sole responsibility of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice has told me to convey to the Indian people that if they have any grounds on which the charges can be dropped, that the Minister would study them. I have conveyed that message to the Indian people and it is up to them to put before the Minister of Justice any arguments, facts or elements for his consideration.
February 10, 1983


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Multiculturalism. The Hum and Chan Study on Chinese in Winnipeg indicates the problem of program take-up for Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement among minority groups. Has the Directorate of Multiculturalism undertaken, or will the Minister undertake studies on this problem, and has the Minister of National Health and Welfare conferred with him on the negative and discriminatory way in which her six and five bills disproportionately affect groups such as the Chinese, who, I might add, are celebrating 125 years in Canada this year and are celebrating the Chinese New Year as well this weekend?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, while celebrating, may I congratulate the Hon. Member on his recent marriage.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: May I also thank him for giving me notice of his question, although I just received it in the course of Question Period. Therefore, I am not familiar with the detail of the Hum and Chan study.
I have had a chance in the last few minutes to talk to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She has indicated to me that, indeed, in the case of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, there are some indications, if I am correct, of difficulties because of language barriers, particularly for some of our Canadians of particular ethnic origins, in becoming aware of the availability of the program and taking up the opportunity. I know that through our discussion and notice of the question that she has indicated to me she will be looking further to see what can be done about that situation. However, I do not see how that can relate to the six and five program.


Mr. Malone:: Madam Speaker, I trust that the Hon. Member for Dauphin will be sending a copy of today's Hansard to his fiancee.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Wrong again, Jim.


RAILWAYS
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It is based on the same question that I asked the Prime Minister a week ago. Bearing in mind that he has stated his intention of making changes with respect to the Crow rate, and knowing that the
Oral Questions
railways will be getting more funding from both the Government and the farmers, will there be an assured method of guaranteeing a record of performance by the railways and how will that performance be measured? Will there be a penalty attached such that the Government can ensure that the railways will meet the record of performance that is established in the new legislation that is to come forward?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I believe I can make three points on the subject. First, the railways, in return for interim payments, have committed themselves in public to a number of investments. This is public knowledge now, so anyone in Canada, particularly the press, will be in a position to judge the implementation of these investments.
Second, with respect to CN at least, CN has to present an annual budget and a Five-year plan to the Government so that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport and others will be in a position to determine if CN in particular is living up to the five-year plan that it has presented to the Government.
Third, in addition to all that we will have a system under which the co-ordinating agency will supervise and monitor the guarantees that the railways will be giving on a yearly basis as, for example, to how many tonnes they will transport to Thunder Bay, Vancouver, and so on.
There will be a trial period-this is possibly what my hon. friend is talking about-in which a system of punishment and rewards will be tested. After a trial period this will be implemented on a fully executive basis.


Arnold John Malone: Regarding the notion that the railways would make a commitment to themselves, the Minister should be reminded that Judas made commitments to himself.


MONITORING OF VOLUME DELIVERIES
Arnold John Malone: Is the Minister presuming that it is satisfactory to call for an increase in the cost to farmers without in fact having a specific target of delivery by volume within the legislation, and that this will be left to a Government five-year plan without farmer input into that plan, and left to a study of the railways without having penalties attached? To do otherwise is simply to tax the taxpayers and tax the farmers for the good of all Canadians for the movement of grain, but with no results for guarantee of delivery. Will the Minister at least take under advisement that there is a necessity to have a guaranteed commitment of volume delivery, otherwise the plan is doomed to failure?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the monitoring agency will have representatives of different groups in the grain industry. There representatives will be able to make their views very well known.
My hon. friend should compare the future regime to what exists now. What exists now is a fixed rate of one-half cent per

February 10, 1983
Oral Questions
tonne-mile. There is no obligation on the part of the railways now to deliver at that rate.


Mr. Benjamin:: There is so.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They cannot deliver at that rate. The most they are committed to is best effort.
The fixed rate is there. The fact that railways were not in a position to carry grain at that price is why the federal Government, for over a decade, has had to invest $1.1 billion in the purchase of hopper cars, rehabilitating branch lines and so on.
I am saying that the regime which we will establish will provide much better protection to the farmers than they have now. I will demonstrate that ad nauseam in due course.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT IN RIMOUSKI, P.Q.
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport who, this past week, has been on a Liberal travelling caravan in the Province of Quebec. 1 want to ask him whether or not he in fact stated what is reported in Le Soleil of February 8, 1983. Did he state the following to an audience in Rimouski:

1 quote:
Mr. Pepin made a slip when he called western protesters imbeciles.

I want to ask the Minister on behalf of my friends in western Canada, and in the Province of Quebec for that matter, if what the Minister has said is that people who are opposed to the Government's policies are imbeciles? Did the Minister, in fact, state that, and is this another policy of saying one thing in the Province of Quebec and another thing in Western Canada? Finally, I would ask him if he would come to western Canada and say that on a public stage?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have recently been to western Canada for a number of days now, and what I was referring to was the gross exaggeration on both sides, on the western side as well as the eastern side.
If I may refer to what was said in the House yesterday on that subject, there is absolutely nothing in the publicity issued in Quebec that we are embarrassed about. My hon. friend from Vegreville made a mistake yesterday. I will call it a mistake. He did not quote the whole sentence. I will quote it in French for translation. What we said yesterday was:

The new policy will not give a marked advantage to pork and beef producers in Western Canada to compete against those of the East on their traditional markets.

That is quite different from what the Member for Vegreville said yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DESCRIPTION OF OPPONENTS OF RATE CHANGE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, that is all very interesting. What I want to know is-and the Prime Minister smiles. He calls western Canadians uninformed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No. 1 am saying it is interesting.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Will the Minister confirm or deny that he referred to people in western Canada who are opposed to his policy on the Crowsnest Pass rate as imbeciles, and would he be prepared to come out to a place like Delisle, Saskatchewan, and stand on a platform with me and repeat that statement to western Canadians?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will repeat that those who have grossly exaggerated the effect of the policy, such as one farmer, for example, who said in the West that it would cost him $25,000 more in the first year because of this policy when in fact it will cost him $5,000 more in the fourth year, deserve the qualification- whichever one my hon. friend wants to take.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Madam Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, 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 Prince Edward Island, 1983.
Pursuant to Standing Order 46(4), this Report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the three hundred and eighty-ninth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) on Wednesday, February 9, 1983, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
February 10, 1983

Sports


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, it being Thursday, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he could give the House some idea as to the business for the rest of the week and as far into next week as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: Be nice this time.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, last week I had foreseen this appointment and I have congratulated my hon. colleague. I will not repeat myself this week except to say that I am sure that we will keep going along very well in the interests of Parliament and the people of this country.
Today we will be dealing with the third reading of Bill C-132, and tomorrow we will be debating the report of the striking committee. No House order is required, but we have agreement among the House Leaders that this debate will end no later than five o'clock tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, as far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, on Monday we shall resume debate on the second reading stage of Bill C-139, to amend the Income Tax Act, and since we have already spent ten hours on this debate, we hope to be able to complete second reading as soon as possible, so that the House can sit in Committee of the Whole to consider the details of this legislation, which arises from several previous budgets and ministerial statements on the financial situation.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) also intends to give notice of a Bill to authorize the Government to borrow additional funds until the end of the financial year and the beginning of the next one. This legislation is expected to be introduced next Monday, and if it is, I would like to inform the House that Tuesday morning at eleven o'clock we shall proceed with debate on second reading of this very urgent borrowing authority Bill.
Wednesday will be private members' day, as usual, and Thursday, if necessary, we shall continue debate on second reading of the borrowing authority Bill. I shall be giving notice in due time if there is to be an Opposition day next week, possibly on Friday, but that has not been decided yet. Madam Speaker, that was, substantially, the order of business of the House for the coming week.


RESULT OF PARLIAMENTARY HOCKEY GAME
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I am sure that the House would like to acknowledge the great achievement of the Opposition PC-NDP hockey team which last night defeated the Government side 4-2 in the Second Annual Winterlude Parliamentary Face-off.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming) on a point of order.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker-
[ Translation]


Mr. Cousineau:: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like to know-


Madam Speaker:: Order. As far as I know, I did not recognize the Hon. Member. I am sorry, but I recognized the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Fleming).


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I thought the Parliamentary Secretary rose on the same point of order, so I gave way.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau.


René Cousineau: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Opposition for the names of the Members who scored goals for their team last night.


Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, I would just like to rise on a point of personal privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the Hon. Member was answering the question. Perhaps the Speaker could get an official report tomorrow. 1 can find out, for Hon Members, who scored the points.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have just been told that none of the Members on the Opposition side scored; the security guards did-

February 10, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty


CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. LEWYCKY ON ENGAGEMENT
James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, in this battle for the floor, I rise on a point of order simply because I would not want to mislead the House, albeit inadvertently. I offered congratulations earlier concerning the marriage of the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky). I was a little in anticipation of the event. I want to change that instead to congratulations on his engagement. It was the light smile on his face recently and his pleasant comportment in the House which obviously misled me!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: What will it be when he gets married?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Laverne Lewycky: Yes, I accept that. The reason I was rising was because I was sure the Minister had inadvertently misled the House. The best is yet to come!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Order, I would like to table in both official languages an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States constituting an agreement between our two Governments on the use of Canadian facilities and airspace for the testing and evaluation of U.S. defence systems. The notes are being signed today in Washington by the Acting Secretary of State, Mr. Kenneth W. Dam, for the United States and by Ambassador Gotlieb for Canada.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order with regard to the tabling of documents. I waited to see whether the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would rise today to table an order under the Canada Grain Act which was an amendment to the Schedule
to the Act, SOR/82-620. Section 15(6) of the Canada Grain Act contains the following clause:
An order made under subsection (2) shall be laid before Parliament within 15 days from the making of the order or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
That particular instrument was published in the Canada Gazette in June of last year. Fifteen days expired on July 8. 1 recognize the fact that Your Honour has indicated in the past that you have no ability to tell the Government to obey the law, but I would point out that this was drawn to the attention of the Department and, consequently, the Minister's Department, by the Counsel of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, who wrote to the Department on September 20.
We received a response from the Department of Agriculture several months later, on December 29, in which the Assistant Deputy Minister acknowledged that the law had not been kept by the Government. It had not complied with the law by tabling that instrument in the House on the following grounds:
Due to an oversight on our part the referenced Order was not tabled.
We have now prepared the necessary documentation for Mr. Whelan's signature and we expect that the Order will be tabled when Parliament resumes sitting in mid-January 1983.
That Order has never been tabled in Parliament.
I certainly recognize that Your Honour has made a finding that you cannot force the Government to comply with the law, but there is nothing more fundamental to the role of Parliament than the whole question concerning the rule of law. In instances where the Government recognizes itself that it has not complied with the law, and where it chooses to simply ignore the law, surely Parliament's function is being undermined by the Government.
Parliament does not frivolously include in legislation the requirement that an order be tabled in Parliament. When the Government simply ignores the law, thumbs its nose at it and pretends it is of no consequence, I think there is serious damage done to respect for the rule of law in Canada. Second, it seriously undermines the ability of Parliament to discharge its functions. That is why I draw this matter to the attention of Your Honour and the House today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I am sure that the point of the Hon. Member has been taken by the House. As he rightfully said, the Speaker has no means of determining whether the law has been followed or not; nor is it the responsibility of the Speaker to interpret the law. The Speaker certainly has no authority or way to force anyone to follow the law.
The point of the Hon. Member is well taken by the House. I would urge him to take recourse other than that which he has now taken in order to satisfy his request.
February 10, 1983


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to revert to House business for a moment in order to ask a question of the Government House Leader.
In giving us an indication of the business that he anticipates, the Government House Leader has taken us as far as Thursday next. He indicated that he might be in a position at some future time to tell us about Opposition days. Fie will recall that a week ago I asked both him and the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether they would consider a statement on motions on the very topic which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has now tabled, the document related to the framework agreement.
Since there is no Opposition day in the immediate future and no apparent opportunity for a reasonable debate on the question of the framework agreement, is either the House Leader or the Secretary of State for External Affairs prepared to indicate whether a statement will be made on motions to allow for some discussion of this very important document?


Yvon Pinard: I have indicated that at the beginning of next week I might designate one day next week. That could well be Friday next, which will still be next week. The Opposition would have a good opportunity to raise this matter if they felt it was important to be raised. Meanwhile, I want to assure my colleague that he will have the opportunity to ask questions on the matter during Question Period every day next week. The Minister, his assistant, the acting Minister, or his Parliamentary Secretary will be here and will be very pleased to answer questions on the subject.
I want to assure my colleague that he will have ample opportunity to raise this matter. There are still four Opposition days before March 26, and between March 26 and June 30 an additional 13 Opposition days will be available. If they really care about this matter, they will use one of those days to debate this most important issue.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I am most grateful to the Minister for pointing out that we will have an opportunity to ask questions. We have that anyway. The difficulty is, as he will understand, that this is a document of vital importance, not only to Canada but to many other parts of the world. Up until this point in time, the document has not been available to Canadians for their scrutiny and, therefore, has not been debated in any form.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Government has put the whole system of statements on motions into disuse, is it not reasonable to ask, on a matter of such vital importance to the country, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs stand in his place and at least for ten minutes explain the content, the substance and direction that this agreement will take?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I was most sympathetic to the request of the Hon. Member until he stated that the Government has made misuse of Statements by Ministers. It is the Opposition that misused this period of time.


Ian Deans: I said disuse, not misuse.
Business of the House


Yvon Pinard: Disuse as well was caused by the Opposition. I feel they have ample opportunity to raise this matter. The documents were tabled today and are available. Parliament is aware of this. Starting tomorrow this question can be raised during Question Period. There are some 20 Opposition days between now and June 30.
If the NDP are really serious about this, they will see fit to use one of their Opposition days to raise this matter and not force the Government to limit debate all the time because they want to score political points and prevent Parliament from working, as they did with the last three Bills dealing with the six and five policy of the Government which have succeeded in bringing down inflation to 8 or 9 per cent.


Mr. McKinnon:: Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on the same point of order. I would point out to the House Leader of the Government that traditionally Canada has always put international commitments before the House of Commons for approval or advice. This went on in the regime of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. They all believed that Parliament had a role to play in the formulation of our foreign policy and that international commitments were to be ratified by the House of Commons. This practice has died out in the last 10, 12 or 14 years. This is a major commitment that we are making.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot see the point of order in the Hon. Member's intervention. I believe he is debating the substance. I know he would like to do that, but this is not the time. We are dealing with House business. If the Hon. Member has a question about that, he may ask it. However, he may not enter the debate now on this particular matter.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, this is a very difficult hour that you have caught us in. The Secretary of State for External Affairs now wishes to embarrass us on this. He has locked the barn door and now wants us to debate something that has been cast in stone by the very same Secretary of State for External Affairs. This has reduced Parliament to a nonentity. Why do we have a Parliament? I would ask the House Leader, why do we have a Parliament if we have nothing to say about international commitments that the Government enters into?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, that is exactly the question 1 was tempted to ask the Hon. Member in 1979 when he was Minister of National Defence. He made a very important decision on double-tracking in relation to NATO, but did he seize Parliament of that? I just wonder what he did at the time. He is in a very bad position to preach any example to be set.
The Hon. Member quoted previous Prime Ministers. In 1968 there were changes in the rules which allowed the Opposition the benefit of 25 days during the year. Therefore, they have full opportunity to debate any matter of their choice, including this very important subject. If they consider the

February 10, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
subject so important, they will make it possible for Parliament to be seized of the question. We certainly will not object. We will be glad to participate in the debate.


POINTS OF ORDER
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I tried to raise this matter during Question Period today, but time did not permit. My point of order will provide the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) with an opportunity to clarify or perhaps change his response to reflect more accurately the actual case. In his answer to my question of yesterday, as reported at page 22657 of Hansard for February 9, the Minister concluded answering my first question by saying:
For instance, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture unanimous endorsed Canagrex yesterday.
As we all know-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do not see any point of order in what the Hon. Member has said up until now. He seems to want to continue the debate on an answer which he received from the Minister. 1 remind him that that does not contribute a point of order.


John Wise: Madam Speaker, the fact is that it is an inaccurate statement. The CFA meeting yesterday did not-


Madam Speaker:: Order. That does not constitute a valid point of order. The Hon. Member may seek clarification or correction of a statement on another occasion, but not under the guise of a point of order.


MR. LEWIS-PROCEDURE RESPECTING STATEMENTS ON MOTIONS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of order with respect to the question whether statements on motions have been used or misused by the Government. I want to correct something for the record which was alluded to today by the Government House Leader, namely the question whether statements on motions were abused or misused.
I did not bring this to Your Honour's attention through a question of privilege, but on a previous occasion the House Leader alluded to the fact that questioning on statements on motions had gone on far too long. As 1 understand it, the length of time for questioning on a statement on motions is in Your Honour's jurisdiction. 1 want you to know from this side that the last time there was a statement on motions, we felt it was the appropriate thing for the Minister to do. That was 14 months ago.
It is our position that statements on motions should be used as the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) said, and
that you have sole control over the time of questioning. I want it to be very clear that we feel that is your jurisdiction and it should not be referred to by the Government House Leader as an abuse of the process.


Madam Speaker:: I will refer the Hon. Member to the discussion which took place a few weeks ago on that specific point. If he looks in Hansard, I believe he will find a statement made by myself exactly on the point which the Hon. Member has raised now. The time allocated to the different sides for statements and for questioning on motions is entirely in the hands of the Speaker. I then explained, I believe, the rule of thumb which was followed. I believe that question was dealt with completely at that time.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as you just indicated this was dealt with completely the last time, and you were right in so doing. You added that the Opposition could make it much easier for you to use the rule of thumb. Therefore, the Opposition has a role to play in all of this and it was not well played in the past.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, on the point raised by the Government House Leader, to begin with we cannot determine whether there will be any statements on motions. We have asked for them, we have begged for them. We have attempted to get from the Government the opportunity to debate this very important matter of the Cruise missile and the deployment of it in Canada for test purposes.
I want to ask the Hon. Member now, if we were to agree to have such a statement with a time limit today, expiring, let us say, in no more than one hour from now, would the Government House Leader be prepared to have the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) make a statement on motions dealing with the agreement just signed in Washington?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, after a brief consultation with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnnon), I will indicate that we would be pleased to associate ourselves with the comments of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party in the interest of having this matter discussed in Parliament.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, this matter was not raised yesterday at the House Leaders' meeting. I understand my hon. colleague could not attend, with good reasons, and he sent a replacement. But this matter was not raised.
I have just indicated that there will be other opportunities to raise the matter in Parliament. If the NDP had not forced the Government to limit debate on three Bills which required the first three weeks of the 1983 session, then perhaps it would be much easier for the Government to agree to such a request; but we have some urgent legislation to be dealt with which requires Government time. Under the new rules, the Government is
February 10, 1983

limited to three days a week, giving Wednesdays to Private Members and one day to the Opposition. Therefore, if the Opposition forces the Government to limit debate on any stage of a Bill in the future, it is most difficult to agree to give statements to the Opposition.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I also believe this is an extremely urgent and important matter, but I do not think an hour given to it is in any way going to exhaust discussion.
I would like to ask a question of the House Leader. There were some discussions earlier to the effect that this item might be the subject of a full debate, that is, a debate on general disarmament, that it might take one to three days, and that there might be some arrangement among the House Leaders that certain Opposition days, and perhaps a Government day, would be given up to this particular subject. I do not know of any subject which is more important. I would ask the House Leader whether negotiations to that effect have gone on, or are they going on, or would he broach the subject to the other House Leaders?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting suggestion which can be taken into consideration. The Hon. Member raised it privately with me previously. I hope that in the near future, if the Opposition is willing to consider facilitating passage of Government legislation, we would be in a position to negotiate such an arrangement, that the Opposition would give one or two of its days and the Government would be in a position to give a day.
But I would like to make it very clear that we have to deal with some other pressing and urgent legislation, and if the Opposition continues to force the Government to limit debate on each stage of each Bill, it is not possible to talk about giving Government time for the purpose of discussing any other matters than the Bills chosen by the Government to be dealt with. If the Opposition wants to co-operate, and I believe there is room for co-operation since the subject is most important, the Government is open-minded to giving up some of its time, provided the Opposition is also disposed to give some of its time. However, we will be in a better position to assess that one or two weeks down the road when we see what happens with the two finance Bills which will be before the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, on a point of order and to correct the record, obviously we cannot discuss here what went on in House Leaders' meetings, but there might have been an inference that the matter was not raised at the House Leaders' meeting. I would like to point out to the House that it has now been confirmed that it was raised by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) with the Government House Leader.
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,628, 4,396, 4,550, 4,627 and 4,635.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In preparing the budget papers, did the Government examine a sample of
150.000	income tax returns and, if so, is it the Government's view that a representative sample of those earning over $100,000 in income was 296 sample income tax returns?
2.	Is it the Government's view that 40 to 50 income tax returns in those earning over $200,000 is a representative return?
3.	Is it the Government's view that, in taking 150,000 returns, it really had a proper representative sample of those earning $100,000 and more and those earning $200,000 and more, in view of the vast differentials between people in the larger earning brackets?
4.	Of the people earning $200,000 or more, how many in the sample consistently over the past five years earned over $200,000 or was $200,000 or better a single or unusual return for those persons, enabling them to take advantage of general averaging and other methods of reducing an exceptionally large earning year?
5.	Over the past five years, how many persons consistently earned (a) at least $200,000 or more a year (b) over $100,000 a year?
6.	In compiling the statistic on persons earning over $100,000 a year, did the Government only use those persons who consistently earn over $100,000 a year or did it include those who on a one-shot basis earned $100,000 or better?
7.	Who developed the word "tax expenditure" in the Government service?
8.	Whose idea was it that income deferred or allowances made to individuals was, in fact, a tax expenditure?
9.	Who prepared the tax expenditure detail on which the budget was based?
10.	Is it the Government's view that a person who owns a single family house clear of mortgage is, in fact, receiving a benefit?
11.	Is it the Government's view that those who have children and a spouse and the spouse declares no taxable income are receiving a taxable benefit and therefore fall within the tax expenditure theory of the Government?
12.	Is it the Government's view that a capital income claimed to be a capital gain that is really only an inflationary gain is really income?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1. In
preparing the budget papers, reference was made to a data set based on detailed information transcribed from approximately
150.000	tax returns. These tax returns were selected using a stratified random sampling technique. One aspect of this type of sampling is that the rate of sampling increases with the level of income. The number of returns with incomes over $100,000 actually included in the sample was 14 per cent of all returns filed reporting incomes over $100,000. This may be compared to a 1 per cent sampling ratio over-all. For incomes greater than $100,000 the 14 per cent sample represent 3,800 returns. Thus, the sample of such returns is considered adequate.

February 10, 1983
Order Paper Questions
2.	The number of returns included in the sample for incomes over $200,000 is 1,250 for a sampling rate of 21 per cent. Again, this is considered adequate.
3.	Although the size distribution of tax returns by income is highly skewed, the stratified sampling technique used to select tax returns was specifically designed to anticipate this factor and to provide a reasonable degree of accuracy in the upper tail of the distribution.
4.	The available data do not allow an answer to this question because the sample is not a longitudinal sample.
5.	We do not have an exact answer to this question for the reasons given in answer 4. However, some indicators of variability of incomes over time are available. These show that a substantial majority of high income filers (those with incomes over $50,000) had average net incomes over the preceding four years that were close to or over their net income in 1979.
6.	The statistics published in the budget papers, where they refer to individuals' incomes, refer to incomes in the given year. They do not refer to average incomes over a period of years.
7.	The words "tax expenditure" can be traced back at least as far as 1969 when Professor Stanley Surrey of Harvard University explored the concept in his book "Pathways to Tax Reform". In Canada, the concept had been the subject of discussion in publications by the National Welfare Council and Professor Smith for the Canadian Tax Foundation before it was formally used by the Government of Canada in the publication of the Tax Expenditure Account in 1979 by the then Minister of Finance, Hon. John Crosbie.
8.	It is generally recognized that income deferral or special allowances constitute tax preferences in businesses and individual Canadians have requested assistance in this form to encourage specific activities. The Government of Canada Tax Expenditure Account published in December 1979 describes in detail the concept of tax expenditures.
9.	The detailed tax expenditure analysis underlying the November 12, 1981 budget was prepared by officials in the Tax Policy and Legislation Branch of the Department of Finance.
10.	For tax purposes, the answer is no.
11.	The personal tax exemptions for dependent children and for a dependent spouse are considered to be tax expenditures. The reasoning is outlined on pages 18 and 19 of the Government of Canada Tax Expenditure Account, 1979.
12.	A distinction should be made between real and nominal income. The so-called inflationary component of a realized capital gain is part of nominal income, but is not part of real income. The current income tax base is nominal income. While the adverse effects of using nominal rather than real income as the tax base are recognized, it should also be appreciated that switching the tax base to real income would entail a major reform of the income tax system. These issues are discussed in
A Review of the Taxation of Capital Gains in Canada, November 1980, in the tax expenditure context in the Government of Canada Tax Expenditure Account, December 1979, pages 9 and 10, and in Inflation and the Taxation of Personal Investment Income, June 1982.


Mr. Shields: 1.	Since the establishment of Petro-Canada International, announced in the October, 1980 budget, which (a) countries (b) governments (c) private and nonprofit organizations (d) regional organizations (e) international agencies received assistance from Petro-Canada International?
2.	For each case, what was the (a) nature of the assistance or services (b) amount of assistance?
3.	Were outside consultants employed by Petro-Canada International and, if so, in each case (a) what was his/her name (b) what was the amount paid (c) what services were rendered?


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation reports as follows:
1.	(a)-(e) Petro-Canada International became operational in January, 1982 and as of July 5, 1982, PCIAC has not provided assistance to any country, government, private and non-profit organization, regional organization or international agency.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence award a $10,000 contract to Conant and Associates Limited of Great Falls, Virginia for an analysis of the future political situation in Saudi Arabia and, if so (a) on what date will the study be completed (b) will copies be available to Members of Parliament?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: The Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence awarded a $10,000 contract to Conant and Associates Ltd. of Great Falls, Virginia for an analysis of the future strategic and military situation in Saudi Arabia.
(a)	The study has been completed and is presently being examined with a view to its acceptance and publication by DND's scientific authority.
(b)	If accepted, copies will be available to Members of Parliament by early 1983.


Mr. Mazankowski: Was a study conducted on behalf of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to test and demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of a compressed natural gas as a vehicule fuel in a captive commercial taxi fleet and, if so (a) by whom was the study done and what was his/her expertise in energy research (b) what was the cost (c) what were the results (d) to what use were the results put?
February 10, 1983


David Charles Dingwall: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
EM&R is presently conducting two demonstrations to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of compressed natural gas as a vehicular fuel. The first demonstration involves the Black Top Taxi Co. of Vancouver. The second demonstration is with Inland Natural Gas Company in Kamloops, British Columbia, and utilizes a fleet of light to medium trucks.
(a)	Mr. Sam Chessa of Black Top Taxi is managing the taxi fleet demonstration and the project has engaged Resourcecon Ltd., a consulting firm, to manage the data acquisition and economic analysis. Dr. G. Born, formerly of the UBC Alternative Fuels Laboratory, has been engaged to provide the engineering assessment. The Inland Natural Gas demonstration has engaged Davis Engineering Company to provide the requisite engineering and economic expertise.
(b)	The cost for each demonstration is $125,000, for a total of $250,000.
(c)	and (d) To date both programs are in the process of start up and data gathering. Thus, no results have been submitted. The terms of the contracts do stipulate quarterly reporting and the first set of results is due in early 1983.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	If the international price of oil were to fall to (a) $25 per barrel (U.S.) (b) $20 per barrel (U.S.), what impact would this have on (i) Canadian prices for old and new oil (ii) consumer prices (iii) Government revenues (iv) domestic supply and demand (v) payments under the import compensation program?
2.	Has the Government made a contingency plan with respect to Canadian oil prices and the federal-provincial oil pricing agreements should world oil prices fall to $25 (U.S.) or below?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1. (a)
If the world oil price were to fall to $25 per barrel (U.S.) from its current level of roughly $31.50 per barrel, we would expect the following impacts:
(i)	Canadian wellhead prices for conventional or old oil would drop to roughly $25 per barrel and remain at that level for as long as the world price did;
(ii)	the reference price for new oil would drop from approximately $44 per barrel to $35.50 where it also would remain for as long as world prices stayed the same;
(iii)	the weighted average price facing Canadian consumers-the blended price of oil at Toronto-would be lower by roughly $5.50 per barrel, that is $30.25 per barrel, than it would have been were the world oil price higher, which would be $35.75;
(iv)	consumer prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index would be approximately one-half of one percentage point (0.4 per cent) lower during fiscal year 1983/84 and almost a full percentage point (0.9 per cent) lower the following year;
Order Paper Questions
(v)	Government revenues could drop by as much as $1.7 billion during fiscal year 1983/84 and by $1.4 billion the following year from what they would have been at the higher world price;
(vi)	the effect upon domestic supply of crude oil would be minimal over the period. Domestic demand for crude oil could be slightly higher in the 1983/84 fiscal year (roughly 1 per cent and roughly higher by 3 per cent the following year);
(vii)	although imports of crude oil would rise slightly compared to what they would have been with higher world oil prices-for example, they could rise by three million barrels during fiscal year 1983/84 and 14 million barrels over the following year-the decline in the world oil price, hypothesized in the question, would be sufficient to reduce oil import compensation payments below what they would have been: for example, these payments could drop by approximately $200 million in fiscal year 1983/84 and by $100 million the following year.
(b) The impacts if the world oil price were to fall to $20 per barrel (U.S.) would be similar in direction but slightly more pronounced that those for a $25 per barrel world price, as follows:
(i)	Canadian wellhead prices for conventional oil would drop to a level of $20 per barrel;
(ii)	the new oil reference price (NORP) would drop to roughly $29 per barrel;
(iii)	the blended price facing Canadian consumers would drop by roughly $10 per barrel to about $25 per barrel;
(iv)	the moderating effect on the consumer price index would be approximately the same as for the $25 per barrel (U.S.) world oil price, that is; half of a percentage point drop next year and almost a full percentage point decline during the year after;
(v)	the drop in Government revenues would be more pronounced that for the $25 per barrel (U.S.) world price, approaching $2.7 billion over fiscal year 1983/84 and $2.4 billion over the following year;
(vi)	like the $25 per barrel (U.S.) world price case, for $20 per barrel, the effect upon domestic supply of crude oil would be minimal (roughly a 1 per cent change). As we would expect, domestic demand would be greater by 3 per cent for 1983/84 and 6 per cent for 1984/85, than in the case of a continuation of the current world oil price of approximately $31.50 per barrel;
(vii)	for import compensation payments, the effect of the large drop in world price hypothesized (37 per cent) would more than offset any impact of the moderate increases in crude oil imports, and we could expect oil import compensation payments to drop by $350 million over 1983/84 and $225 million over the following year.
2. The Government monitors the energy situation closely and will continue to do so with the intention of making appropriate adjustments when the necessity and desirability of such actions become apparent.

February 10, 1983
Order Paper Questions
Impacts of Hypothetical Decreases in the World Oil Price
Fiscal Year 1983/84	Fiscal Year 1984/85
Various world prices:	$31.50/bb 1	$25.00/bbl
(U.S. dollars)
Conventional oil price: ($/bbl)	31.50	25.00New oil price: ($/bbl)	44.00	35.50*Consumer Price Index: (per cent change)	-	-0.4^Government revenue (change in $ million)	-	-1725.0Domestic oil supply: (millions of barrels)	503	507Domestic demand: (millions of barrels)	546	553*Oil import compensation:	-	-200.0
(change in $ million)
* These figures represent differentials not levels.
[ Translation]


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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 the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be read the third time and do pass; and the motion of Mr. Hawkes (p. 22692).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House rose at one o'clock for lunch, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) had completed his remarks in debate and the House was in the ten-minute period of questions, answers and comments. At that point an exchange was taking place between the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West and the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans).
The Chair will now recognize any Hon. Member who wishes to continue within approximately seven or eight minutes of that period of questions and answers.
$20.00/bbl	$31.50/bbl	$25.00/bbl	$20.00/bbl20.00	31.50	25.00	20.0028.75	44.00	35.50	28.75-0.9	-	-0.4	-0.9-1400.0	-	-2650.0	-2375.0511	477	479	479561	536	552	566- 100.0	-350.0	-225.0


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity go by without some comment on a statement made earlier today as it pertains to this particular Bill, Bill C-132, which is an effort to reduce the Family Allowances expected to be received this year.
The Government House Leader mentioned earlier when discussing the tabling of documents, that had we not taken so much time in opposition since we reconvened after the Christmas break, we would be able to deal, perhaps, with parliamentary debate and discussion on the matter of the deployment of the Cruise missile.
I find it absolutely shocking that the priority of the day is the reduction of some 50 cents in Family Allowance cheques as compared to the seriousness of the deployment of the Cruise missile. The imbalance between the two is inexcusable and indicates very clearly that this detrimental social legislation which is currently before the House has more priority with the Government of today than the matter of the deployment of the Cruise missile.
Having said that, 1 would now like to take this opportunity to review some of the things which we are actually being asked to pass in just a few hours from now. Bill C-132 is another example of the Government's allocation of priority which I consider to be totally out of pace with the feelings of the people in this country today. 1 do not think there is a Member on the Government side of this House who would have the nerve to go home to his or her constituents and say "I am sorry, we did not have time in Parliament to discuss the deployment of the Cruise missile because we were all wrapped up in the priority of reducing Family Allowance cheques by 50 cents". That is a priority situation which is very frustrating for both Opposition Parties. 1 am afraid 1 have to agree with the NDP on this point. There are so many areas where the Government could find a place to make up the losses incurred by indexing Family Allowance cheques. Instead, this Bill if
February 10, 1983

passed will seriously endanger that element of society least able to defend itself.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we should take just a minute to see what continued full indexation would mean. Had it continued for Family Allowance cheques in 1983 the average monthly payment per child would have been $30 as inflation would have been 11.5 per cent. The annual loss per child under this proposed Bill-which we will pass here, I assume, with a Government majority-will mean deindexing the payment down to $17.76. As it exists, this Bill is totally unacceptable to our Party. Capping the Family Allowance for 1983 is ridiculous enough; extending this policy beyond the bounds of economic logic is really unparallelled insanity. Who in this House can in all certainty predict the inflation rate for 1984? We have a bureaucracy here in Ottawa reported to be rather astute. It determines what the rate of inflation might be in 1984 in order to give families sufficient income to feed their children, and they are prepared to set out a yardstick of 5 per cent in 1984. That is totally unacceptable to the Conservative Party. If the Government is really adamant in its desire to punish the poor, I implore it to at least restrict this horrendous act to a one-year period only.
Here is what the Government is going to say with this ridiculous Bill, Mr. Speaker, which is more important than the Cruise missile as indicated by the Government House leader today. The Government is reported to be saving .05 per cent of the federal budget, or one one-hundredth of 1 per cent of the Gross National Product. This could hardly constitute a major contribution to the fight against inflation. This Government thinks the people out there are naive enough to believe the Government when it says that, because of this piece of legislation, inflation is coming down. The Liberals are sadly mistaken because the people do not believe that the inflation rate will come down in small, minute percentages on a monthly basis if we restrict baby bonuses or Family Allowance cheques to 6 per cent and 5 per cent.
I would remind the Government of the factors which have been beneficial in lowering the inflation rate. Number one, a Gross National Product which has fallen 6.9 per cent since the second quarter of 1981. Secondly, in the third quarter of 1982 Canadian manufacturing was operating at only 67 per cent capacity thanks to this Government. Another factor is that business bankruptcies in 1982 were 33 per cent higher than in 1981, and 63 per cent higher than in 1980. In addition, in January the unemployment rate was a staggering 12.4 per cent, or in real terms, 1,598,000 Canadians were out of work. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada's economic decline in 1982 was the worst of that group's 24 Members. Consumer confidence in this country is at an all-time low. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the most important factor in the slight decline of inflation has been the Liberals' own tragic mismanagement of our economy and our society. Yet they continue to cling to the illusion that deindexing of Family Allowances will save vast amounts of money, lower inflation and reduce the debt. But who will
Family Allowances Act, 1973
provide the savings? It will come from those who can least afford it. The Government attacks a program which has traditionally maximized benefits to that segment of society which requires it the most. This is yet another excellent example of enlightened Liberal social justice.
1 would now like to suggest just a few areas which could be altered substantially by this Government to reduce the deficit while maintaining a just and equitable social policy. The Government, Mr. Speaker, purchased Petro Fina for $1.46 billion, or $120 per share. At the same time, the shares were trading for $90 and were actually estimated to have a value of about $80. In other words, the federal Government paid between $365 million and $486 million more than the real market value for a chain of gasoline stations. Number two, the carrying costs invested by the Government to date in Petro-Canada total over $700 million.
Members on this side in committee and in this Chamber have continually pointed out to the Government other areas which would have more impact on reducing inflation and saving the Government more money than this current legislation. I should like to bring to the attention of the House just a few of them. An analysis was handed out in committee which shows that in the fiscal year just ending, the hidden interest costs subsidy to Petro-Canada, one Crown corporation, will be $514 million. Can I repeat that, Mr. Speaker? The hidden subsidy, which does not show up in the Estimates, through one Crown corporation, in one calendar year, is $514 million. There are direct subsidies in the Estimates to that same Crown corporation in excess of $400 million. At that point we are remarkably close to $1 billion, and here we are spending days of House time to approve a measure which will take about $80 million away from families and children. That is the priority of this Government today. Not the Cruise missile, not the waste of Crown corporations, not the purchase of shares at almost twice their value in order to purchase a chain of service stations. The priority of this Government today, Mr. Speaker, is to make money away from families in order to balance a budget which is totally out of control.
Now it seems necessary to remind the Liberal Government again of the 1982 Auditor General's report, the details of which are well known to all Members of this House. In light of the considerable abuses of power enacted by this Government, in light of the blatant waste of taxpayers' money, and the deplorable state of the economy, I implore the Government at this time to discontinue its attempt to overburden the poor by restricting the Family Allowance which represents a very important and viable source of income for the less fortunate. While the Government preaches restraint it continues to pay the salary of Mr. Edmund Clark while he works for the International Cement Company Lcfarge. Documents leaked in September 1982 suggested a price tag of $172,000 for a one year stay. That has since been scaled down to only $153,000. This sabbatical could last for up to 15 months, according to the article in the Ottawa Citizen of October 23, 1982.

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
If that is not bad enough, Dr. Lyall Black, Assistant Deputy Minister of Health and Welfare, the Minister responsible for this retrogressive legislation, was given a one year posting at the Canadian embassy in Paris. Working as a medical officer, Dr. Black was allowed to keep his own salary even though the medical officer at the Canadian embassy is usually paid as much as $20,000 per year less. In other words, Mr. Black was receiving the same pay in Paris while performing a lesser job. That was reported in the Ottawa Citizen on September 29, 1982.
Consider the horrendous nightmare story of Janet Smith, an Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, who was sent to Nice in southern France for four months to learn French. The cost to the taxpayer of this Riviera education was $12,000 plus Ms. Smith's salary which is in the range of $60,000 to $70,000 per year, as reported in the Toronto Sun, June 27, 1982.
Keeping in mind that Bill C-132 is a restraint Bill, it is interesting to note that the federal Government spent $1 million to promote its six and five program by setting up exhibits at the Canadian National Exhibition, the Pacific National Museum and Expo Quebec, as reported in The Globe and Mail on December 2, 1982.
While the Government spends $1 million to promote and advertise restraint, it is also reported that it continues to pay the salary of the former Deputy Minister of Finance who annually receives in excess of $100,000, although he does not work for the Government.
This seems to be an extremely contradictory restraint program. In fact, it is obviously based upon a double standard. It allows large sums of money to be paid to people who no longer work for the Government, while extracting much needed funds from individual taxpayers. This point was discussed in the Hansard issue of February 1, 1982 at page 22373.
The generosity of the Government does not end here. We are all aware of the Maislin Trucking bail-out and the selection of Mr. Erickson to design the embassy in Washington. These are all examples of the Government's misuse of resources, and they represent an offence to all Canadians and to most honest Members in this Chamber.
In February 1981, the CNR spent $64,244 to purchase advertising space to wish the CPR, its chief competitor, a happy birthday. The source of that is Question 2135 on the Order Paper presented by the late Tom Cossitt, and answered in that fashion by the Government-$64,244 to purchase advertising space by the CNR to compliment the CPR, its chief competitor, and wish it a happy birthday!
My final examples are in reference to that model of efficiency, the ideal Crown corporation, Canada Post. On the day that Canada Post became a Crown corporation, the Government helped employees celebrate by providing $300,000 worth of free coffee, donuts and souvenir envelopes, according to a CP wire story of October 16, 1981, Item 861. In July of 1982, the Post Office spent another $200,000 to run advertisements in 39 newspapers and publications to tell Canadians that postal service will improve in the future. One would think that
improved service would speak for itself. The preceding examples of Government waste are deplorable and inexcusable by the standards of any normal responsible Government.
Over the past 15 years, Government spending has increased at an unprecedented rate. On a national accounts basis, where data is comparable over time, spending has climbed from $12.4 billion in 1968 to $90.6 billion this year, an increase of 630 per cent. In the current fiscal year, the Government will spend $18 billion more on a national accounts basis than the P.C. Government had planned to spend. The gross national debt last March 31 was $134 billion, the equivalent of $14,200 for every taxpayer in Canada. The cost of interest alone on this year's debt is expected to be approximately $16.7 billion, more than the entire budget of the federal Government just a few short years ago.
As a Member of Parliament, elected to serve the needs of my constituents, I cannot in good conscience accept Bill C-132 which reduces the increases in Family Allowances while having full knowledge of a Government that has allowed spending to increase uncontrollably. Poor financial management and lack of expertise in formulating their priorities is a poor excuse for Fiberal social policy.
In conclusion, I want to say that the Government's six and five restraint program is, in the final analysis, an exercise in futility. 1 have attempted to illustrate that this policy has been of extremely limited value in the fight against inflation. What it has managed to do, and quite successfully I might add, is to attack those segments of society most dramatically affected by the recession, a recession which is largely the result of monetary and fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the Liberal Government.
Bill C-131, C-132 and C-133 are all similar in that they attack the members of our society who have been and will be the foundation of Canada's future. First, they seek to deprive pensioners and senior citizens from funds they have themselves contributed. They are divesting this important social group of the security and independence they have worked for and deserve. On the other hand, the Bill which is being voted on today seeks to undermine drastically the potential of our youth and the ability of the less fortunate to raise their families effectively.
There is no financial reason for restricting the increases in Family Allowances to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984. As we have seen, there are countless areas within the governmental bureaucracy which could be trimmed and redesigned to save money and reduce the debt.
Let us give one credit where credit is due. The present Liberal Government has finally seen the light and has given the Metric Commission their walking papers. It has advised the Metric Commission that they are through in two years. The Government is following the path of Reagan in the United States and Thatcher in Britain. That will be a saving to the Canadian taxpayers of over $25 million, which is their budget this year, as soon as they get rid of the Metric Commission. The budget of the Metric Commission this year is up 105 per
February 10, 1983

cent over the same period last year when it was only $12 million. This year the Metric Commission will spend $26 million. Congratulations to the Liberals, who have abolished the Metric Commission and told them the truth, that they have walked their last kilometer.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would like to bring to the attention of the House that we are in the question period, there is an opportunity for Liberal Members to defend this policy but we have not yet heard from a Member from the Government side since the opening speech this morning. We are not hearing any questions, and I am wondering if they are accepting what we have to say on this side of the House, if they are in the process of changing their mind or whether they are being silent for some other reason.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has to indicate to the Hon. Member and to the House that that is not a point of order. However, it fits perfectly into comment, which is quite permitted by the procedures. The Hon. Member has in fact been recognized for the purpose of making a comment relating to the preceding Member's speech. Are there any other comments or questions?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) and simply reinforce to the House the basic theme of the third Member who spoke to us today. There are choices in the system, there are expenditure choices in the system. He identified a great many of them. We do not have to sock it to the pensioners or to the children of the country. We can decide to save money in other areas and put it into the pockets of families and pensioners.
The second speaker for our side today made the point that he proposed a brand new set of ideas which in a sense takes moneys that are given to families and gives more of it to the poorer segments of society-give more of it to the children who need it and less to the children of parents who do not need that support.
In my original speech in the House I think I identified for the Chamber the fact that support for children today, because of the changes made by the Minister, does two things. It provides maximum support for families which have about $40,000 per year gross income. If they have an income of $10,000 or $12,000 per year, they obtain less out of the system. Also I pointed out that in 1976 the Liberal Government deindexed the Family Allowance for a year, in 1978 it reduced the payments from $28 to $20 a month, and here we were in 1982 getting capping for two more years. There is a systematic attempt on the part of the Liberal Government to reduce support to famililes and in fact to transfer responsibility for that support away from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and toward the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).
We on this side of the House find it particularly objectionable that an already overburdened Minister such as the
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Minister of Finance, a very important Ministry, should suddenly be seen as the agent most responsible for family policy in the country. We think family policy belongs quite naturally under the Minister of National Health and Welfare and under the Standing Committee of the House, and that when we are talking about family policy we should be talking about it basically in that forum. Also we think that the economic committees of the House of the Minister of Finance should not be dealing with family policy. They should be dealing with policy elements which would get the economy going again so that we could create jobs and return to providing the kind of family support that comes from the workplace, and which the country really needs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Minister-the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey).


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your Freudian slip. I want to address myself to the business at hand, third reading of Bill C-132. However, I say to the Hon. Member who just sat down that he has shown in recent weeks by his interventions a propensity to try to have the best of both worlds. I can recall from reading Hansard, as I like to do, that the main issue to which the Hon. Member used to speak eloquently in the House was inflation. Speaker after speaker after speaker quite properly castigated the Government for the fact that there was every evidence that inflation was running away in this country as it was in the United States and in the industrialized nations of the world. The challenge to the Government was to face up to it and do something about it.
Now that it is evident we took that challenge, now that is it evident the six and five program is successful, and now that it is evident inflation is so low that the impact on Family Allowances and pensions is indeed minimal, Hon. Members opposite are trying to create the false impression that somehow this Party is selecting a particular group of helpless people to be affected more adversely than others.
If there is one thing which distinguishes this Party from the Official Opposition, it is our concern and compassion for people. Every piece of social legislation on the books of the country-Family Allowance, old age pension, unemployment insurance, Canada Pension Plan and medicare-stem from this Government when we were in power, not from the Opposition. If one wants to see a mismatch on fighting inflation, if one wants io see how the Tories handle it, then one should look at the record of Margaret Thatcher with unemployment of 15, 16 and 17 per cent, galloping inflation and virtually no social programs in place. This is what we get from Tory Governments which have the freedom of a centralized Government to practise old fashion Toryism at its best or at its worst.
I do not intend to rise to the bait and answer the simplistic argument of the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) that somehow inflation would disappear if we cut out Government waste. What a simplistic approach! But it is consistent with the Conservatives of the country whose answer to inflation some years ago, some months ago, some weeks ago, was

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
that we must restrain spending. Where were we supposed to restrain that spending? It was in social programs. Hon. Members should read the financial papers and the speeches of Hon. Members opposite a year ago when they were talking about wages, spending and restraint. Where did they look for restraint? It was to social programs. They said that we cannot afford old age pensions, Family Allowances or to continue the Canada Pension Plan. They said that they would love to continue supporting these social measures, that they had the greatest respect for the dignity of people, that they wanted to help the unemployed and the less fortunate. The Tories said that they supported private enterprise and that if we could only return to that laissez faire attitude, somehow increased prosperity brought on by supply and demand would eventually trickle down to the less fortunate. That is not true. It has never been true. It has proven to be an abject failure under Margaret Thatcher.
What do we have in front of us here? We are talking about Family Allowances. As we approach the last of these Bills, I want to pay tribute to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). I say this because Governments at best can only govern through consensus. In every Cabinet and every caucus there are different points of view, all valid and all important. What comes out in the form of legislative policy has to be a consensus. That is true in caucus. I might mention, in case I forget it, that some months ago at our convention we had time, not to cut each other up but to talk about policies. We debated fully the universality concept of Family Allowances because trial balloons were floating around this city and this country from all parties as to what we could do, how we could get our little hands on the Family Allowances, how we could restrict universality, and what we could do to get our hands on this big pocket of money. The Liberal Party, the backbenchers and the militants, made it very clear to Cabinet that universality must be retained and maintained as the nucleus of our Family Allowance program. It is to the everlasting credit of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as we come out of this debate, that both old age pensions and Family Allowances retain and maintain their dedication to the principle of universality. There is nothing in this Bill which in any way impedes or restrains the concept of universality.
As a matter of fact, I am partly surprised by the success 'of the Minister in persuading her colleagues, not only that universality can be maintained, but that a formula could be devised to minimize or eliminate entirely the impact of six and five on people we can clearly identify as the poor and the underprivileged who need every last nickel of Family Allowance. How did the Minister do that? How is the Government doing that? When we get to Bill C-139, we will legalize or bring into legislation changes in the Child Tax Credit for 1983. Hon. Members may be surprised to know that it is hard to keep up with statistics. No less than two out of three recipients in this country receive Child Tax Credit benefits. When you take those changes, which are still not legislation, and add them to the minimal impact of the six and five, you
will find that two out of three beneficiaries in this country will receive at least a $33 net gain in the 1983 taxation year.
How can you say in any way that we are discriminating against recipients of Family Allowances? If we were, we would not bring in a Child Tax Credit for 1983, the impact of which will be to direct to those two out of three recipients of Family Allowances some extra financial assistance. The one out of three who does not receive the Tax Credit allowance obviously does not need it by reason of the very table that goes with the Bill on which we will have a chance to expand when we debate Bill C-139 because the tax credit is linked clearly to income, as is the GIS to old age pensions.
It is almost pathetic to hear Members of the Opposition take advantage of this legislation in their attempts to garnish support in this country by playing on the fears of the average Canadian. If you listened only to Members of the Opposition, you would believe that every single pensioner in this country would be worse off, dramatically worse off, because of the six and five program. If you listened only to the speeches made here today, you would believe there would be no need for six and five at all if somehow we could say to some young lady, "You have no right to go to France to learn French. It is not important to learn French." The inference is there. It is not important that we get into the twenty-first century with the metric system. It does not mean much to our export countries. If they want our products shipped in metres, millimetres, grams and all the rest, and we do not intend to do it, they say, let them turn somewhere else because we do not care. Every single argument that you hear from the Tories on this issue represents classical Tory thinking of the nineteenth century. It shows how far they have advanced. They have advanced nowhere at all.
What have we been able to do in 18 months, Mr. Speaker? We have been able to put in place a program that has protected the limited income of those who suffer most in times of inflation. I am speaking of people on fixed incomes, people on pensions, people who tend to be under-employed-


Gordon Edward Taylor: How about the one million unemployed people in this country?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -people who need these kinds of Family Allowances. We have to protect the integrity of those programs.
One can argue, and can I accept the views of anyone who wants to talk about the economy, as to whether our method of attack on inflation is right or wrong. I do not think there is an economist in Canada or the United States with any credibility who would suggest the alternative to inflation is to index everything. There are countries led by governments which believe that, for instance, countries in South America and the Middle East. Their answer to inflation is simply to index everything. If inflation goes up by 90 per cent, you index everything 90 per cent. But do not take your money out of the country because I do not know where you could spend it. Do
February 10, 1983

not attempt to use your money for trade. It is fine perhaps if you are a citizen of a little island, totally insulated or if you are perhaps on the moon. That is the policy of the Tories. If there is to be the slightest impact from the six and five, if there is any evidence that you must suffer a little because of inflation, the answer is to index. That is the answer of the Opposition. Cut out somebody's trip to Paris. That is a waste. Restore full indexing on Family Allowances, full indexing on old age pensions and full indexing on the Public Service salaries. But the Opposition lacks the courage of its convictions. Opposition Members get up on second reading and support the six and five program. At least the New Democrats, whom I respect, philosophically said, "We don't support it." The Conservatives said, "We support it in general, but we are against every single segment and practice of the program."


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are in bed with the NDP.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Tories said, "We are for the six and five, but don't dare touch the salaries of the civil servants."


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why don't you move over with the NDP?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Hon. Member from Ottawa said, "Don't dare attack the Family Allowances that go to people whose income is over $25,000. Don't attack old age pensions, including those that go to people who do not need it because of the GIS." In other words, it is typical Conservative policy. They say, "We support the program but we are relating to every single person who is affected by it." They wonder why they have been in the wilderness for so many years. They have been in the wilderness because there has been no sincerity in their arguments. They underestimate the intelligence of the Canadians. They underestimate the sophistication of the people watching this program. Their argument that somehow you can eliminate inflation by indexing everything, that somehow inflation is no longer a problem or never was a problem, is not acceptable. If inflation was never a problem, why is it that day after day after day in this House the Opposition, carrying out its legitimate role, hammers at the Government because of inflation? If we were blamed when inflation was 12 per cent, 13 per cent and 14 per cent, then we have a right to take the credit when inflation has been reduced to 7.2 per cent because of the success of the six and five program.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yell louder, it is a weak point.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Anybody who cares about the underemployed, who cares about the working class, who wants to see this country prosper, knows that we have to get inflation down if we are to continue being a competitive nation in the field of exports.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Spending $800 a day?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Do you think we can compete, Mr. Speaker? The Hon. Member over there always makes good speeches on his seat. If he would turn the other way and talk to himself, we would all be happy.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Do you think for a minute that we can continue to compete with other countries that are mineral-wealthy, Mr. Speaker? Do you think we will be priced out of existence because built into our export prices is an abnormally high level of inflation? Does anybody here think we can regain our markets in the United States, as that country recovers, in the field of copper and mineral wealth? You would understand that better than most of us, Mr. Speaker, representing your riding if, built into the price of copper per pound, or into the price of lead, wood or lumber, or whatever we export were, X number of cents or dollars because of the inflationary factor in this country. No one in his right mind would suggest that 18 months ago inflation was not the number one issue in the country, just as no one in his right mind today would deny the fact that unemployment is the first issue before us now.
I appear angry, but I am not. However, I do get angry when I see the callous efforts of Members opposite who prey on the fears of those people less able to speak out for themselves in this Parliament. I feel very angry when Parliamentarians leave the mistaken impression that somehow we are restricting Family Allowances when, in fact, every single person who needs that Family Allowance, as evidenced by their income, will be better off at the end of the year because of the combination. Two out of three will be better off because of the combination of their indexed Family Allowance-not indexed quite to the extent it used to be-together with the Child Tax Credit allowance of $50, and every single recipient of Family Allowance will be better off.
I should not be impatient with the arguments of the Conservative Party. I heard them last year, I heard them three years ago, I heard them five years ago and I heard them 15 years ago. Sooner or later the classical right wing of that Party emerges, not only in the House but in caucus and in conventions. Those few in that Party who think progressively, who do care about people and who understand what I am trying to say-that we have a responsibility to people-are subjugated, shoved aside and their spokesmen come forward. There is only a minority in that Party who come forward and suggest that somehow inflation would have disappeared if we curtailed trips to Paris, lessons in French or something else that appeals to the prejudices of people.


Monique Bégin: That's it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is the unspoken thing that bothers me.
I want to say in conclusion that we who concern ourselves with people, particularly the Minister of National Health and Welfare, have come out of this whole exercise much greater, in my opinion, than when it began. We have been able to reduce inflation in this country from over 12 per cent to 7 per cent. Never mind the reason.


Cyril Keeper: Never mind the reason?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is unfortunate that unemployment had to grow as it did, not only here but also in Tory Great Britain, astronomically in that country, in Germany, in France, in the

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
United States and in Sweden. Tell me of one industrialized nation where unemployment has not increased.


Howard Edward Crosby: Austria.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Tell me of one industrialized nation that has not been concerned about its ability to maintain a social program and keep its unemployment as low as possible while remaining viable and competitive. Each one has to vary the theme.
What our Party has opted for, since this is a federal system with limited control over the various levers for which the Province also have responsibility, is a six and five program that says, in effect, that we have a moral obligation to the less fortunate. I say to those who believe that the deficit can be eliminated or reduced dramactically by eliminating Family Allowances or the GIS because no one needs it anymore, that we will be able to come out of this recession relatively well inside of a few years. As our customers' recovery begins, we will be able to tell them that our prices reflect a very nominal rate of inflation. Perhaps it will be 5 per cent, 6 per cent or even less. We will be able to show everyone that the unique characteristics of Canada's social problems are intact. We can say that they are still based on universality and not on a means test.
We recognize that the Family Allowance cheque is the only one that comes from the Government in the name of the mother. It is the only cheque that comes from the Government that is totally in her control so that she can do what is best for her children. According to Mackenzie King, it was in recognition of her contribution during the war.
We will be able to turn to the senior citizens and say that their old age pensions will remain intact. It will remain universal. There will be no public servants scrutinizing their bank books or looking for money under their beds. As well, if that pension is insufficient, the GIS will still be in place.
We can say the same thing about unemployment insurance. I can remember when unemployment insurance was on trial in this country and how Members opposite, day after day, would rise to talk about the generous UIC program and imply that everyone on UIC was a lazy welfare bum. We do not hear that today. Unemployment insurance has met its test. It is Liberal philosophy, and that is why I am a Liberal and not a Tory.
I hope that this debate might illustrate the rather simplistic solution being advanced by the Opposition. It is their argument that we can somehow deal with inflation by eliminating waste and that we can deal with inflation by returning to the old fashioned laissez-faire principles of Adam Smith.
I want to repeat that we are fortunate to have in our Minister of National Health and Welfare a person who, by her conviction and dedication, is prepared to stand up in Cabinet week after week and tell her colleagues, on the basis of facts and figures, that there are ways and means of adhering to the six and five program. There are ways and means of allocating sacrifice in a democracy that does not discriminate against
those least able to protect themselves. That is the best spirit of this Bill, and 1 wish we would get on with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Comments, questions and answers.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) if he is aware that a recent report by the Canadian Council on Social Development has indicated that for the first time since the early 1970s we have had a rise in family poverty. Is this the time when we want to cap the indexation of Family Allowances?
This rise in family poverty is quite evidently related to the fact that we have a depression level of unemployment in this country today. While the Hon. Member speaks a good line on inflation, does he realize the importance of putting the priority on employment so that people may have adequate incomes? Would he refer to the Family Allowance question as well?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Hon. Member, who is a close friend of mine and asks his question quite sincerely. As far as I am concerned, the number one issue in this country today is unemployment. I know that the Liberal caucus thinks that, the Party thinks that; I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) believes that and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) believes that. No doubt that will be reflected in his budget. I agree with the hon. gentleman in that respect.
I agonize, as he does, that no nation, certainly no democratic nation, has been able to develop a way of curtailing inflation without at the same time, impeding growth and creating unemployment. I am not sure if it was Phillips Robatyn, who straightened out the mess in New York some years ago, and who said that democracy works exceptionally well in prosperous times but its real test comes in difficult times when it has to apportion sacrifice and determine who bears the brunt of the battle against inflation. Inevitably, it is the workers. That is why we try to cushion the negative impact with social policies such as unemployment insurance.
I suffer along with the Hon. Member when he talks about unemployment. I appreciate what he is saying. I say quite categorically that the number one problem facing the nation today is unemployment. At the time we brought in the six and Five program it was inflation. Now that we have inflation directed in a downward slope to where we should be well below 5 per cent within the year-barring something quite unforeseen-we can devote all our attention to unemployment. Hopefully, we will not create inflation again with job stimulation. The difficult job which the Minister of Finance faces is to stimulate the economy without rekindling inflation.
With respect to the Hon. Member's other point, of course this is the time in history when those on the bottom income scale need more assistance than ever before. That is obvious because inflation does not wreak its havoc equally. Those who had money in the bank a year ago and who were earning 19 per cent and 20 per cent interest were the beneficiaries of inflation. The businessman, the home owner, the home builder, the small-businessman and the farmer suffered from inflation.
February 10, 1983

The impact of inflation is hardly equal across the board. It is inevitable that people at the bottom end of the scale need increased benefits. As a Liberal, I would say that as soon as the country can afford to increase old age pensions and the basic Family Allowance and return full indexation, it probably will do so.
It is amazing to see how many people fail to appreciate what might have happened to those programs if the six and five program had not been successful and inflation had risen from 12 per cent to 25 per cent. Where would the money come from? Would we here in the House allow indexation at 25 per cent or increase the base of pensions and Family Allowances and, in doing so, drive the deficit of the country up by $10 billion or $15 billion? Would the business community stand idly by or ask us where we expect to get the money from?
I fail to understand why people do not realize that inflation must be curtailed before we can generate the kind of money that is needed for distribution to the less fortunate.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the stirring defence of the six and five program given by the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), particularly in the presence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), who also gave a stirring defence of the same restraint program in Government spending that affects the young people, children and senior citizens in this country.
In addition, there are other Liberal Members who gave the same stirring defence. They were the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois), the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) and the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais). All of them gave stirring defences of the six and five program.
However, the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops criticized that program by saying that it was repressive, unfair and leading to massive unemployment-1.6 million unemployed- and created an immoral situation in Canada. That is what the Roman Catholic Bishops said. The Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) apparently went public and condemned his colleagues-


Monique Bégin: That is a lie.


Howard Edward Crosby: -from Ottawa Centre, Gloucester, Lotbiniere, Montreal-Mercier and Manicouagan. He said that they were being unfair and would not stand for that attack on the Bishops.
Where does the Hon. Member stand? Does he stand with his five colleagues in defence of six and five or against the Roman Catholic Bishops in their opposition to the six and
five?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, for whom I have great respect, ends up with a rather false argument by comparing apples and oranges. I think the Hon. Member is more intelligent than to think that being for six and five means
Family Allowances Act, 1973
that one is against the Catholic Bishops, but I am not sure anymore.


Howard Edward Crosby: You explain.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not think he has read the statement of the Bishops, because if he had read it, he would find that it did not tackle the six and five program. I happen to share their views, and happened to be on record last night on the radio program "As It Happens" concerning the number one issue in the country.
The Hon. Member asks the question in good faith, and I am answering it. If I believed everything I read, or everything that happened in Winnipeg last week according to the newspapers, I would say, "God help the Tories", but I do not. I have more respect for Joe Clark.


Howard Edward Crosby: Find out about economic affairs, Bishops.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Hon. Member asked the question, and I am entitled to answer. If the Hon. Member reads beyond the headlines, that is, if he is capable, he will find that in the body of that article it was made very clear that I was not fighting with my five colleagues. But let him read it.


Howard Edward Crosby: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Maybe the Hon. Member cannot. I will not go into that. I want to say what I indicated, that I too have an opinion on what the Bishops said. As I understood their remarks, they said that the level of unemployment in this country was deplorable. I share their view, and said so publicly. I relate to that statement, entirely. What I also said was that I may have a different view from other people who have been publicly commenting on what are moral issues and what are temporal issues.
If the gentleman so desires, I will provide him with a transcript of what I said publicly last night and what I will repeat over and over. I simply said that what is spiritual today is not what would have been considered spiritual 25 years ago. Young priests and ministers, some of whom are in this House-and I am looking at one-see their vocation in life as going beyond a little square box which limits them to very narrow spiritual concepts. Young Catholic priests think it quite in order, spiritually, to worry about unemployment and about the things that lead to the breakup of marriages, to worry about the wasted years of the unemployed, and to speak out on Government matters and to say, "Do something about it". I applaud the Bishops for exactly that.


Howard Edward Crosby: Denouncing the six and five.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Where I differ with them is concerning their views on economic policy, which I do not think would resolve
the issues.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will sit down a little inflated, because I have not said it all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member will realize that the intention of the procedural reforms is that questions and answers should be "short and sharp". The Hon. Member for Crowfoot.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this occasion, especially since the Hon. late Minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. My apologies to the Hon. Member for Crowfoot but there still remains some time for questions and answers.


Arnold John Malone: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to point out that it is very difficult to ask a question of an Hon. Member who has just left the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot may not have had his microphone open, so I will indicate to the House what he himself has said; that is, that it may be difficult to ask questions when an Hon. Member is no longer in the House, but that does not constrain Hon. Members under those rules, from making such comments as they see fit, and I would have to continue to recognize Hon. Members after that.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member has left the House so quickly. I wanted to know why he was yelling so loudly and pounding the desk with his lily-white fingers. Perhaps it is because he had such a weak argument. I want to know how he can reconcile the Bill, which he now supports, which is taking money and food from children-


Monique Bégin: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Stay calm a minute. Do not get excited. You will break a blood vessel.
I do not know how he can reconcile taking money from mothers, who are having a difficult time feeding their children, and then giving $800 a day, plus $125 for expenses, to a rich man. How can that be reconciled? It is completely contradictory. He says it is not inflationary, but it is inflationary. That is not straight at all. Does the Hon. Member talk that kind of nonsense to the people of Canada, 1.5 million of whom are unemployed? It is no wonder that the Liberals are on their way out. I have no question to ask because the Hon. Member is not here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there debate?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker-


Howard Edward Crosby: The Minister cannot speak. Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will recognize the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) if her comments are pursuant to those made by the Hon. Member for Bow River.


Monique Bégin: Yes, I think it is very important-


Howard Edward Crosby: Tell us about the Catholic Bishops.


Monique Bégin: -for the Hon. Member not to get too mixed up in the large dossier which is before him. He has just totally misinformed the House and the population so badly that I want to correct him. How can he say that the person who earns $26,330, and who has only one child, is living in poverty? 1 do not quite understand it. I would love to hear an answer.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister is not so naive as to think that all of the 1,200,000 mothers are making $26,000 a year. Many of them are not. Many of them have three, four, five or six children, and many of those children are crippled and some are abnormal. They need extra money and they are not getting enough for milk now, so let the Minister not start giving me that baloney.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As a last exchange, I will recognize the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Monique Bégin: This is exactly what I wanted the Hon. Member to recognize, the fact that that is the limit, the maximum Child Tax Credit, for only one child. The Child Tax Credit has increased by $50 to make up for the reduction of indexation. Therefore, he has totally misinformed the mothers in this country, because if they have two children, they can make much more, and if they have three or four, they can make much more.


Gordon Edward Taylor: A little more.


Monique Bégin: They can make much more money and will still be allowed the full, additional, non-taxable $50 per child on this year's Child Tax Credit, in such a way that two-thirds of all the mothers in Canada will not have lost a penny, and some will be better off-


Howard Edward Crosby: What are you doing it for?


Monique Bégin: -because of the six and five. Therefore, I would like him to remember that and read all his documents before he opens his mouth, because he is making such a bouillie pour les chats that it is unbelievable. It is unbelievable that he should be creating panic among mothers that way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have just received a note indicating that because of certain signals, which Hon. Members recognize I sometimes give to them as to their amount of time left to debate, the Hon. Member for Lincoln apparently did not realize that there was time remaining in the ten minute period.


Howard Edward Crosby: Oh, he realized. He just left.


Monique Bégin: Oh, come on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have only two choices I can make in this matter, and I will be guided by the House. I
February 10, 1983

will extend the ten minute question period now that the Hon. Member for Lincoln has returned to the Chamber, but only based on the unanimous consent of the House, so that I can determine that that is what Hon. Members want. Otherwise, we will continue the debate. Is it the wish of Hon. Members that we debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Bow River rises on a point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, you permitted the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was not being questioned at the time, to rise and make two statements. Surely we cannot leave without comment some of the baloney she advanced, because that is what it was. There are 1,200,000 mothers who will be affected, and she knows it.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why are you trying to kid the people?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Bow River raises two matters, one being a point of order with respect to the fact that allowed the Minister to enter the exchange, and the other raises a matter of debate. Yes, I did recognize the Minister as I would recognize any other Hon. Member in the House who wanted to rise in that ten minute period, even if that Hon. Member is from the same Party as the one who had spoken.
If there are no further points of order, the Chair will recognize-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is another point of order.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I want to make it clear that I left the House fully under the impression that I had utilized my ten minutes. I realize my answers were very lengthy.


Howard Edward Crosby: So you cannot tell the time either.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I make this point because I did hear someone suggest that I had left on purpose. The Hon. Member knows that that is not true. He should either retract that statement or apologize because he should accept the word of a gentleman. I left because when the Speaker, with his usual delicacy and finesse, suggested that the question was too long and the answer was too long, I presumed that he was telling me that I had spoken longer than my allotted time, and I ran to make an important phone call. I would not have missed giving the Hon. Member an opportunity to ask any questions he would have liked. The questions I have heard so far have been typical of the type which would have been asked.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) that I did not think his ten minutes had expired. I
Family Allowances Act, 1973
thought that a light year had passed. I also noticed that it was one of the interesting speeches we have heard in the House, one which we did not measure by its length in Hansard but, rather, as it registered on the Richter scale.
I want to deal with the analysis put forward by the Hon. Member for Lincoln before getting into my specific comments. He took considerable pleasure on behalf of the Government Party in advocating that the six and five program has been bringing down inflation. It is an interesting paradox to note that all the while that inflation and interest rates were increasing sharply the Government Party blamed the Americans and world conditions. They told us there was nothing Canada could do with respect to its internal policy because we had to live within the reality of a world economy.
All of a sudden inflation in the United States started to decrease. Interest rates began to come down. That fact is also reflected in Canada, and the Liberals take claim with a slogan called "The six and five program". They say if it was not for that program, inflation would not have come down. One of these arguments may sell, but not both. It cannot be a fact that we live in a world economy and then somehow find that we are divorced as a result of something that is not a program but rather a slogan, which is what six and five is.
The Hon. Member for Lincoln took particular pains in trying to tell us that this Party was void of social conscience. He made reference to Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives in Great Britain. 1 ask the Hon. Member for Lincoln, and he can tell me on another occasion, whether he embraces the social policies of Jeremy Thorpe. That might be the social policy that the Members of the Liberal Party will want to concern themselves with.
We are dealing today with a question that is indeed serious, one that talks about Family Allowances and decreasing the capping of the indexation thereon. This will cause a constriction on the poorest in this country rather than those who are richer. I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) again behaving like a chicadee eating fermented chokecherries. She knows full well that constraint is there against the poorest people in this country.


Monique Bégin: It is not true.


Arnold John Malone: Statistics show that for 15 years Canada's poverty level was decreasing. We were having fewer poor people in Canada. This year the statistics are turned around and the poverty rate in Canada is increasing.
I submit that this is a terrible situation. Canada has one-third of the world's fresh water, has no lack of resources and educated people. This group of 20 million people has all the tools to build a healthy and wealthy society, yet we cannot compete with our major competitors, Japan, Germany and other European countries, to the extent that this year the

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
OECD ranked Canada lower than the twentieth position in the world. This is shameful in light of the fact which demonstrates clearly that just 14 years ago when this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office we were the second highest nation in the world in terms of standard of living.
For the first time in 15 years, after a tremendous record of decreasing poverty in this country, we have an increase. There are now more poor people in this country. The Liberal answer to that is to cap the Family Allowance. When inflation is going up, they put a lid on those people so that their power with respect to value is decreasing.
The Minister might say we are allowing it to go up some. If it does not go up equally with inflation, it is going down. There is no other direction. All indexing does is to index value. If the indexing is less than the value of inflation, the value goes down. They are giving to the people of Canada not only poverty, but more poverty; poverty upon poverty.
The Liberals do this in the same week that they tell poor Donald Macdonald he can have $800 a day. Do you know that Donald Macdonald has to work ten days every year before he reaches the poverty level? That is how much that poor Liberal has to work. Poor Michael Pitfield in the Senate. He has to work another 15 or 20 days before he gets enough money to reach the poverty line. The Liberal answer for those families below the poverty line is to cap their Family Allowance, to hold them below the rate of inflation.
It would have been different if that were the policy for the richer people in Canada, those in the higher income levels. To put a cap on them would have been saleable to Canadians. However, universally to put a cap on those in all brackets, including the growing poverty group, is not acceptable.
I want to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the fact that of all families, 48 per cent are single-parent families headed by females. Let me assure those who somehow think this money is being spent foolishly that in the majority of cases, and the data proves this, the money is directed to food, clothing, shelter and other necessities.
The Hon. Member for Lincoln accused us of playing on fears. There is fear. It would be blind of us not to recognize it. There is the fear of the 1.5 million unemployed, which does not include the more than 500,000 who have given up looking for work. After months of looking, they have found no work.
It does not include the native Indians of this country, none of whom are listed in the Statistics Canada rating of unemployed people in Canada. We have an unemployment rate on the different reservations across the country ranging from 60 to 80 per cent. Native people are not included.


Monique Bégin: That is not true.


Arnold John Malone: That is true. Let us have a little talk afterwards and I will show you.


Monique Bégin: It is not a fact. It is the opposite.


Arnold John Malone: It is not the opposite. There is a nice debate across the floor of the House. It would be good to enlighten the
Liberals. It simply is not the fact at all. This is lovely. I have some support from the NDP, which sits to my left. That at least demonstrates that I have the support of both the Conservatives and the Liberals because I have the support of the Conservatives and the NDP.
On the one hand we have the situation where there is the capping of Family Allowances. That affects the poor and keeps them below the rate of inflation. On the other hand, we have to look at what is happening with respect to Government expenditures. The Member of my Party who spoke before me went through a number of issues. Interestingly enough, he dealt with many of the same ones on which I intended to comment.


Miss Campbell:: You must have the same researcher.


Arnold John Malone: It is important, when we talk about restrictions and Government spending, to recognize the onus upon us to talk about where the money will come from. That is not hard, thank goodness, because we have a Liberal Government.
Look at Mirabel Airport. I know that if Mirabel were not there, we still could not buy everything. We cannot use it as an excuse all the time. However, the truth is that hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland were destroyed and that it was built at a cost of $600 million. Every year it has an operating deficit. The airlines do not want to use it, nor do the people of Montreal.
The newspapers in Boston advertise encouraging people to go to Boston to use their airlines to fly overseas because there is less fuss there for Canadians than in using the Mirabel Airport. That is just one $600 million expenditure of the ones I have listed, Sir, which would have covered the cost which the Minister is talking about today dealing with food, clothing and shelter of children in those families that are under the poverty line.
There is also the fact that the Government spent over $1 million to advertise its six and five program. The six and five program was intended, in part, to hold down the increase in Family Allowances. We certainly never supported any $1 million advertising program telling us that the program was okay. This is the same Government which runs Canada Post where the stamps lick the people rather than the other way around. We are in a situation where the Canada Post deficit is running wild-


An Hon. Member:: We have reduced the deficit.


Arnold John Malone: What a brilliant piece of Liberal logic I heard from the other side, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member has told me that the Government has reduced the deficit. That must mean that if it can make the deficit high enough and then reduce it, it has cleared its conscience. That will not wash. As the Hon. Member for Lincoln was saying a few moments ago, Canadians are more sophisticated than that. He is right. And at the present time the polls indicate that.
February 10, 1983

The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that $1 out of every $4 tax dollars spent in this country is spent purely on paying the interest on our foreign debt. That, again, underscores the wild expenditures of the Government for the monuments it has been building in tribute of itself. Another example is the purchase of PetroCan, Petrofina and BP Oil. The Government may not have enough money for poor children in this country, but it can buy oil companies and tax the people at the gas station. When farmers are buying their gasoline and their fertilizer, they are paying more money. But this Government cannot find the dollars necessary to help the children in need across this country. They cap the increases in family income at levels below that of the rate of inflation, and that, Sir, is a shameful act. It is unacceptable that the Government would make that a priority when there are so many other areas where it could save the moneys needed to hold down the rate of inflation and to make its programs work.
There are 1,500,000 persons in this country today who are unemployed. More than three million live below the poverty line, and that is by international standards. Out of 24 million Canadians we have some three million persons today in this country who live below the poverty line. The Hon. Members to my left tell me it is four million. I did not see that statistic, but whether it is three million or four million or some other number, it is too much. My data says it is three million. That is too much. If four million is fact, it is just that much more "too much, too much". I did not get my "tang tungled". I meant that, because it is a very cruel, crass attitude of the Government that in order to build its monuments to itself it would choose to cap Family Allowances, including those of people below the poverty line. That is just unacceptable.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare should know that if you are going to cap, you should cap in such situations the incomes of those of higher wealth, not universally. If that is what the Hon. Member for Lincoln meant when he said the Liberal Party supports universality, then it is the Liberal Party which is at fault, if believing in universality leads to that kind of crass treatment of the people. On the basis of the Government's own data, over the next year families earning $35,000 per year and more will receive $800 per child, and those at the poverty level will receive $700 per child. That is not necessarily from Family Allowances; it is the total benefits which they are going to be able to get from tax credits and from other benefits. If this Bill passes it is going to cause a loss of at least $30 per child, and that is a burden which should not be placed upon those children whose families are living below the poverty line.
This Government has put in place, or allows to stay in place, somewhere in excess of 480 Crown corporations. It has the CBC which it subsidizes at almost $1 billion a year. Some $800 million in subsidies goes to that organization. Yet despite that, despite forced metric, rightly or wrongly forced with all of its bureaucracy, there is money there for those children, for needs which are basic to human life, and it should not be acceptable that a Government in its crassness would refuse to
Family Allowances Act, 1973
give the kind of adequate support which has been traditionally there.
Single-parent families, most of them headed by females, make up 8 per cent of all of the families in Canada today. But the unfortunate fact is, Mr. Speaker, that those single-parent families headed by females make up 48 per cent of those families which are listed within the poverty bracket. That is what this legislation is aimed at, hurting those people who are least able to cope with their circumstances, female heads of families, caring for their children, who cannot go out to work. That is the insensitive position which the Government is taking toward those particular people. At the same time it tells Donald Macdonald he can have $800, or $900 if he is away from his home. That simply is not going to wash with the Canadian people.
The savings for the federal Government for this particular policy, the capping of six and five on Family Allowances, adds up to .05 per cent of the federal budget, or one-hundreth of 1 per cent of our Gross National Product. Surely, in light of Mirabel, Petro-Canada, Petrofina, British Petroleum, the 480 Crown corporations, CBC, and all the other spillage of money which goes on, there is some money in the public Treasury that in this time of inflation and hard economic times, and in this time when there are 1,500,000 persons unemployed, to would retain the traditional standards for families who are under the poverty line. I believe it is an abominable failure of the Government that under such conditions it would choose to pay persons like Donald Macdonald $800 per day, put wealthy people in the Senate at two salaries, continue with metrication, and continue to support the oil companies. The Liberal landscape, Sir, is a billion dollars of subsidies for PetroCan and a $80 million cut for poor families and children.
That is the landscape we are looking at, and it is unacceptable. If the Government thinks that it will make a saving by capping universal Family Allowances, it should bear in mind that that expense may very well recur somewhere else. If children do not have the proper nutrition, it could well be that they will fail in school, their health will be affected, and it could affect our rate of crime and unemployment. If we do not take care of the children of the nation, we have to recognize that we are not necessarily making a saving; the cost may reappear somewhere else. We are bound to see that children have an adequate start in life, especially in those families last able to cope, such as that 48 per cent who are poor, families headed by single parent mothers.


Mrs. Erola:: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that the Member has been making some very serious charges, using figures which are not really very accurate. In the year 1982 the Child Tax Credit was $261. Is he aware of what the Child Tax Credit will be this year? It will be $343.


Monique Bégin: He did not know.


Judith A. Erola: Who are the recipients of that Child Tax Credit? Those very people he was referring to, single parent

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
mothers. I am delighted to tell him that all Indian mothers, I am informed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), are recipients of the full Child Tax Credit of $343. So the poor of the country, the poor mothers, are indeed being protected by the Child Tax Credit. Let us put that on the record.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) for putting on the record the fact that Indian mothers are able to get a tax credit. I accept that. As a matter of fact, I never even said anything other than that. She says I did, but she will notice tomorrow in Hansard that what I said was that Indian families are not counted amongst the unemployed.


Monique Bégin: You will change the "blues".


Arnold John Malone: I am sorry, the sound waves did not get across to the other side, but I stand by my position. Indians are not counted amongst the unemployed in this country, and that is what I was talking about at the time.
With respect to the $240 tax credit, I accepted that there will be an increase over last year. However, because of the capping of the Family Allowance this year there will be a permanent loss of $30 for each family thereafter. It is a permanent loss and it will hit the poor families harder than it does the rich. The Minister can come forward with her tax credit, but that will not solve the ongoing problem. That is not the way to put into place national policy.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I should not even react to the scare tactics used by the Official Opposition-


James Douglas Manly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not customary to rotate amongst different Parties during the exchange following a Member's speech?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: You are absolutely right. We will do that eventually. The Hon. Minister for National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin).


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he is not aware that his last explanation is totally false. He explained to the people of Canada who are watching television right now that there will be a loss forever in the base of child benefits received by mothers in need. That is not the case. Is the Member aware that the Child Tax Credit will be a full $50 more, on top of indexation, which will replace all possible loss this year and next year? I repeat, all possible loss. I will send him a copy of the detailed figures I gave in committee because he may not be aware of the damage he is trying to create amongst mothers with false information.
Is he aware of how many mothers get the Child Tax Credit, partially or fully? I would like to know what number he thinks it is.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is at odds with the Canadian Council on Social Development who support the
position I have expressed here today. Not only has she a debate with me, she has one with that organization also.
I want to say to her that whenever you restrict the increase in Family Allowance with the intention to start full indexing later, you will be indexing from a lower base. The calculations I have, on the basis of the legislation before us, show there will be a $30 reduction for every child. I concede there is a one-year supplement, but that does not make up for the fact that the base will be lower thereafter in perpetuity, unless the Government makes some other legislative changes. I stand by that statement, and I guess there is nothing else I can say about it other than that that is a fact.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, as I understand what has been said here, the recipients of Family Allowances are not really losing anything because they are getting it back in the Child Tax Credit. Is this Liberal Government telling us that it has put us through all kinds of debate in the House of Commons over the six and five program when it really does not change anything? Has this been done for cosmetic, political posturing in the country when there is really no loss to the recipients and no gain to the Government of Canada? What is the whole point of the six and five program?


Mr. Kristiansen:: And they talk about wasting time.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with that submission. I am sure there is some accuracy in it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) on his speech. I was watching him on the monitor and I thought for a while I was watching Dallas. That vest is very impressive. However, I know that in addition to being a fine orator, he also was very serious about what he was saying. Indeed, we agreed with many but not, of course, all the points he raised.
He talked about Government expenditures and I would like to ask him whether he would be willing to reduce the Government allocations for defence in order to raise Family Allowances for Canada's children?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to find ways of raising funds out of the wasteful expenditures the Government is making at the present time, so that women and children in this country do not have to suffer. However, at a time when this country would lose a war with Cuba because we do not have Armed Forces to match those of Cuba, I would be somewhat reluctant to tone down our defences, especially since there is, on both sides of the House, some feeling that there is a need to beef up Canada's defences.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, we just saw the usual fight between the NDP and the Conservatives. When it suits them, they gang up one way, then gang up the other way, and go to bed together.
Of course the Hon. Member for Crowfoot has not read the report of the Canadian Council on Social Development, nor is he aware of the amount of poverty, as he showed clearly in his
February 10, 1983

speech. But is he aware that his thesis is absolutely false in that the projected rate of inflation toward the end of 1984 is 4.8 per cent, with which we are very pleased? That would be just below 5 per cent, which means that no mother on welfare or otherwise would lose a penny. I know it is difficult to make him understand our social programs; he has never spoken on that in the time he has been in the House, but I would just like him to tell us if he knew that, because he should. Those are the facts.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, 1 have some experience with the Government's projection of deficits. If the Government is so comfortable with the projected rate of inflation next year, then 1 am quite comfortable in asking why the Government does not accept the amendment of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) that it be just a one-year program. The capping of indexation would be relative to inflation and there would be no problem because it would simply go up by that 5 per cent, if in fact we can trust the Government's prediction.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have heard everything the Opposition knows about defence and Mirabel. I think we should now get to the question being debated in the House this afternoon, and that is Bill C-152. What we have to do is look at this Bill in the proper perspective. This is not a Bill that we apply against defence spending or any other question that-


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would like to bring to the attention of this House, and to the Hon. Member, that we are not debating Bill C-152 here this afternoon, if that is what he has come into the House to debate. We are actually debating Bill C-132, and he should be speaking to that Bill, not Bill C-152.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging that the Hon. Member does know something else. I imagine if we give him one more chance he will exhaust everything he knows.
I think it is important to look at this Bill in perspective; why the six and five program was brought into play. The reason was to reduce inflation. The way to reduce inflation is to have cut-backs on spending and wages across the country. It was important for the Government to set an example. Of course it is important that those who cannot afford to bear reduced incomes not be hurt. I think this has been taken into consideration with respect to Bill C-132.
The Government has chosen to exercise a concerted national effort to lead Canada from a situation of world-wide recession to a realistic world of recovery. To make this or any national effort work, the full thrust of all Canadians is required. Each segment of our society must co-operate, whether it is the elected representatives, public servants, or even, unfortunately in this case, the pensioners, families and children, who are involved as well.
This is not a Bill that is going to be a detriment to families, to single parent families, children, or anyone in this country. I think it is an excellent example of how to keep the six and five
Family Allowances Act, 1973
program alive while maintaining the incomes of those who most need the income, and need assistance in this country.
It is difficult for anyone, individual or corporate, to give up a benefit to which they have become accustomed, but it is only through limited involvement of each segment of the Canadian population that the six and five program will attack and lower the inflation rate. The problem is universal.
Canadians are being called upon to sacrifice a little in the short term in order to ensure Canada's economic recovery and stability. We must pitch in to achieve this goal. The economy of this country is far too important to be taken lightly, as it is taken by the Opposition. There is a common denominator in this battle. We all, as individuals, unfortunately have to tighten our belts and redistribute the cash flow in response to economic conditions. The Government is doing the same. We are attempting to implement this measure in a way that is least injurious to our basic quality of life. The Government likewise is attempting to redistribute its budget in a way that maintains the basic lifestyle of its citizens, particularly those who are most unable to protect themselves against changes in an economic climate over which they have little or no control.
There are armchair philsophers and prophets of doom and gloom sitting in the Opposition who would criticize any Government program on the basis of partisan politics, but can offer no constructive alternatives. They have indicated that Bill C-132 will take food from the mouths of children and jeopardize their chances of a university education. The simple facts of this straightforward Bill negate this type of sensationalism.
The current Family Allowances Act provides an annual escalation of allowances in January of each year on the basis of increases in the Canadian Price Index. The current 1982 rate is $26.91 per child per month. Under this Bill the amount as of January 1983 will rise to $28.52 a month, and not more than $29.95 a month in January of 1984. Based on the estimate that the average rate of inflation will fall to about 6 per cent-let us hope it will go lower but say 6 per cent-by the end of 1984 the reduction will be approximately $16.80 per child for the year 1983 and $28.32 per child for 1984, a total reduction of $45 per child for the two year period.
The difference between the expected increases in the Family Allowances and the actual increases due to the six and five program capping is between $1.40 and $1.50 per month. As with all aspects of the six and five, there will be increases, so no one will be treading water at the 1982 rate. That is, there will still be increases of 6 per cent and 5 per cent in 1983 and 1984 respectively, even though they will not be at the rate of inflation at the particular time. That is what we see on the one hand; the reduction of $45 per child approximately over the two year period.
On the other hand, just as the indexing of old age pensions protects those most in need of benefits, the seniors who did not have sufficient income to handle this kind of reduction, the Government instituted an indexed increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
As in the case of the old age pensions, Bill C-132 has made special provisions for those families eligible, and therefore most deserving of the Child Tax Credit. The Child Tax Credit was introduced by the Liberal Government in 1978 to provide special assistance to families earning less than $18,000 a year. The amount of family earnings for full entitlement has since been increased to $26,300 per year. As a one time effort under Bill C-139, $50 will be added to the 1982 Child Tax Credit as a compensation in advance to low and middle income families for the reductin in Family Allowances over the two year restraint program. Of the 3.6 million families currently in receipt of Family Allowance payments, approximately 2.5 million families will not be adversely affected, due to the special temporary increase of a $50 Child Tax Credit.
As an example, a family with two children and a yearly income of less than $26,300 will receive the full Child Tax Credit of $686, comprised of the basic $293 per child, plus the special $50 Child Tax Credit per child. The Child Tax Credit is applicable to a similar family on a diminishing scale with a family income of up to $40,050. It is not Family Allowances that will be cut, as claimed by the Opposition. The anticipated increase will be reduced. Recipients in 1983 and 1984 will still be receiving more money than they did in 1982.
To return to the example, only one third of Canadian mothers receiving Family Allowance will receive a smaller increase than anticipated for their child benefits in the coming two years. As stated, this reduction will be between $1.40 and $1.50 per month. Of course this Bill does not in any way affect the special allowances paid for children under 18 years of age maintained by Government care, such as through welfare agencies or institutions. They are fully indexed in both 1983 and 1984.
The results will be that expenditures through the Family Allowance program will have a net reduction of about $93 million in 1983, and potentially $154 million in 1984, depending on the decline in the inflation rate. The gross reduction is approximately $115 million in 1983 and $190 million in 1984. Of course the reason for the difference is the revenue lost in taxation.
At a time when national Governments are faced with the same set of economic circumstances as individuals, they are willing to cut their programs, and the largest expenditures are those to individual Canadians. I say this knowing that the Government does not want to cut expenditures, but, in this case, because of inflation and the need to reduce the rate of inflation, action had to be taken. I commend the Government for taking action. I do not think anyone would suggest that this was not a difficult decision to make. No one likes to have their income expectations reduced.
Only those families with incomes of more than $40,050 will receive no Child Tax Credit. Families with income less than $26,300 will receive the full Child Tax Credit. This will more than compensate for the reduction in the indexation of Family
Allowance increases which were anticipated in 1983 and 1984 before the six and five guidelines were put in place. It is my feeling that Bill C-132 will entrench the Liberal commitment to universality, while ensuring that the burden of restraint is not placed on those who are unable to bear it. The spirit is teamwork. Little has been taken from those who cannot afford a reduction in income; it has been more than compensated by the Child Tax Credit.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member clarify for the House and for Canadians his argument about whether or not Family Allowance changes will mean any reduction in money to families? Does he realize, or is he aware of the fact that in 1981 Statistics Canada showed that family poverty had increased in the country for the first time since the early 1970s, that among those poor families the most significant increase was in number of single parent families, and that with the recession and the increase in unemployment poverty would balloon in 1982? Is he aware of the fact that there is increasing family poverty as a result of increased unemployment? When will his Government stop talking about inflation and start doing something about the need for employment so that people can have decent incomes?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Members concern about low-income families, but the truth of the matter is that poverty has not increased in the country.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: How can you say that?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Those who are in need-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Don't you know your riding?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Yes, I know my riding much better than the Hon. Member.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Those figures were from 1980.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: No, not at all. Those people who have lost employment certainly do not have an abundance of income, by any means, but unemployment insurance has been maintained. Job-creation programs have been escalated, and the actual poverty line is subject to change by anyone who wants to change it. In my opinion poverty has not increased. The income of those with higher incomes has been reduced, but poverty itself, as it was measured in the past, has not increased.


Cyril Keeper: I am rather surprised that the Hon. Member should deny the fact that family poverty has increased for the first time since the early 1970s, according to the 1981 figures of Statistics Canada. This is not a matter of opinion. They are statistical figures, analyzed by competent economists and researchers with the Canadian Council on Social Development. Poverty has increased, and one of the clear indications of that fact is that there are now more workers who are heads of families, who traditionally had jobs, than ever who are unemployed; in numbers unknown in recent times. How can the Member sit in this House, or travel in this country and come to the conclusion that poverty has not increased?
February 10, 1983


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The Hon. Member can quote any figures he wants, and substantiate them on any scale he wants, but incomes have also increased substantially over the last ten years. There is no suggestion that unemployment has not increased. There are a great many people whose unemployment insurance benefits have expired. This is of grave concern. I would not argue that point.
How we are to define poverty, keeping in mind that the incomes of those who have jobs have increased? I would like the Hon. Member to set forth his parameters; what does he consider the poverty to be, and then we can take it from there. Unfortunately we cannot do that this afternoon, but 1 would be interested in learning his parameters and comparing them with comparable parameters of the past.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, Before posing my question, I would like to say I was surprised by the Hon. Member's earlier remarks when I raised a point of order in an effort to ensure that he was speaking on the correct piece of legislation.
In light of his unfortunate comments about the circumstances which require keeping the six and five alive, and that it has to affect pensioners and some other people in our society, why does he not urge the Government in caucus to extend the six and five program? I could possibly support a six and five program if it covered everyone. What bothers me most about the program, and this has caused most of the time waste in the House of Commons, is that it is directed at specific segments of society. Why do you not encourage your caucus to have the six and five program extended, say, to the bank's profits and other corporate sector profits? Limiting of profits to six and five should be done. The banks have always maintained that they should have high profits because their profits should relate to their assets. If that is true, why does the Government not guarantee a profit of six and five per cent to the farmers of this country? I know many farmers in my constituency, who have over $500,000 in assets, who, for the past few years, have hardly received any net income at the end of a year. This situation will get worse by doing away with the Crow rate as a result of the Pepin plan. Why does the Government not extend that program to cap profits to some and guarantee profits to others who are not making it in our society right now?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the concern generally on the six and five program. But the six and five program has worked and it is continuing to work. It does apply to everyone as far as income tax indexing is concerned. In this country we have to look at a great deal of unemployment. We have a very high rate of unemployment, much higher than is acceptable to anyone in this House. At a time when we are trying to create jobs and trying to get an economic recovery, how can we say to companies close to bankruptcy that have perhaps used every dollar to pay off debts and are squeezed by increased interest rates on the one hand and reduced sales on the other, that we are going to apply a reduced level of profits, that they will have to accept a reduced level of profits when their profits are low enough as it is? How are we going to
Family Allowances Act, 1973
stimulate the economy at this particular time by applying income restraints against these companies? I agree there are companies that do make profits over what one would consider a justified profit, but right now the economy is in great difficulty. We have to try to stimulate the economy, create jobs and get out of this deep recession in which we find ourselves at the present time.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the Hon. Member's last remarks. Why is it that he and his Liberal colleagues, who seem to be talking like Conservatives on this issue, when they want to restore confidence and stability to the economy do so by offering extra incentives, extra grants and extra payments to those who have, and forcibly restrain those who, relatively speaking, do not have? How do the Liberals justify that, particularly by creating the kind of insecurity which seems to be the only tangible results of the Bill before us? At least that is the statement made by representatives of the Government. They say it will not make an actual difference to their income, it will just create that feeling of insecurity among them so they have the psychological idea that they are being mobilized to help restore some stability and security to our economy. How do the Liberals justify the two tracks? The Liberals hit at those who do not have and they give more to those who do have.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member, when he accuses us of talking like Tories, that what we are discussing here at the present time is Bill C-132 and the compensation for reduction in the indexation of the Family Allowance by a $50 Tax Credit over the two-year period.
When the Hon. Member talks about incentives, where was he and his NDP colleagues when the Government presented its November 12 budget and the Government took the criticism from the business community for the regulations which it was putting forward? Where were the NDP then?


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is by the Government's decision, of course, that this afternoon we have to continue debating this six and five legislation, in this case to put the cap on Family Allowances. It is the Government's decision that this is much more important than to debate what part Canada will play in the nuclear arms race.
This afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) tabled the agreement for the framework of testing weapons like the Cruise missile, but refused to make a statement that should have been made. In other words, he refused to allow any opportunity for Members of this House to question or debate a very, very important statement. Therefore, it is with regret that I have to speak not on what has concerned many thousands of Canadians very deeply, not on an issue in which 52 per cent of Canadians are recorded by the Gallup poll as disagreeing with the Government's actions, well in advance of the Government signing that agreement today, but on an issue which, according to Government speakers, is really quite unimportant.
22736

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
We have been told by Government speakers, including the last one, that almost all of the people concerned will receive the same amount in total between Family Allowance and Child Tax Credit. Only a few on higher incomes, he tells us, will miss anything. He might have told us also that those people on higher incomes may well lose money or would lose money on the income tax if it were fairly graduated. The Government has failed to show why it is so important to put down a debate on national defence in order to have a debate about an income arrangement, which, according to the Government's own spokesman, makes no difference at all to the incomes of most people. This is the only thing on which the Government will allow us to speak.
I hope the Government will come to its senses later and allow us to speak on a more important subject soon.
Bill C-132 fits in as part of a general anti-child temper of the times. It cuts Family Allowance. There may be a temporary compensation for that, but the cut for the future is a message for families, namely: do not have children. This Bill picks on the weak, in this case the children, as the other two Bills pick on the weak, in those cases the pensioners. But this Bill picks on those even weaker because children cannot vote.
The Government's estimates of how much money it would save by this measure have varied all the way from June last year-through committee hearings when the Government admitted that the Government would save only about $10 million-until now when the Government suggests that nothing will be saved at all, or perhaps there will be a net outlay to the children. That situation depends on the projections concerning the rate of inflation. The projections in both the November budget and the June budget were so wildly inaccurate that we cannot take them seriously. Therefore, the fact that the Government keeps pressing for the passage of this legislation and will not withdraw it, even though, by the Government's own figures, the Bill is meaningless and makes no difference to the battle against inflation, has to be examined more deeply.
As I said, this is in the context of a general drift of Government action in which there is less money for housing for ordinary people, less money for education for ordinary people, less money for health care and less money for public services, such as social and recreational services for ordinary people. In some places, such as downtown Toronto, this is even extended specifically to children where there are thousands and thousands of apartments that ban children and expel parents who are guilty of giving birth to children. Therefore, it is very interesting to find this piece of legislation pointed against the Family Allowance.
The Minister gave an interesting explanation in committee. When asked why another measure such as the child tax exemption or the Child Tax Credit was not used, she answered that it was necessary to use something that comes as a cheque into as many houses as possible, a cheque that people receive by mail. If she wants to look up that reference, it is on page 14 of the report of the Fiftieth meeting. This was in support of her
concept of mobilization. You have to show people that they are being cut in the amount they receive rather than through a tax deduction that they do not receive. In other words, she wants to hit several million families with a monthly reminder of some type of penalty.
This is the part of the Government's approach to the economic crisis that we all recognize. I would like to give a contrasting approach. It is not the approach of any Party in the House, nor is it an approach of a political body. It is the approach of the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church who have suggested, through their commission, an ethical standard. It has been the cause of much debate. Some Hon. Members have opposed it. One Hon. Member opposite is apparently defending it or the Bishops' right to speak on it. I wish to comment on this approach.
The Bishops have suggested that the present recession appears to be symptomatic of a much larger structural crisis. They say that observers have pointed out that profound changes are taking place in the structure of both capital and technology which are bound to have serious social impacts on labour. It is obvious that when they say "capital", they do not mean the national manufacturers association. When they say "labour", they do not mean the Canadian Labour Congress. They are talking about human activities in a basic sense.
They say that we are now in an age when transnational corporations and banks can move capital from one country to another in order to take advantage of cheaper labour conditions, lower taxes and reduced environmental restrictions. They say that we are in an age of automation with computers, when human work is rapidly being replaced by machines on the assembly line and in administrative centres.
The Bishops do not claim that these are facts that are, in any sense, revealed by the Gospel. They claim that these are facts observable by any reasonable human being. I agree.
They also point to a reasonable conclusion. They conclude that the consequences are likely to be permanent or structural unemployment and increasing marginalization for a large segment of the population in Canada and other countries. That is exactly what we have today. The Bishops have suggested a cause for it, which I think the House would do well to consider seriously. In light of the Minister's refusal this afternoon to allow us to debate the matter of armaments and the arms' race, the Bishops' next comment seems very timely. They say, "In this context, the increasing concentration of capital and technology in the production of military armaments-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I apologize to the Hon. Member but I have been listening to him for the last few minutes and it seems to me that he is getting away from the matter now before the House. That is, the motion relating to Family Allowances. I would appeal to the Hon. Member to come back to that subject matter.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker. I am attempting to get to the bottom of the Government's strange behaviour in insisting beyond all else on pushing a Family Allowance capping Bill
February 10, 1983

which does not, according to the Government itself, make any serious difference to anyone's income. It seems strange to insist on debating that rather than debating what many Members of the House feel is a very urgent issue, namely, Canada's part in the arms' race.
I think the Bishops have hit the nail on the head when they said that there is this economic crisis which has generated a moral crisis. They are saying that the emphasis on capital and technology directly contradicts the principle of the dignity of labour. They are also saying that it directly contradicts the principle of a preferential option for the poor. Those are two principles which perhaps-they do not make it clear-they do base on the Gospel. Those are certainly principles that many others besides Christians hold and teach.
My point is that if we accept those two principles, the dignity of human labour and the preferential option for the poor, then this whole program of the Government comes into question. This is the program that the Bishops question.
The Government blames inflation on workers' wages, Government spending and low productivity rather than on the monopoly control of prices. That is the crux of the matter. If the Government is blaming workers' wages and Government expenditures which have been built up over the past three decades to equalize the inequalities of income in this country, and refusing to touch the monopoly prices that are the real cause of inflation, then it is putting up a smokescreen. The Bishops have not accused the Government of putting up a smokescreen, but I do. 1 believe that the Bishops' remarks provide a very sound base for that accusation.
The Government's strategy is simply to increase profitability by cutting workers' incomes, both the direct pay and indirect pay, through things like Family Allowances. Even if the recession brings the inflation rate down below 6 per cent and 5 per cent, something which has not been proved, the fact is that it is trying to instil in the 3.5 million people who receive Family Allowance some sense that they are to blame for inflation. This is similar to last winter when the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that even minimum wage is a cause of inflation. To blame the victims of inflation for the inflation itself is extremely cynical.
This Bill cuts into Family Allowance at a time when, according to the evidence before the committee, 900,000 children in Canada were living in poverty. It is a cut that will potentially affect the poor more than the rich. It has been pointed out that even if there is a Child Tax Credit that maintains the level of total benefit for two years, the benefit is reduced after that. In fact, the Liberals have been reducing that benefit year by year. In 1976, it suspended the indexation of Family Allowance. In 1978, it reduced the Family Allowance from $28, which it should have been, to $20. The result is that the Family Allowance is now $27 a month when it should be $40 a month, had it not been tampered with. This is a consistent policy on the part of the Liberals.
We are told by the Hon. Member for Lincoln that they discussed this at the convention. He did not tell us what the conclusions was. We know that they did not discuss this at the
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Conservative Convention: they just took a poll. Sixty-two per cent were in favour of cutting the Family Allowance.
The Government is not only not cutting profits, it is feeding them. It wants to give hundreds of millions of dollars to the railways and guarantee them 39.5 per cent profits. In 1980, it already gave $15 billion to industries in return for only $11 billion in taxes. We are now told that it is up to pensioners, mothers and civil servants to be mobilized in the fight against inflation. The big companies will not be mobilized; only the poor. This mobilization talk is a means of attacking people through a monthly pay cheque which tells its recipients that it is their fault that we have inflation. It is a means of putting people down, a means of blaming the victims for the crisis, each one in his or her home. It is a means of repeatedly penalizing people with small cuts or insults. Along with the hign unemployment, it contributes to paralyzing people, at least for the time being. They just do not understand what the Government they elected is trying to do.
I would seriously recommend to the Government that it consider a complete, alternative policy, as suggested by the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. First, the Government should regard unemployment, not inflation, as being the number one problem of our country. A couple of Hon. Members have said that they do, but they continue to act on the theory that inflation is their number one problem. I wish they would put their action where their mouths are today and turn their Government's policy around and treat unemployment, not inflation, as being our number one policy.
Second, there should be a broad industrial plan for rebuilding-industries, especially manufacturing industries and the labour intensive industries of this country. Third, if there is to be a way of fighting inflation, it must be done on a fairer basis. Instead of hitting only employees, pensioners and children, there must be some system for raking in some of the excess profits, some of the fat profits which are being made at this time on the backs of the unemployed and the low paid. There must be maintenance of the network of the support systems of unemployment insurance, welfare, subsidized housing, medicare, subsidized education and all the benefits which have been built up in Canada. Those must be maintained on behalf of the poor. Family Allowance is one of the very important ones.
Finally, the Bishops say that the views of unions should be considered more in these decisions, and I would urge Hon. Members opposite to remember the very strong representations made by the Canadian Labour Congress against this Bill as well as other Bills.
As first the action of the Government simply seems unjust. At the time when it predicted that the inflation rate might be around 10 per cent or 9 per cent, cutting the Family Allowance to 6 per cent and 5 per cent seemed unjust. Now that it claims that the inflation rate will go down below even 5 per cent, it not only seems unjust, but also ridiculous. It seems like a way of stalling, a way of distracting people's attention from the real troubles in this country which arise from monopolistic

February 10, 1983
Family Allowances Act, 1973
prices which are forced up by very large groups of corporations. The Government is distracting attention from those by pointing at the Family Allowance recipients who, by its own admission, may in fact not actually be affected in their dollar receipts by this legislation. It is a shameful charade which the Government has played on the House and the nation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Are there any questions or comments?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: 1 will recognize the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I see that I have two minutes in which to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I apologize to the Hon. Member. Was the Parliamentary Secretary rising to ask a question?


James Duncan Schroder: No. I just wondered if we had used up our question time for debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Sit down. I have a minute to go, and 1 will tell you what I think.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair called for questions or comments. No one rose, and we are therefore now proceeding to debate. 1 recognized the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have one minute left in which to speak in this particular debate. I think it is significant that today we have seated across from us, on the Government side, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), who is responsible for Family Allowances and is to be the guardian of Family Allowances for the people of Canada, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), who has a special responsibility to the youth of this country, the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) who is responsible for the Status of Women and who should be interested in the plight of women, including single mothers, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia), who should be interested in the terms of employment opportunities. They have been here and have condoned this atrocious attack on the youth and families of our nation. I simply say, shame on them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to the order made on Monday, February 7, 1983, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the Bill.

The question is on the amendment (Mr. Hawkes). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Hawkes) which was
negatived on the following division:
	(.Division No. 291)		,
	YEAS		
	Messrs.		
			
Andre	Hamilton	McLean	Anguish	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	Mitchell (Mrs.)	Baker	Mountain)	Mitges	(Nepean-Carleton)	Hargrave	Munro	Beatty	Hawkes	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	-*Benjamin	Heap	Neil	Blackburn	Hnatyshyn	Nickerson	Blaikie	Howie	Nielsen	iBlenkarn	Jarvis	Oberle	Bosley	Jewett (Miss)	Ogle	*Bradley Cardiff	Keeper Kempling	Orlikow Parker	|Coates	Kilgour	Patterson	Corbett	Knowles	Reid	Cossitt (Mrs.)	Kristiansen	(St. Catharines)	*?Crosbie	Kushner	Riis	(St. John's West)	Lambert	Roche	Crosby	La Salle	Rose	>(Halifax West)	Lawrence	Sargeant	%Crouse	Lewis	Schellenberger	%Dantzer	Lewycky	Scott	Darling	MacKay	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Deans	Malone	Scott	de Jong	Manly	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Domm	Mayer	Siddon	Ellis	Mazankowski	Speyer	Epp	McCain	Stewart	Forrestall	McCuish	Taylor	Fraser	McDcrmid	Thacker	Fulton	McDonald (Ms.)	Towers	Gamble	(Broadview-G reen wood)	Wenman	%Gass	McKenzie	Wilson	Gurbin	McKinnon	Wise	.Halliday	McKnight	Young-92.	3.NAYS	?pMessrs.	Allmand	Bloomfield	Campbell	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Bockstael	(LaSalle)	Axworthy	Bossy	Campbell	Bachand	Breau	(Cardigan)	Bcauchamp-Niquet	Bujold	Chenier	(Mrs.)	Burghardt	Collenctte	Begin (Miss)	Bussieres	Comtois	Berger	Caccia	Corbin	Blais	Campbell (Miss)	Corriveau	Blaker	(South West Nova)	Cosgrove	
February 10, 1983

Family Allowances Act, 1973
Messrs.
Cote (Mrs.)	Gourde	MalepartCousineau	(Levis)	MarceauCyr	Gray	MasseDawson	Guilbault	MastersDe Bane	Harquail	McCauleyde Corneille	Henderson	McRaeDemers	Herbert	Nicholson (Miss)Dingwall	Hervieux-Payette	OlivierDion	(Mrs.)	OstiguyDionne	Hopkins	Ouellet(Chicoutimi)	Hudecki	ParentDionne	Irwin	Pelletier(Northumberland-	Isabelle	PennerMiramichi)	Ittinuar	PepinDubois	Johnston	PinardDuclos	Joyal	PortelanceDupont	Kaplan	Prud'hommeDupras	Killens (Mrs.)	ReidErola (Mrs.)	Lachance	(Kenora-RainyEthier	Lajoie	RobertsEvans	Lamontagne	RompkeyFerguson	Landers	RossiFisher	Lang	RoyFleming	Laniel	SavardFlis	Lapierre	SchroderFoster	Lapointe	SmithFox	(Beauce)	TardifFrancis	Leduc	TessierFrith	Lefebvre	TousignantGarant	Loiselle	TrudeauGauthier	MacBain	TurnerGendron	MacEachen	VeilletteGimaiel	MacGuigan	WatsonGingras	Mackasey	WeatherheadGourd	MacLaren	Whelan(Argenteuil-Papineau)	MacLellan	Yanakis-126.[Translation]


Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Motion (Mr. Hawkes) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Division No. 292)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chenier Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cyr Dawson De Banc de Corneille Demers Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont Dupras Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Beauce)
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Peiletier
Penner
Pepin
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan Yanakis-126.
++NAYS


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Messrs.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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, and let us dispense with the bell.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Madam Speaker:: It now being 6.20 p.m. I do now leave the chair until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.20 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, February 11, 1983