1982-12-03

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
31 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 3, 1982

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, in the single month of November an additional 55,000 jobs have been lost in Canada. There are now officially 1,438,000 Canadians who are out of work. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That this House has absolutely no confidence in the Liberals' handling of the economy and condemns the Liberals' six and five policy of fighting inflation through massive unemployment.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency. Citizen outrage in British Columbia against the spreading pornographic industry was evidenced by the fire bombing of three Red Hot video sales outlets. Less dramatic, but of equal intensity, is the citizen protest in smaller centres such as Penticton in Okanagan-Similkameen which are experiencing the extension of this unworthy business into their communities. Inasmuch as the struggle for decency in society is national and not just municipal, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That this House urge the Attorney General of Canada to meet with provincial counterparts to develop legislation which will represent the people's interests in eliminating this indecent trade, and relieve municipal councils of the burden of attempting to control pornographic enterprises without the backing of law.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter that is of pressing importance. Last night the Official Opposition Tory Members of the "Liberal Lifesaving Squad", this time 31 of the 101 PC MPs, stayed away from a vote again, thus preserving the life of the Government by allowing the Liberals to float by with a 27 vote margin and ensuring that most Canadian senior citizens will suffer a loss in real incomes as a result of Bill C-131 's "deep sixing" of the aged. In recognition of these continuing PC efforts, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the Prime Minister publicly thank the PCs for saving his Liberal Government from defeat, and further, that he ask his Tory "Lifesavers" whether their repeated absenteeism and Liberal support is due to the fact that Tories love the Prime Minister more or love their own leader less.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, since the presentation of the budget of November, 1981, the number of people out of work for six months or more, that is the long term unemployed, has risen 124 per cent, and the total measured unemployed now nears the 1.5 million mark. The Government's response to this has been to attempt to create 60,000 short term jobs for these long term unemployed while sacrificing an undisclosed number of permanent jobs in the process. Inasmuch as the depth of winter is a particularly bad time for the unemployed, and that the Government has repeatedly stated that methods to improve the situation will be taken only in its projected spring budget, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That this House request the Minister to bring forward measures now not only to address the problems of the winter unemployed but also to convince the Canadian public that we who sit in this place do have their welfare at heart in a way that is more than crassly political.

December 3, 1982


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-451 will be debated in the House today. This Bill would place further restrictions on the possession of firearms. Under our present gun control laws, all guns purchased after 1978 must be registered, and anyone wishing to purchase a firearm must obtain a firearms acquisition certificate from the police department. Police statistics show that this registration of guns does not reduce crime, and that it is ineffective, cumbersome and expensive. Therefore 1 urge, and move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence):
That all Hon. Members of the House seriously consider further legislation which places greater penalties on those who use guns during criminal acts.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of increased unemployment of 55 per cent, and 12.5 per cent of the work force unemployed at this time, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the Government reconsider its position on closing out the RCMP security offices at airports in St. John's, Moncton, Quebec City, London, Windsor, Victoria, Regina and Saskatoon, which will only cause unemployment and create security risks at these airports.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


HOME SUPPORT SERVICES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, Canada has an increasing number of senior citizens who are in vital need of home support services which will allow them to remain out of institutions and to live productive, independent lives. We also have thousands of unemployed Canadians who are willing to work and provide these services in every community for senior citizens, services such as Meals on Wheels, home maintenance, transportation, medical care, and recreational and social programs. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker):
That the Minister of Finance and the Government introduce a program of productive, long-term jobs to provide essential support services for the elderly and to save millions of dollars in costly institutional care.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE LATE PERCY WILLIAMS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, this motion should have the full sympathy and support of all parties in the House. One of Canada's outstanding athletes is dead. Percy Williams surprised the world when, at Amsterdam, during the Summer Olympics held there in 1928, he won both the 100-metre and the 200-metre sprints, a feat which no other Canadian has accomplished. In 1950 he was voted the outstanding Canadian track and field athlete for the half century, and in 1978 he was presented with the Order of Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That, since Percy Williams died alone and without any known living relatives, will the Government of Canada consider recognizing, in a lasting way, the outstanding achievements of this athlete by issuing a commemorative stamp or by some other suitable manner through Fitness and Amateur Sport.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member would have to gain the support of another Hon. Member for the motion, because the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) is not in the House. Oh, he is here. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
December 3, 1982


EDUCATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 concerns the plight of approximately 13,000 young Canadians who borrowed through the Canada Student Loan Program to get an education but now find themselves being hounded by Government collection agencies because they are unable to pay back their loans, due to our restrictive job market. The level of youth unemployment today amounts to 21 per cent. The only crime of these young people is that they do not come from affluent families, and they took the Government up on its attempt to provide equal access to post-secondary education regardless of income. 1 therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the Minister of Finance declare a moratorium on interest charges to young Canadians who have had to default because there are no jobs for them in the marketplace.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question, in the incredible absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister will know the results of the statistics from Statistics Canada this morning on the unemployment situation. We now have over one and one half million people on the street and looking for work. The unemployment rate is at 12.7 per cent. In the last month alone we have 55,000 more Canadians out of work, on the street and looking for jobs. Clearly, the unemployment situation in this country is absolutely appalling. On October 27 the Minister and the absent Minister of Employment and Immigration announced the establishment of a so-called NEED Program to provide 60,000 short-term jobs. The problem with that Program, as the Minister knows, is that it will not kick in until the end of January or the beginning of February. I would like to ask the Minister would he not now use all of his influence in the Cabinet to move that Program forward so that jobs can be created before Christmas.
U5)


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that the unemployment
Oral Questions
situation is very distressing. Even though the actual percentage of unemployment has not increased since last month, this is small satisfaction-


An Hon. Member:: No satisfaction.


Marc Lalonde: -to the hundreds of thousands of people who are unemployed at the present time.
The issue that the Hon. Member has raised is one that we have addressed. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has discussed this issue with me and we have decided to take every step possible to speed up the implementation of the Program. Consultation with the Provinces has been advanced, and 1 am pleased to advise the Hon. Member that I am informed that the Program will start being implemented this very month, before the end of December.
The agreement signed with the Province of Ontario in particular, this week, whereby the Province of Ontario is going to add $100 million to our own contribution of $130 million, will mean that we will be able to start the Program earlier than had been previously anticipated.
I want to assure the Hon. Member that we will do everything we can to make sure that that $500 million is available to the Canadian unemployed at the earliest possible moment.


STATEMENT MADE BY PRIME MINISTER
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, now that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has come into the House, perhaps I could direct my supplementary question to him rather than to the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, when they announced this Program, indicated that it would be a Program primarily directed toward those who are coming off unemployment insurance and are in danger of going on welfare, and it was to deal with the so-called "exhaustees", as the Minister calls them.
Sixty thousand jobs was the promise. Two days ago the Prime Minister publicly indicated that, in his opinion, there would not be 60,000 jobs created because the money that was coming for the 60,000 jobs was coming from programs which already employed people. Therefore, the Prime Minister indicated, contrary to what the Minister himself had indicated, there are not going to be sufficient funds for 60,000 jobs and sixty thousand jobs will not be created.
Who is right? Is the Minister of Employment right, or is the Prime Minister right? Are we going to have 60,000 jobs or are we not going to have 60,000 jobs?


Marc Lalonde: You are wrong.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, if the truth were known, we

December 3, 1982
Oral Questions
will have substantially more than 60,000 jobs, because of that Program.


Mr. Clark:: Which will last 20 minutes.


Lloyd Axworthy: No, that is how long your leadership will last, Mr. Clark.


Charles Joseph Clark: How long did yours last?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You could not even handle the women.


An Hon. Member:: You twit.


Lloyd Axworthy: What we are achieving with that Program is taking the $500 million and being able to multiply that into a substantial addition because of the contributions being made by the Provinces and by municipalities and, increasingly, by interest shown in the private sector. For example, yesterday we signed an agreement with the Province of Ontario. We had initially allocated $130 million. That Program now has grown to a $280 million Program and it is our estimate that we will provide, in that Province alone, somewhere between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs to help those most in need.
We have also signed an agreement with Saskatchewan. We have indications from Manitoba and several other Provinces that they will be coming into the Program, so it is our expectation that we will be providing a substantial amount of additional work at the time it is most needed for those who are facing the most severe problems. That was the intention of the Program. We intend to fulfil that intention.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PROGRAM BE EXPEDITED
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, if the Minister and the Government ever wonder why people do not believe them when they speak, on October 27 the Minister of Finance said there will be 60,000 jobs created with the NEED Program. Two days ago the Prime Minister said there will not be 60,000 jobs created.


Marc Lalonde: That is not what he said.


David Edward Crombie: Today the Minister of Employment and Immigration says there will be more than 60,000 jobs created. If there is any difficulty understanding why there is no credibility for this Government, that is as good an example as any.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Now that the Minister is in the House, let me repeat the question I asked. People who are now suffering unemployment are in need. They want to know when the Minister is going to bring on the jobs under the NEED Program. Why will he not speed up the process and have those jobs available, or at least begin to have them available by Christmas?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is important to clear up the misunderstanding that the Hon. Member is trying to perpetrate. In the press conference held by the Prime Minister, he was asked the question by a member of the press: would the money that has been reallocated from the energy envelope not in itself create jobs? As I have pointed out in the past, those funds were for long-term economic investment over a period of several years and may have only created one job for $300,000 or $400,000, say on a major pipeline project.
What we are talking about here is targeting in the very immediate future when people are suffering problems and difficulties. We want to apply the resources and money at a time when they will do the most good. That was the whole point being made in answer to that question. We are saying that because of the willingness and the ability of the Provinces and others to join with us in a major effort, and not to engage in the kind of carping criticism we constantly hear from that Member opposite, we will be able to start jobs under that Program before Christmas.


GOVERNMENT PLANS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the very serious matter of unemployment. Unemployment is reaching deeper and deeper into the labour force and is now attacking those with years of seniority. The figures released this morning show that 48,000 of the 55,000 Canadians who lost jobs last month are 25 years of age or over. That means many of them are heads of families. With the deteriorating situation in employment and the fact that the GNP is off 1 per cent again in the third quarter, how much longer is the Government going to wait before it takes major measures? Are the unemployed going to be told that they have to wait until next February or March before the Government presents a budget and comes up with major moves?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that slightly more than a month ago I introduced an economic statement in this House in which I indicated that the Government was allocating $1.1 billion of additional expenditure in the next few months to cope with the very problem that the Hon. Member has indicated.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It's not coping.


Marc Lalonde: The Hon. Member may feel it is not enough. I agree it will not be enough to mop up all the unemployment at the present time. I said in my statement that unfortunately we will be faced with high unemployment levels for the next several months. I remind the Hon. Member that this morning the unemployment figures were announced in the United States. Average unemployment has gone up there by almost half a point in this last month. The situation is the same.


Mr. Broadbent:: Oh, no!
December 3, 1982


Marc Lalonde: Already I hear the Leader of the NDP jumping. I might remind him that the same situation is occurring with his socialist friends in France. As a good member of the Socialists International, he should realize the problem is worldwide at the present time, and is not only a Canadian and American problem.
To come back to the serious question raised by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, as the Minister of Employment and Immigration just stated, we are doing everything to speed up the implementation of the expenditures that we have announced in order to help the situation. I have indicated that I will have a budget early in the new year, but I do not want to leave any impression that that budget is going to be able to resolve the unemployment problem and the very serious situation that we are facing in Canada, as well as in all industrialized countries, at the present time. What is important is that we address the problem seriously, responsibly and consistently, and that is what we are trying to do.


DURATION OF INDIVIDUAL UNEMPLOYMENT
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the unemployment rate in the United States is 10.8 per cent, and that is serious, but in Canada it is 12.7 per cent. That is the difference.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. One year ago people who were without work for 14 weeks, or longer, numbered some 270,000 people. Today 605,000 Canadians have been without work for 14 weeks or longer. That is over a 100 per cent increase. These are the people who will shortly be running out of unemployment insurance benefits. The program which the Minister announced will deal with 10 per cent of that number. What is going to happen to the other 90 per cent who have families to care for, homes to maintain, financial contributions to make? What is going to happen to them? They, too, are looking for an answer.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, we have dealt with that particular question in this House several times. What we have pointed out, both in a study which was published by our Department, and in answer to many questions, is that a substantial percentage of those who exhaust their benefits find alternative employment within a matter of seven to 12 weeks. In fact up to 35 per cent or 40 per cent do find a job within that period of time. To use the figures which the Hon. Member suggests, simply is not accurate. The fact is that people do find employment.
What we have determined from our studies of the labour market is that it is a very active, dynamic labour market. There are something like 250,000 people per month who are presently unemployed who do find new jobs. So there is a very active labour force both going into and out of the market at
Oral Questions
the same time. That is why I think it is very important that the Hon. Member try to be more accurate in her analysis, rather than simply using those gross exaggerations.


EXTENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT-MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The unemployment situation, which seemingly everyone in the country but the Cabinet recognizes, has reached an alarming state. We now have lost more than 100,000 jobs in lay-offs in the last two months alone. This is since the time the Minister made an optimistic forecast about the last quarter. We now have numerically a level of unemployment in Canada that is equivalent to the total labour force of half of our Provinces.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he does not agree that the situation now is alarmingly different from what he forecast when he made his October speech? And if he thinks it is alarming, why does he not bring in something now which will give Canadians some hope?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party seems to have discovered today the serious unemployment situation in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: We have had a serious unemployment problem in this country for many months.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I am glad that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party recognizes this fact and admits it, but I refer him to my statement of October 27 when I said in that statement that we had a very serious unemployment problem which was at that time roughly at the same level as it is now, 12.7 per cent. I indicated that the unemployment level would decline only gradually in this country, but we were addressing it seriously and we were taking steps to try to cope with the people most affected, those who saw their unemployment benefits ending.
We allocated $1.1 billion six weeks ago to help ease the unemployment situation. The Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated that we would be able to start spending that money before Christmas in order to help the people of this country who are suffering from unemployment. These are actual steps which have been taken, and we are going to do everything we can to continue helping those people.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE NEW PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister has just referred to his October 27 statement. Will the Minister have the honesty to admit to the House that in that statement he said that there would be an improvement in

December 3, 1982
Oral Questions
the economy in the last quarter, and that Statistics Canada figures released just a couple of days ago pointed out that the Minister's forecast of an improvement for the last quarter has turned out to be wrong? Instead of things getting better, they are getting worse. I repeat that we have lost more than 100,000 jobs in the last two months alone.
Considering that about a third of these people unemployed are heads of families, where entire families are dependent on the income of those people who are not working, will the Minister now come to his senses, admit his forecast was wrong, admit the need for a new program, and bring it in?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I invite the Hon. Member to go back to my text and read it again, because he seems to have completely misread or forgotten it. It was forecast that there would be an end to the downturn in the fourth quarter. The figures for the fourth quarter are not out, Mr. Leader of the New Democratic Party.


John Edward Broadbent: Look at the StatsCan figures.


Marc Lalonde: The StatsCan figures refer to the third quarter. I invite the Hon. Member to look at those figures and find out. The figures for the fourth quarter will become available only in the first days of February, and 1 invite my hon. friend to have the intellectual honesty to recognize the situation and the facts as they are.
As far as the unemployment situation is concerned, I indicated that we expected unemployment to remain high over the next several months. As the Hon. Member knows, every winter in this country the actual number of unemployed increases. What is also very important to know and follow, however, is the seasonally adjusted rate. That rate has remained stable over the past two months. I would hope we will see a gradual decline in that rate, but I cannot promise the Hon. Member it will actually occur.
These are forecasts. Our policies are going to come into effect and I hope they will create an environment where we will see a gradual decline in the unemployment level over the next year. This is our purpose, and indeed we are going to do everything we can to achieve that purpose.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister not only is doing nothing about the problem, he does not listen to the question. The figures I referred to from Statistics Canada were released earlier this week. They have nothing to do with the third quarter figures which came out this morning. They are indicators that StatsCan produced which show that, instead of getting an improvement in the last quarter, as the Minister said we would in his address in October, we are going to get the opposite. I tell the Minister to go back and check. However, I am not interested in scoring little debating points here in the House; I would like some action.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT INCOME TAX BE INCREASED FOR UPPER INCOME GROUPS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in October 1 put a proposal to the Minister which would obtain lots of money to create jobs by reimposing on upper income Canadians the taxes he took off them a year ago. The Minister then said he would study the proposal. A couple of days ago, in the House, the Prime Minister said he would study the proposal. I ask the Minister if the Government of Canada will stop studying this proposal, act upon it, and produce the jobs that Canadians want.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in my previous statement I made a mistake. I mentioned that the fourth quarter figures would come out in the first few days of February. 1 believe they will come out in the first few days of March.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Then we will know what has happened in the economy in the last quarter of 1982-


Mr. Deans:: That is not the only mistake you made.


Marc Lalonde: -and then we will be able to argue about the actual situation.
As far as the proposal of the Hon. Member is concerned, 1 indicated that I was considering it in the context of my next budget.


John Edward Broadbent: Do it now.


Marc Lalonde: I will examine this, indeed. I remind him that we have already allocated $1.1 billion of additional expenditures to create jobs in this country right now, and I remind him that 1 am going to introduce an Income Tax amendment in the House next week. I would hope we will have his support to pass that as soon as possible so that we will create, in the private sector, the certainty required for them to make investment decisions and also encourage the private sector to support recovery in this country.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister, concerning the Hambleton case. It is well known that among NATO nations Canada is recognized as a major player in the area of NATO security and intelligence. With this in mind, how can the Canadian Government take the position that a Canadian divulging NATO secrets is not detrimental to Canada's own security?
December 3, 1982


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: In fact that is not the position, Madam Speaker, that the Government of Canada takes. If the Hon. Member will look back at the Treu case, he will see that there it was NATO secrets which were the issue. That demonstrates that the Government was prepared, certainly in that case, to take the position that a breach of NATO secrecy is damaging to the national interests of Canada. But in the Hambleton case, as I indicated, the opinion of the Department of Justice is that a prosecution on the evidence the Security Service had been able to gather would have been unsuccessful.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the Minister must know that a Member of the Cabinet has stated outside this House that the reason Hambleton was not prosecuted was because it was looked upon as a breach of NATO security, not a Canadian breach of security.


REASON FOR DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General is a Member of the Cabinet Security and Intelligence Committee and must know that Canada's heavy involvement on a day-to-day basis in the security and intelligence operations of NATO makes us an integral part of the process. How can the Minister accept the decision not to prosecute Hambleton in Canada on the spurious grounds that a breach of NATO security in Canada is not a breach of Canadian security?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Well, it is the same question and I give the same answer. A breach of NATO security would be considered by Canadians to be a breach of Canadian security.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Then prosecute him.


ADVICE GIVEN BY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, last night the Commissioner of the RCMP said that the preservation of NATO secrets was absolutely essential to our national interests. In the Hambleton case the RCMP, in my view, did a superb job. They accumulated the evidence, the same evidence being adduced in a British courtroom today. In the case of Peter Worthington and The Toronto Sun it was the Department of Justice which decided, both unfairly and politically, to prosecute that case. In the Hambleton case it is that same Department of Justice which, disastrously and incompetently, has decided that there is no evidence to be adduced in a Canadian courtroom. I ask the Minister of Justice to tell us with some precision why this case is not being heard in a Canadian courtroom rather than in the Old Bailey.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows full well that the reason the decision was made not to prosecute in the Hambleton case is that the evidence was not
Ora! Questions
adequate, in the opinion of the Department of Justice, to sustain a prosecution.


Mr. Nielsen:: For a conviction.


Mark R. MacGuigan: It has been quite obvious from much of the information released in the last week or two that the kind of information now available was not before the Department of Justice at that time.


PROFESSOR'S ROLE IN INTELLIGENCE
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. On April 25 the Department of Justice rendered a decision that Hambleton was not to be prosecuted. After that time Hambleton was in constant contact with our Security Service. After April 25, and until he went to Britain in June of this year, was he acting as a Canadian agent during that time?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Hon. Member has tried to obtain information of that sort from me and I indicated that, until the trial is over, I am not prepared to make statements which would bear on the issues before the court in Great Britain. He said that what I might say in Canada would not be quoted in the media of Great Britain. I can categorically contradict that. In The Times Wednesday a front page article stated in part, "Opposition MPs peppered Government about Professor Hambleton. Ministers Refuse to Answer in any Detail". That is exactly the kind of headline I should like to have in Great Britain.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am sure that he is aware by now that the rate of unemployment across northwest British Columbia has broken the 40 per cent mark. Much of this is due to bad management and lack of forest product diversification. Now that there are over 4,000 forest and pulp workers out of work, that across British Columbia the number of unemployed since this time last year increased by 84 per cent, and that by Christmas another 11,400 workers will run out of unemployment insurance and few of those will be able to get any re-employment under the NEED Program, I should like to put a question to the Minister, and 1 hope I will get a positive response.
Will the Minister designate northwest British Columbia under ILAP, keeping in mind the rates of unemployment in those other areas of Canada that have been designated under ILAP? Will he make funds available so that a group of workers and economists can look at forest product diversification for both domestic and international markets?

December 3, 1982
Oral Questions
It is very important that we get some kind of response both to ILAP and to making funds available so that workers and economists can look at how the northwest may be revitalized. We need to know exactly where we are going so that we are not just throwing federal funds at different parts of the problem.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Member that that kind of examination of the future of the forestry industry has been examined by my colleage, the Minister of the Environment, through the forestry services of Canada. My colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, has his officials working on it. It is one of the key sectors of our economy. There is a constant assessment of it and planning for its future. What we have to concentrate on is the immediate problem. I would remind the Hon. Member that in his area there are now 45 or 50 Section 38 work creation programs in the Kamloops area. We have established additional allotments under the Canada Community Development Program.
When the Hon. Member says that he does not expect to receive any NEED money, that means that he is not going to work to find it. We are inviting all Members of Parliament to go into their municipalities and communities and develop work projects so that we can put people back to work. Much of the responsibility for how well the NEED Program will operate in his area, is up to him.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the last two years the country has lost something in the order of 5,000 shipbuilding jobs and about $1 billion in shipbuilding orders. Canadian shipbuilders are asking the Government to implement a policy that would at least put them on an equal footing with foreign competitors.
Would the Minister explain why the Government refuses to remove tariff preferences for shipbuilding from Commonwealth and developing nations, and why he refuses to plug tariff loopholes on offshore marine requirements?
If the Minister would implement such a minimal shipbuilding policy, he would put 10,000 unemployed shipyard workers back to work in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, without having to blackmail workers and shipbuilders with the phoney six and five policy.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, during the course of the summer and the fall we spent a great deal of time dealing with a shipbuilding policy. I hope to be able to make an announcement in that regard in the very near future.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The unemployment level in the Province of Manitoba is around 10.5 per cent, a rise of almost a full percentage point over the October, 1982 figures. In many parts of the Province welfare agencies are being swamped and unemployment insurance offices cannot keep up with the deluge of applications. Is the Minister or his Department preparing any special program for the Province of Manitoba or, more specifically, for the prairie Provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, in this crucial period?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in yesterday's throne speech in the Province of Manitoba, the provincial Government indicated that it was prepared to participate with us in the implementation of a NEED Program. I expect that either on Saturday or Monday, whichever day is convenient, we will sign the letter of understanding between the federal Government and the provincial Government, to take the initial $17 million job creation money that we have made available to that Province and add to it what the provincial Government will provide. This will enable a large number of work projects to be initiated in that Province.
I can give the Hon. Member that assurance and that confidence that he can take back to his constituency. That program is about ready to be signed and to be brought into effect before Christmas.


ASSISTANCE FOR SECONDARY AGRICULTURE BASED INDUSTRY
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. One of the areas that has been as hard hit as any is the secondary agriculture base industry in Manitoba, Versatile Manufacturing being a perfect example of this. The economy of a Province like Manitoba is based on the secondary agricultural manufacturing sector aspect.
Is any specific money being targeted to this particular area in the general agreement that the federal Government and the provincial Government have signed together? Is anything at all being done to look after this most important area which is the underpinning of the economy in Manitoba?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that I can provide the Hon. Member with a list of different forms of grants and supports that have been given. The Hon. Member mentioned Versatile Manufacturing, which happens to be located in my constituency. I know that through the DREE Program the federal Government provided substantial capital to Versatile during the past year for expansion and modernization.
I would also remind the Hon. Member that we co-operated with the provincial Government to provide a major infusion of
December 3, 1982

funds into Co-op Implements in the past year to keep that company in business. So we have provided major forms of support to the farm implement manufacturing industry in Manitoba and other parts of the prairies, to keep those companies in business.
What we have to face now, in many cases, is the problem of the export markets. Many of the countries that we relied upon are simply not buying tractors. Australia and the United States are not buying as many as they did earlier. We have to work to improve the basic underpinning of the international economy in order to enable firms such as these to regain their prosperity.


WHEAT SALE TO JAPAN
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In a trip last October, the Minister's assistant in the other place travelled to Japan. Could the Minister tell the House whether, on that trip, Senator Argue discussed directly or indirectly the wheat sale to Japan that was announced three days ago?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I do not really try to follow the Hon. Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board in everything he does. I know that he travels internationally. He has been to Japan and the Soviet Union. Strangely enough, following his visits contracts are usually signed, which indicates that he is quite influential.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I think everyone is amazed at that, Madam Speaker.


MINISTER'S TRAVEL BY CANADIAN PACIFIC AIRLINE
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister if the trip taken by Senator Argue and his wife was on business for the Canadian Wheat Board and, if so, why they travelled on two free tickets provided by Canadian Pacific Air? They did travel on those tickets, so will the Minister ask his colleague to reimburse the cost? As some people feel that Canadian Pacific was the architect of Bill S-31, there could be an allegation of conflict of interest on the part of the Minister's assistant in the other place.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, that is really a personal problem. It was my impression that the national airlines, Air Canada and CN-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: 


Mr. Epp:: That is the other one!
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: -CP Air, occasionally make tickets available to Ministers who travel around the world to defend the national interest.
I will bring the very detailed question to the attention of my colleague and he can answer it on his own.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. The recent decision of the Liberal Government to allow Judd Buchanan to erect an apartment building within the boundaries of Banff National Park has placed the possible establishment of a national park in the Bruce Peninsula in serious jeopardy. A local advisory committee has given qualified approval for Parks Canada to proceed with the next stage in the establishment of a national park. What guarantees can the Minister give those people if they agree to the proposed park in the Bruce Peninsula that it will not be used for partisan Liberal purposes?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a very great deal of respect for the hon. gentleman who asked that question. I will respond to it seriously, and 1 will ignore what I think are some rather uncharaster-istic sentiments that he expressed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: In terms of the Bruce Peninsula Park, there is an extensive consultation process which is underway at the present time with the people of the area, and with the two councils of the area. Council elections have recently taken place and there may have been some change in the disposition on the part of the councils in relation to the projects.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will it be patronage as usual?


John (Moody) Roberts: As the consultation process continues, if Parks Canada decides to proceed with the idea of the establishment of a park, a management plan will be brought forward for extensive public discussion.


Erik Nielsen: Parks patronage.


John (Moody) Roberts: That management plan will be the basis for any future developments that take place within the park. It is in the elaborations of public discussion and public confirmation of the management plan that the kinds of limitations which would apply to any developments within that park would occur.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure that Mr. Horner, Mr. Erikson and Mr. Strong would be comfortable with the

December 3, 1982
Oral Questions
position that has been put forward by the Minister of the Environment and by the Liberal Government.


AUTONOMY OF RESIDENTS WITHIN PROPOSED PARK
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I think the broader question here is the level of autonomy that can be expected by people who live within the boundaries of a national park. It is an important question, and a question which the Minister needs to address with some sort of a guarantee in this House. If the proposal proceeds, and if my constituents and myself are to give support to this proposal for it to proceed, what guarantees will we have that we will continue to have local autonomy and be able to exercise democratic selfdetermination? What demonstration is there that we can have confidence or trust in the Minister's answers, in view of the practices of the Liberal Government in the recent past?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, we will not proceed with the establishment of a national park in that area, or indeed in any area, unless it has the support and approbation of the people in the area. We undertake an extensive series of consultations to try to ensure that support is there. When we develop to the point of knowing that there is that support, we proceed on the basis of a development or a management plan that is extensively discussed with the people. That is the process by which we establish a park, and that is the process by which the kinds of guarantees about future development are made.


Erik Nielsen: It didn't happen with Kluane.


John (Moody) Roberts: I do not know how 1 can answer more clearly the serious question which I think the Hon. Member is asking. In terms of some rather unfortunate political allusions that 1 think the Hon. Member has made in the rest of his speech, I would simply advise him to look at past answers which have been given to Members' questions in the House of Commons and 1 think he would agree-I hope he will agree-that the kind of allusion he has made is unwarranted.


Charles Joseph Clark: Stop hiding the information. Table the Buchanan documents.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The number of unemployed in the Province of Ontario has now reached half a million. I am sure the Minister realizes that this number is the equivalent of the total population of a number of our Provinces. The Government's reaction to date has certainly not recognized the human misery and suffering that this unemployment has created.
The programs which the Government has brought forward will provide employment for somewhat less than 13 per cent of the total number of the people unemployed in Ontario. Will the Minister now begin a systematic and quick review of the steel industry, which is at a modern-day low, the auto industry which is in serious jeopardy, the farm implement industry, which is rapidly declining, and the housing industry which is virtually at a standstill? Will the Minister bring in programs now which will introduce into those industries some appropriate stimulus that will bring about their recovery so that people who are currently unemployed will be able to look forward to an opportunity to work?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned a number of problems that clearly indicate the Government's policy must be one of stimulating investment across Canada, in all industries and sectors. The Hon. Member will have realized that it would be impossible for the Government to create directly all the jobs required at the present time. The solution is to stimulate the private sector, to restore investor confidence and to stimulate consumer demand. I would also remind the Hon. Member that there are indications in the housing industry that a recovery has started. To give an example, the Urban Development Institute has announced that next year, according to its projections, 150,000 new housing units will be built in Canada, a subtantial improvement over this year's situation and also over previous projections. I would therefore invite the Hon. Member to reflect on all of these factors during the weekend.
(English]


PROVISION OF FULL-TIME JOBS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Today's labour statistics indicate that over a one year period, since November, 1981, the Canadian economy has lost some 500,000 full-time jobs. Yet the Minister's announcements over the past year, the latest of which is the NEED Program, have focused upon temporary employment. The Minister has even refused during committee hearings to provide information on the number of full-time jobs his programs have created.
In light of the labour force statistics, which indicate a loss of half a million full-time jobs, is the Minister prepared to recognize the need for full-time employment in this country? As well, is the Minister prepared to put in place an emergency program to provide full-time employment for the half a million people who have lost work over the last year, particularly in light of the fact that during the past 12 months half a million Canadians who are heads of households, and primarily responsible for taking care of their families' needs have lost their jobs as well?


Mr. Nowlan:: That is a supplementary speech.
December 3, 1982


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada has been continually interested in promoting development of an economic base upon which full-time work can be created. We have had a number of investments in the housing industry, in research and development, in new technology, and in new training programs, all to ensure that we provide a framework within which the private sector can develop an ongoing, stable, and active economy.
In the meantime, we are saying that, because of the worldwide recession that we are a part of, we must provide bridging assistance to help those who are laid off, who do not have jobs, or who have run out of UI benefits. That is why we have introduced programs, such as the NEED Program and the Canada Community Development Program. The Hon. Member refers to temporary versus full-time employment. But what we consider important is to provide the opportunity for people to have jobs, whatever label you put on it, and that is what we are trying to do.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The Minister is charged with the responsibility of promoting the six and five program, but he is promoting it to the point where he is having it apply to pensioners? Has the Minister sought and received the total co-operation of all Ministers and Departments to implement this program, particularly where Government funding applies to projects either taken alone or in conjunction with other Governments or private enterprise?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I received the support and the co-operation of all my hon. colleagues for implementation of the 6 and 5 policy. It has the support of all ministers and of the entire caucus on this side of the House, and I would even say of all Canadians, and I hope that the Hon. Member himself will also continue to support this policy.


SALARIES OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICERS
Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, my supplemetary question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Why, under the Community Development Projects, has the Minister allowed salaries for project managers to go over 41 per cent above the average levels that were in effect last year, which has the effect of reducing the number of projects which can be undertaken? As well, it works out on the
Committee Reports
average from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of the funds going to the project managers and not employing as many people.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would think that the answer to that question would be obvious. The normal salary range that we provide under the Canada Community Development Projects, is the prevailing provincial minimum wage with a variable of approximately 20 per cent. However, because many of these projects are engaged in fairly skilled light construction work in the development of municipal services or facilities, they require the addition of some skilled personnel to provide supervision and management. In order to engage those people to provide the over-all accountability for that program, or to provide specialized training for those on the projects, a slightly higher stipend must be paid to do it. That is why we provide that different rate.
The average wages which are paid are around $200 a week, based on the minimum wage. It is only the managers or supervisors who must provide the over-all direction for a project who receive a larger stipend.


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 forty-fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) on Thursday, December 2, 1982, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: have the honour to present the fourth report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures-
[ Translation]
-in French and in English, Canada's two official languages. [English]


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT-PRESENTATION OF SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Regional Development-

December 3, 1982
[ Translation]
-in French and English, our two official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and the responsibility to present a petition on behalf of 96 citizens from Grande Cache, Alberta.
The nature and purpose of this petition is to inform the federal Government that the announcement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) of October 27, 1982 to delay the implementation of the proposed federal sales tax onto wholesalers until the middle of 1984 is not adequate. They call on the Government to have the Government publicly abandon, not simply delay, its proposed federal sales tax onto the wholesalers of Canada.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26
Madam Speaker:: 1 have a notice of a motion under Standing Order 26 by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 ask leave, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper), to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, namely the continuing unemployment situation which has reached a new critical plateau entailing the following elements: a record high level of unemployment which now includes heads of families as constituting more than one-third of the total unemployed in Canada; a total number of unemployed which more than equals the combined labour force of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Manitoba; the reality that more than one-quarter of a million men and women have now been unemployed for over a year.
This alarming human and economic information, presented in a context in which the forecast of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) for improvement made on October 27 has turned out to be incorrect and in the context of statements
made this week by the same Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that no new programs dealing with unemployment would be announced before the Christmas recess, means we have reached a new and acute situation in the problem of unemployment in our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member has given the Chair the required notice of the motion that he has now proposed to the House. As the Hon. Member knows, a matter can only be proper to be discussed under the provisions of Standing Order 26 if it is a genuine emergency, a sudden or unexpected occurrence. Section 16(a) of the Standing Order reads as follows:
The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration.
1 and my predecessors have consistently ruled that matters of ongoing concern and of a chronic nature are not proper to be discussed under this Standing Order.
I would also draw to the attention of Hon. Members Citation 288 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which states:
The Speaker is bound to apply to motions made under S.O. 26 the established rules of debate, and to enforce the principle that subjects excluded by those rules cannot be brought forward thereon, such as a matter under adjudication by a court of law, or matters already discussed or appointed for consideration during the current session, whether upon a substantive motion, upon an amendment, or upon an Order of the Day.
Members will be aware that the House has debated the subject of unemployment on a number of occasions, the most recent being November 5, 1982.
I must further point out to the Hon. Member that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) announced yesterday that next Thursday would be the final allotted day for this supply period which the House could use not only to discuss this important matter but also to demand a vote on it.
For these reasons, I regret that 1 cannot accept the matter as being proper to be discussed under the provisions of Standing Order 26, although it is, of course, a matter of extreme importance.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MR. KRISTIANSEN-COMMENT OF MR. LeBLANC DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In answer to a question I put to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) yesterday during Question Period, the Minister said, as reported on page 21202 of Hansard:
Madam Speaker, I need your guidance as to whether we are answering questions on a regional basis or on a departmental basis.
December 3, 1982

The fact that you did not rise at that time to answer the Minister's request for guidance led me, and I believe others, to believe that you were probably reserving your opinion and that, following consideration, you would inform us of that opinion. It is important for all Members to know whether or not we will have these kinds of undue restrictions placed on us.
The question was asked regarding a foundry being placed into receivership in the Minister's riding. To some of us, he appeared to be using his request for guidance from you as a dodge in order to refuse answering that question, which might have been embarrassing to him. Will you be making a ruling, Madam Speaker, and, if so, we await it with some interest.


Madam Speaker:: I have not made that ruling but I have reminded Members several times of the rules and practices which they have accepted for a long time in the House. That is, that Ministers may not be questioned on matters of regional importance which are under their jurisdiction as political personnel. Ministers in the House answer questions related to their administrative responsibilities in the Department of which they are a Minister.
I think the Hon. Minister put it in the terms yesterday which were quite adequate. Therefore, 1 felt no need to intervene.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orrally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,564, 4,165.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Did newspaper releases of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation indicate that purchasers can buy Corporation-repossessed condominium units with 5 per cent down and, if so, which lending institutions are prepared to accept purchasers paying as little as 5 per cent down on condominiums in Mississauga?
2.	Which condominiums in Mississauga are available with 5 per cent down to qualifying purchasers and from what lending institutions can they borrow money?
3.	When the government prepays interest to a lending institution to reduce the interest rate from 18 per cent to 15 per cent, are the purchasers who assume those mortgages qualified on the basis of interest at 15 per cent or do they need salary qualifications to show that they can pay a mortgage bearing 18 per cent interest?
4.	What is the amount of income of a proposed purchaser which is taken into account when purchasers are given the advantage to pay down CMHC mortgages?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that as of the date the question was asked the situation was as follows:
Order Paper Questions
1.	Yes. Lenders have not been individually canvassed on their willingness to provide NHA financing.
2.	None.
3.	If the term of the mortgage is less than three years, the purchaser must qualify at the pre-buydown interest rate; if over three years, qualification is at the discretion of the lender but lenders generally qualify purchasers at the higher interest rate.
4.	Under current NHA guidelines, lenders may qualify a purchaser using up to a maximum of 32 per cent of the purchaser's gross income. The following factors are included in the calculation of the gross debt service: principal and interest, taxes, one-half of the condominium fees, and the heating costs (if not included in the condominium fee). Use of the maximum G.D.S. ratio of 32 per cent is at the discretion of the lender.


Mr. Young: 1.	What is the maximum annual income level at which tenants of the Main Square apartment complex in Toronto become ineligible for the 25 per cent rent-geared-to-income program?
2.	On what data is the maximum income level set?
3.	To whom are rent-geared-to-income applications submitted and who approves or disapproves the applications?
4.	How long is the Main Square rent-gearcd-to-incomc program intended to last?
5.	For how long can fixed income tenants of the apartment complex expect to have their rents subsidized?
6.	What were the level of profits made by the Marchant Property Management Co. on the commercial operation (the shopping complex) of the complex for 1980-81 ?
7.	What were the operating losses for apartment rental at the apartment complex for 1980-81?
8.	What criteria were applied to determine local apartment rental market values in deciding the level that Main Square apartment rental rates will rise to?
9.	What is the maximum annual income that people are required to earn before being eligible to rent a unit at the apartment complex?
10.	Does the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation intend to increase rental rates for the Main Square apartment units in the fiscal year 1982-83?
11.	Under the original management agreement signed by Victoria Wood Development Corporation Inc. and CMHC for the operation of the apartment complex, how many apartment units were reserved to accomodate (a) disabled persons (b) senior citizens (c) single parent families?
12.	How many apartment units of the complex were occupied by (a) disabled persons (b) senior citizens (c) single parent families as of March 19, 1982?
13.	Under the original management agreement, for what period of time were specific numbers of apartment units to be occupied by (a) disabled persons (b) senior citizens (c) single parent families?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	Based on the highest rental rate, $22,940 and over.
2.	The maximum income level is a factor of the apartment rent of a unit and a 25 per cent gross debt service calculation.
3.	(a) Marchant Property Management Office at Main Square, (b) the property manager.

December 3, 1982
Point of Order-Hon. Walter Baker
4.	The program will continue for as long as CMHC remains the owner of the property.
5.	For as long as they are qualified under the rent-geared-to-income program.
6.	None.
7.	$582,026 in 1980 and $312,282 in 1981.
8.	Comparable properties were selected by CME1C. Adjustments relating to location, amenities, unit types and sizes were then made for differences in the comparables and the various units in Main Square.
9.	None.
10.	Yes.
11.	(a) 50, (b) 300, (c) 90.
12.	(a) 18 approximately, (b) 260, (c) 54.
13.	For the full length of the term of the mortgage or as long as CMEIC owned the property. However, when the demand for these units dropped off in the mid-1970s, vacant units were rented to market tenants.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. MacKay:: Madam Speaker, about a month ago I asked the President of the Treasury Board about the terms of Mr. Andre Deom's settlement, which is on the basis of a five-year $300,000 package, $175,000 tax-free, with a contingency built in by the Treasury Board to pay any future tax liabilities. It is a very startling situation and I would hope that we will get some answers and some specifics at a time when, as some Hon. Members have said, bridging is very important and unemployment is very high.


David P. Smith: Perhaps the Hon. Member could provide me with the number of his question and I will be happy to look into it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It is question No. 4,530 which has been on the Order Paper for over a month.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Orders of the day.



POINT OF ORDER


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, just before you continue on to Orders of the Day, I thought there might be some tabling of answers to questions today and 1 was waiting for that time before raising my point of order,
which is with respect to the new rules of the House of Commons which will be in place on January 17. As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) knows, those rules indicate that reports, returns and other matters tabled in the House of Commons will be automatically referred to the appropriate standing committee by the Hon. Members tabling them.
There has been a feeling for some time that some Crown agencies, Departments, Crown corporations and others have not been following the statutory requirement of tabling their annual reports on time. There may be a myriad of reasons why that is so, but now that the House has unanimously adopted a new set of rules, part of which is predicated on the timely tabling of those reports, returns and other things, I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council, during the period between now and January 17, in order to put the proper foundation under those rules, could canvass the Crown agencies and Departments to ensure that all of the reports which are due as of January 17 are tabled by that time.


Erik Nielsen: It is required by law.


Walter David Baker: And, incidentally, this is required by law. If the President of the Privy Council would undertake to make that investigation and perhaps report to the House at a later time, I would be quite happy.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, we have made it clear, and I indicated this in my speech on the motion, that we are approaching this parliamentary reform experiment in good faith, which means that we would do nothing to prevent Crown corporations or other agencies from tabling a report or other papers, if they are legally obliged to do so. However, my hon. colleague has gone one step further, since he does not seem to be satisfied with our undertaking that we would do nothing to prevent them from observing the law. On the other hand, 1 have no desire to be the enforcer of this country's laws. I can only confirm that we will not take advantage of this experiment to ask Crown corporations or other agencies to delay tabling their reports, but 1 cannot guarantee that they are going to be able to table those reports at a date convenient to the Hon. Member. I trust that my answer is still clear enough to satisfy what the Hon. Member has in mind.


Walter David Baker: I was not even implying in my point of order, and I want to make it clear, that the Government is acting improperly or has acted improperly with respect to the matter. I am satisfied that the Government has not been holding back, as far as I know. However, there is a feeling that a practice has developed which is unsatisfactory. Perhaps the President of the Privy Council, using the prestige of his office, might be able to remind the various Departments and agencies about the new rules and their importance and the
December 3, 1982

attitude of good faith which he himself has respected. If he would do that, it would satisfy what 1 believe is an innocent query on my part to underpin the operation of the new rules.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker, the words "good faith" are very well spread, I can assure the Hon. Member, in Government offices and in Crown corporations, and I hope that he will be happy.


Walter David Baker: Thank you.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, with regard to that same point of order, may 1 ask the President of the Privy Council if he would also look into the practice of some corporations or organizations of tabling reports through what they call back door tabling? It is sometimes difficult for Members to find out if a report has been tabled in time, and when we do look for it, I have noticed many times that the practice called back door tabling has been followed. I wonder if we could change or modify that practice and ensure that Members are aware of it.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will very seriously consider the very positive suggestion made by the Hon. Member, even if I am not sure that I understand what he means by "back door"; but 1 will speak with him and try to satisfy his request.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the Table Wednesday, December 1, 1982, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Paul James Cosgrove: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971, laid upon the Table Wednesday, December 1, 1982, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Family Allowances Act, 1973

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 1, consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is hard to trust a Government that is planning to cut programs and to cut back assistance to Canadians who are having trouble making ends meet. Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is also hard to trust a Minister and the Members from Quebec, who are intending to do just that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el), on a point of order.


Mr.   Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly what my hon. colleague just said about Quebec Members of the House of Commons, and perhaps I should congratulate him on his French, he does not have any confidence in the work being done by Quebec Members of the House of Commons-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. This is not a point of order, this is debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the subject of the debate here this afternoon is the Government's intention to cut assistance to families. This week we have been debating the Government's intention to cut assistance to pensioners in this country. I maintain that we are doing that at a time in Canadian history when it is extremely difficult for the average Canadian-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean is raising the same point of order. 1 just informed the Hon. Member-


Mr.   Gimai@: This is on another point of order, Mr. Speaker.

December 3, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Would the Hon. Member please sit down? He has just been informed by the Chair that he did not raise a point of order. I can hardly recognize the same Member on the same point of order, since there is none.


Mr.   Gimai@: This is on another point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Well, the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el), on another point of order.


Mr.   Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of order because I cannot allow the Hon. Member to influence me with respect to the kind of work I am doing as a Member of this House. He said that he did not have any confidence in the work being done by Quebec Members. The Members from Quebec in the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I am very sorry, but the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean is an experienced parliamentarian, and he is stretching our interpretation of a point of order to its very limits.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are now quite a few Progressive Conservative Members who have studied French because we are aware that Liberal Members from the Province of Quebec are not always able to tell their fellow citizens in that province the truth. We must support the use of French in order to be able to speak out against the Members from the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of difficulty that the country is in. It is difficult enough and takes a lot of goodwill for us to communicate in the two official languages of Canada. Government policies that make that difficult should be avoided and it is up to the Members of this House to straighten out such abuses, because Cabinet does not do it.
That takes me directly to the economic situation in Canada today. It is a difficult one, and in that difficult climate there are civil servants who give advice to Ministers who bring this advice to this House in the form of legislation. This week we are dealing with legislation which would cut assistance to Canadian families and pension assistance to Canadian senior citizens.
There may be a time in the history of Canada when such a policy is warranted. May 1 suggest that now is not the time. The difficulty in Canada today is not excessively high interest rates, as it might have been six months or a year ago. The difficulty is a lack of confidence, a psychological difficulty. The citizens of this country are not spending, they are not buying; they are saving and they are reducing debts. As a consequence we have a million and a half unemployed because there is not anybody willing or with the confidence to make the big ticket purchases, to buy cars, refrigerators, an extra pair of shoes, clothes or a little extra food. That is the difficulty we are in.
The new "Messiah of Finance" some three or four months ago went public with his personal preference, his personal
intention of cutting all assistance to families in the form of Family Allowances. The wisdom of the caucus, 1 presume, prevailed over the wisdom of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). After three months of discourse we have more or less some assurance that there is no intention to cut Family Allowances altogether.
But consider the three months of economic costs, which came about as a consequence solely of the statements made by the Minister of Finance. People out there in all our ridings, ridings held by Liberals, New Democrats or Conservatives, people in those ridings got scared because in the difficulty that we are in today in Canada people are afraid that next month, or three months down the road, they may not be able to put food on the table for their children. They are afraid that they may not be able to pay their rent. They are afraid that they may not be able to pay their mortgage payments.
Senior citizens are worried. I have many times in this House brought to the attention of Ministers and backbenchers in the Liberal Party the fact that there is a definite correlation between increased unemployment and all the stress-related impacts on society. Crimes of violence, heart attacks, suicides and mental hospital admissions increase as unemployment increases. All of these kinds of social costs are a consequence of increasing unemployment.
In committee this morning the first thing that astonished me was that the Minister would not admit that that correlation exists, that it is scientifically validated from many, many sources. But even more astonishing was the Minister's admission that the Cabinet of Canada, supported by the Liberal backbenchers, have decided that spending priority number one shall be the buying of service stations, rather than the provision of funds to old age pensioners and people on Family Allowances.
This Bill before us today-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Schroder:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House, but he did not quote correctly what the Minister said. What the Minister said was that she was interested in job creation-


Walter David Baker: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I should advise the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that at the second reading stage the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister will have the opportunity for reply. The remarks just made by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary are debate, not a point of order.


Walter David Baker: They will reply.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of a committee meeting is that we have a written transcript, and every Member of the House can check what is said.


Miss Begin:: Exactly, and we will look at it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Minister did not talk about job creation but said that the purchase of British Petroleum service stations
December 3, 1982

was to protect Canadian jobs. That is on the public record. That is a rather indefensible position, but it is irrefutable and there is no argument that that response is now a matter of public record, from our committee meeting this morning.
Mr. Speaker, this decision to buy service stations instead of providing money to families should perhaps be put in context. One recent service station purchase, the smallest one in its total dollar cost that has been made by this Government since 1974, is at a cost of something in the order of $550 million. Mr. Speaker, just buying 6 per cent fewer service stations from that one deal would enable us to leave the Family Allowances program alone. Transferring 6 per cent of the cost to the Family Allowance program would mean we do not have to deal with this piece of legislation this afternoon. Ninety-four per cent of the service stations that seem to be their passion and their priority could have been bought, and by not buying the remaining 6 per cent of them, the Family Allowance program could have been left alone.
Mr. Speaker, that identifies in the clearest, most concrete form the choices that the Cabinet-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Fisher:: A few minutes ago the Member said that he was referring to the truth. I wonder if he could tell us how the discussion he is carrying on about service stations bears any relation to the truth, let alone relevance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Why don't you sit down and listen to his speech?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: One of the responsibilities of a Cabinet is to make spending and taxing decisions. One of the responsibilities of all Members of this House is to hold the Cabinet responsible for those spending and taxing decisions. The Cabinet is asking us later this day to cut the amount of assistance that this Parliament is prepared to give to families. It is going to ask us to cut the amount of assistance that we give to pensioners.
The Cabinet Minister defends that by saying we do not have any money. Governments spend and governments choose the priority, when the backbenchers support them in the choice of the priority. This Government clearly and consistently chooses to buy service stations instead of providing money to senior citizens and families in Canada.
If Members on the other side joined with this Party, we could stop this Bill. If they would stand up in this House and vote in the manner that says to the Cabinet "Your priorities are messed up, your priorities are wrong", we could collectively stop it. We are wasting taxpayers' dollars. We are driving the country deeper into debt because of one or two stubborn
Family Allowances Act, 1973
people in the front benches whose minds are just a little mixed up about what Canada needs and should have today.
The only check on that power is the votes of backbenchers in the Liberal Party. They have a majority. On one or two occasions later this day we will see whether they are willing to stand up in this House and say yes, cut assistance to families. Next week we will see if they are willing to stand in this House and cut assistance to pensioners. We have already seen that they are willing to stand in this House and buy service stations as a priority. Now they are trying to make us believe there is no money.
Anybody on the other side who tells their constituents there is not enough money for pensions and family assistance is in danger of stretching the truth. The money is there, but it has been allocated to buying service stations, air travel for Ministers, and giving patronage to people such as Keith Davey, Jim Coutts, Maurice Stong, Joel Bell, and to send people to Europe at $200,000 a year for language training when we have some of the best teachers in the world in this country. Those are the priorities of this Cabinet, supported by the backbenchers. Some day they will be accountable to the voters in their riding.
Canadian jobs are disappearing at a rapid rate because the backbenchers support that policy. It is not a myth that the Liberal Party is self-destructing. The Gallup Poll now shows that 30 per cent of Canadians believe in them, whereas two years ago it was 50 per cent. Support is eroding and people say it is the Liberal Party's own fault.
We are helping. We are vigilant. We are hard-working and know what we are talking about. I bring to the attention of Hon. Members that our Leader and our caucus stood alone two years ago on the Constitution when all the Members opposite-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. 1 apologize for having to interrupt the Hon. Member for Calgary West. However, as Hon. Members know, the rule of relevancy is a very difficult one for the Chair to apply. I invite the Hon. Member for Calgary West to relate his comments to the debate now before the House, a Bill to amend the Family Allowances Act.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I will be very happy to do that.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps this is a good occasion because we have some difficulty with the procedure. Earlier the Hon. Member said that he had chosen one of the official languages to point out to Canadians that some Members on this side said something that was not the truth. Would he like to withdraw that or clarify what he meant?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is clearly debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I trust your interpretation of the Standing Orders of the House.

December 3, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. 1 am sure you would be the first to agree that when a Member uses a term that is unparliamentary and suggests or imputes that somebody is not telling the truth, has not told the truth or refers to lying, it is incumbent upon the Chair and all Members to correct that. The Hon. Member said that the reason he was speaking en frangais aujourd'hui was to make sure that Members from the Province of Quebec were not able to continue to say things that would be considered not to be the truth. He suggested that some Member, unnamed, or all Members from Quebec were trying to mislead by not telling the truth. One of the benefits we will have under the new rules will be being able to question Members for ten minutes after they have spoken, if we want clarification.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. 1 have listened attentively to the point raised by the Hon. Member for Resti-gouche (Mr. Harquail). That is definitely not a question of privilege. The matter referred to by the Hon. Member for Restigouche may be a point of order. However, 1 have listened attentively to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Calgary West and have not noticed any unparliamentary language.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will provide to all Members opposite a transcript of the meeting held this morning with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), where she indicated that spending on service stations is more important than Family Allowances. If Members opposite will put that in their Householder I will be glad to stand in this House and praise them for providing both sides of the story. However, If they do not do that, I will continue with my lessons until I reach a level of skill where I can be comfortable in telling the story myself as to what 1 find in the Health and Welfare Committee minutes.
When you interrupted me, Mr. Speaker, you were asking for relevance. We will be voting later this day on the second reading stage of Bill C-132. Before doing that, we will vote on a motion which 1 will propose. The relevance is as follows.
I would like to make it clear to the other side that, in a marketing sense, politics is never a one-way street. The difference between selling your point of view to the voters of this country and selling a car or sewing machine is that it is a twoway communication street. When I sell a car, 1 have the chance to tell my story, but there is no opposition to interpret it in a different way. In politics there is a one-way communication and it is rebutted by the other side. Therefore, it goes two ways.
I point out to Members opposite that the Cabinet is asking them to cut assistance to families and pensioners, reducing the amount of money which goes to those two groups. I remind Hon. Members that the Conservative Party under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has been rather skilled in the last two years in acquainting the Canadian public with what Liberal backbenchers have done.
I started by saying the Liberal Party backbenchers supported the original Constitution. We had the opportunity to tell
Canadians what was wrong with it. They believed us, it was eventually changed, and their popularity went down. We are the group in this House that rang the bells for democracy. Members opposite were prepared to support a non-democratic Cabinet. We rang the bells, Mr. Speaker, Canadians learned about the Liberal Party's lack of commitment to democracy and their popularity went down.
The Liberal backbenchers opposite supported the budget of the former Minister of Finance, and they did so at the beginning with a sense of positive voting behaviour. But our Leader and our caucus informed Canadians about the difficulties with that budget, the jobs which would be lost, the health concerns, and all of the things that were wrong, and gradually Canadians started to fight back. The popularity of the backbenchers on the other side fell.
1 would like to remind those Hon. Members that we told them consistently that the National Energy Program was an economic disaster. It has cost jobs and foreign exchange. It is a disaster from start to finish. Because of its complexity Canadians did not believe us for a long time, but today they are very nervous about the support which Liberal backbenchers, as well as the New Democratic Party, gave to that program. As the economic mess worsens in this country, the popularity of these two Parties is going to go down and down, because we are telling Canadians where the source of the problem is.
With regard to political patronage and scandal, Joel Bell, Morris Strong, Jim Coutts and Keith Davey were unknown Canadians until we in this Party brought those names to the attention of Canadians, and in a manner which was not very pleasant. Because the Liberal backbenchers support that kind of Cabinet behaviour, their personal popularity in their ridings is going down.
Every voter in every riding in this country is going to find out who votes this afternoon and who votes next week to cut Family Allowances and pensions. We are going to tell them, Mr. Speaker, from the platform, in brochures, on radio and television that the Cabinet was supported by its backbenchers in cutting social programs at a time when Canadians have a real need and at a time of economic uncertainty, when stress-related illnesses are almost epidemic. The backbenchers opposite want to buy service stations instead of putting money in health and social programs.
I can understand the difficulty of the Hon. Members opposite in voting against the Government, throwing it out of office and going to the general electorate at a time when they have made so many mistakes as backbenchers, and I would like to give them a graceful way out. There is a graceful way of voting this afternoon which will not turf out the Government, but will simply delay the cut in Family Allowances. All they have to do is vote for the following motion. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
December 3, 1982

"Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be not now
read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months
hence".
This is a delay of six months, Mr. Speaker. That is all we are asking for and that is all the backbenchers have to do to keep faith with the families of Canada, the pensioners, and those that need some help from this Parliament.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in the debate this afternoon. I feel that Bill C-132 should be seen as part of the anti-inflation program announced by the Government in June. The program includes restricting salary increases of public servants to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984 and capping indexation of payments such as Family Allowances and Old Age Security Pensions to 6 and 5 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I think it is strange that a party like the Progressive Conservative Party should react the way it does. It is understandable that the New Democratic Party should speak with conviction about such matters, because before and after and during the month of June, according to them there was nothing the Government could do to try and fight inflation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, inflationary trends in modern society are partly due to psychological factors. That is why it is very important that the central Government should take action and implement measures that will have a psychological impact. Much of the 6 and 5 program is, in fact, psychological, because people are saying that the Federal Government is taking the initiative in an area over which it has direct control by restricting salary increases of its employees to 6 and 5 per cent. Salaries of Members of the House of Commons, Senators, and staff of the House and the Senate were limited right away to increases of 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year. Although one of the Opposition parties is speaking with the courage of its convictions, because according to them, the Government should not have acted the way it did, the Official Opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party, is being inconsistent, because according to them, it is absolutely necessary to restrict public spending, starting with federal expenditures and including all social payments, because a large part of the federal Budget, I think it is about 20 per cent, goes to direct payments to individuals. However, when it comes to concrete measures, the Progressive Conservatives object, and tell all kinds of horror stories about this particular Bill, as they did about the Bill we have been debating for almost a week because the Government intends to restrict increases in the basic pension but not the Supplement to 6 and 5 per cent, and the same applies here to Family Allowances. Well, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to say from the start that most of the stories told by the Official Opposition with respect to this Bill have no basis in fact, because what the Government is doing with Bill C-132 is to restrict increases in Family Allowances, not by cutting allowances but by restricting the increase to 6 per cent as of January 1983 and 5 per cent as of January 1984, instead of normal indexation which
Family Allowances Act, 1973
would probably have been a bit higher this year, since we are just coming out of an inflationary period when the inflation rate, calculated on an annual basis, was over 12 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will have to admit that if they read the Bill and read it intelligently, they will see that families receiving the Child Tax Credit will receive a special increase of $50, to compensate for the capping of indexation, since these families are particularly dependent on the tax credit. In other words, Mr. Speaker, those who can afford to cut their spending will make sacrifices in these difficult times, for, as I said earlier, it is important to take some action with a psychological impact to convince Canadians that through selfrestraint, following the lead of the federal Government, we could together check and fight the inflationary pressures that we have experienced for over a year now, inflationary pressures which are both an economic and a social threat to our society, because inflation causes divisions among our economic groups and social classes and is an evil that we must eradicate. So is this unfair? Since the child tax credit only applies to families with a taxable income of $26,000 or less, only families with taxable incomes over that amount will be affected by this measure.
I said earlier that it was the taxable income, the net family income, or again the combined family income. Only those families will be adversely affected by the Bill, because the others which are entitled to the Child Tax Credit will receive a special $50 allowance to offset the limit on indexation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a fair, liberal and equitable measure, even though it does provide for certain restrictions applicable at this time to the Federal Government policies and programs. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is dishonest and almost hypocritical coming from a party which has maintained a traditional position through the years to say, as they did again this year in the budget debate, that a limit must absolutely be set on the expenditures of the Federal Government because the country is going bankrupt. No sooner has the Government taken the lead to do just that, through a fair measure such as Bill C-132, they object strongly and say that it is an unfair measure which appeals to the emotions of people.
Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians are intelligent enough to grasp the dishonesty and the lack of conviction implied in such a stand and to realize also that it is truly the kind of red herring that is deliberately meant to confuse and deceive them. Since I am referring to Family Allowances, Mr. Speaker, I have read with interest the speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Begin) and I am pleased to see that in her speech she raised the general issue of Family Allowances as well as the more comprehensive question of family assistance, she also mentioned the importance of the system, which has sometimes a negative aspect as far as social justice and personal deductions for dependents are concerned. The universality of Family Allowances is quite often discussed.

December 3, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
We speak about the necessity to protect poor families and use every possible Government resource to do that, but we always forget that one of the injustices in the system, if you go beyond Family Allowances, is the deductions for dependants under the Income Tax Act. That deduction helps only people who are sufficiently well off to pay income tax. That is one of the reasons the child tax credit was introduced a few years ago, and by a Liberal Government, not by a Conservative Government, or an NDP Government either because they have never seen the light of power. That is why it was introduced. Rich families received it automatically. It is silent, not seen anywhere except as a so-called tax expenditure through a deduction from taxable income. Poor families do not receive that because they do not pay as much income tax; some of them do not pay any at all.
So, Mr. Speaker, when we talk, about Family Allowances and universality, I would ask all Members here, as well as the public and the Government, before they search for savings-as necessary as they are in this very difficult time-instead of touching the universality of the Family Allowances program- I should say it is not only a welfare program in the sense of helping people, Mr. Speaker. 1 have heard the Minister say it is a social contract. 1 would go even further; it is a political contract because for a lot of mothers it may be the only piece of paper, the only contact that a woman has with the Government of Canada. Every month she receives an envelope bearing a Canadian flag, with a cheque which bears a Canadian flag and which mentions the Government of Canada. Before you touch that, one has to consider the nature of the social and political contract of the Family Allowances program.
1 would rather look to the income tax system to save money, because those deductions help rich families more than poor families. If you eliminate the deductions you are increasing the federal tax base and you are not only saving money for the federal Treasury, but you are saving money for all the Provinces, with the exception of Quebec, who use the federal tax base to collect their own provincial income tax. The income tax of those nine Provinces is a percentage of the basic federal tax. So the federal Government will save money, but the Provinces will probably save, generally speaking, about 30 per cent to 35 per cent. That means an automatic saving to the provincial treasuries through a tax measure of the federal Parliament.
One has to recognize the federal-provincial dimension and I suppose it would not be unfair to suggest that, if we look at that, it be within the ambit of an agreement of some kind with the Provinces whereby the money they would save would go to help poor families, either by way of housing, through direct grants or in some other way. Perhaps there should be a provincial Child Tax Credit or some kind of payment to poor families, because 1 would not want the Parliament of Canada to-


Mr. Benjamin:: Shift the responsibility.


Herb Breau: No, the Hon. Member should listen to me carefully. If we pass a measure here which has the effect of saving the federal Government money, so it can give more to the poor, it will also have the effect of saving the Provinces an additional 30 per cent or 35 per cent, because they use the federal tax base to calculate their own income tax. I think we should do that within the ambit of an agreement whereby the money the Provinces save would go to poor families in some way, as the federal savings would. If that is not part of the agreement, I am not sure that I would want to pass a measure here without any political strings attached. I am not scandalized by attaching political strings as long as they are fair, Liberal, just like the one I am suggesting now.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herb Breau: So I would ask Members of Parliament to think about that.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, before I conclude? [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowance Act, 1973.
Over the last few days we have heard a great deal of rhetoric and debate from the Government side about how wonderful Bill C-132 is. Members opposite have stood in their places and said how proud they are to speak in favour of Bill C-132, a Bill which cuts the amount of money which goes to mothers or, more precisely, goes to Canadian children.
I do not want to participate in that kind of debate. I want to present, as objectively and as clearly as possible, what the Bill attempts to do. If Hon. Members opposite feel that my allegations are incorrect, then, when they speak later, 1 hope they will identify where my arguments have some flaw or where they may be off the mark.
I think it can legitimately be said that over the next few years Bill C-132 will take money out of the pockets of mothers to spend on their children. I think every Member of the House would agree that the children of Canada are unquestionably our greatest resource; human resources in this country are one of the critical sectors where Canada has an advantage. By
December 3, 1982

definition, therefore, our young people and children hold the key to the future. Anything we can do in the months and years ahead to ensure that these young people, these children of Canada, receive support, encouragement and nurturing ought, as much as possible, to be the least we attempt to do as Members of Parliament.
What is the aim of Bill C-132? First of all, we must recognize that we are talking about $26.91 per month, per child. That means that young people in Canada under the age of 18 can expect the Government of Canada to issue a cheque to their mothers on their behalf in the amount of $26.91.
To put that in perspective, Mr. Speaker, it must be recognized that that sum of money may buy a pair of blue jeans- on sale. That is the kind of money we are discussing, the equivalent of the price of a pair of blue jeans on sale.
The Bill does two things. First, it points to the children of Canada and says: "You are one of the causes of inflation. By receiving $26.91, you are fueling inflation in this country and that must be stopped. We must cap that. We must not allow you young people or your mothers in this country to continue fueling inflation."
That is aboslute balderdash, Mr. Speaker. The young people and mothers of Canada are not the culprits.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: They certainly are the victims of this Bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Government has not brought forward legislation to correct the role that the banks play in fueling inflation in this country. The fact that they fell over themselves in the last few years pushing money on Canadian entrepreneurs, on the corporate sector and encouraging people to borrow beyond their limits has not been discussed. That is what Canadians were talked into doing. 1 suspect there is not a Member who does not know a number of people who were pushed into borrowing by the lavish advertisements issued by the banks, telling us that we had money that we did not know we had. "Borrow now for a trip to Jamaica-borrow now to buy Canada Savings Bonds-borrow now to buy stocks-borrow now to expand your business operations-borrow to the hilt."
This means that the debt-equity ratio in this country for large firms, huge corporations, small partnerships and proprietorships is usually out of whack. We do not hear anything about the banks. We hear that the children of Canada are fueling inflation. Goodness, what kind of people would present that kind of argument and stand in their places saying: "We are proud today to hammer the daylights out of the children of Canada because they have fueled inflation in Canada"?
What about the land speculators? What about the housing speculators who flip real estate sales time and time again? Do they not fuel inflation? I suspect a lot of Canadians are guilty of fueling inflation in one way or another, but I can say that
Family Allowances Act, 1973
there is unquestionably one group that did not go out of its way to fuel inflation. This group is made up of children, ages two, four and 15 years of age.
If we are going to talk about Bill C-132 as not being an effort to stop inflation, it will put to rest a good deal of the arguments that we have heard from the Liberal benches. What other possible motive would we have to impose a capping of Family Allowance payments of 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year if it is not to reduce inflation?
We have heard some people suggest that we are trying to save money. We have heard it said that the Government must save money. Let us look closely at the facts and identify precisely what it is we are attempting to say. I will quote briefly what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) herself said in this House a few days ago. She explained to the people of Canada, through the House of Commons, what amounts of money the Government would save. As reported in Hansard at page 21117, we find the Minister said:
They represent $70 million over two years. This could be explained by the fact that there will be a reduction in Family Allowances of $320 million over the two-year period. However, there will be an additional cost to make up for the loss which the Child Tax Credit will cost the Treasury, amounting to $250 million.
What that means is that, after causing concern and hardship for something like 3.6 million families in Canada and 6.7 million children, we are going to save $35 million a year. Let us consider that for a moment. Let us put the savings from this Bill into some context. The Government is saving $35 million a year by reducing the money mothers get for their children. Each Senator in the Senate will cost the Government between $2 million and $3 million each over the next number of years. Government advertising will be twice the amount of money that will be saved. Government advertising amounts annually to $60 million plus.


Mr. Waddell:: What do Coutts and Davey cost?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Canadian oil companies last year received something in excess of $1 billion in hand-outs. One F-18, our infamous jet fighter that we hear about continuously and is under a great deal of question, costs $35 million. In an effort to save money, all the Government is saving is the equivalent of one fighter aircraft while causing a lot of hardship for 6.7 million children in this country.
Let us recognize one other small aspect if the Government opposite is interested in saving money. Let me make a suggestion, which 1 make in all sincerity. Rather than take $35 million from Canada's mothers, money to provide food, shoes and the necessities of life for their children, let us reform the tax system of Canada so that hundreds and hundreds of Canadians who earn well in excess of $ 100,000 each year and pay no income tax pay their fair share. We are not suggesting that we gouge the rich people of Canada, or that we expect the

December 3, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
upper income earners to pay more than their fair share; we are simply asking them to pay something. Right now hundreds and hundreds of Canadians earning over $100,000 a year pay not one single penny in tax. If we tax those few folks in our society, the Government would not have to rip the money out of the hands of Canada's children, presumably to save some money.
That is not the only reason we in the New Democratic Party find it very difficult to support this legislation. We find it impossible to support this legislation because of its unfair nature. The six and five program is unquestionably unfair. We have heard Members opposite stand in their places saying: "We are all in this together. All Canadians are capping their incomes to 6 per cent. All civil servants are capping their incomes to 6 per cent. Even Cabinet Ministers' incomes being capped." If you stop to think, Mr. Speaker, even capping a Minister's salary at 6 per cent will still mean a $5,400 increase. Can you imagine what the mothers of Canada would think and how they would react if they were told they were going to get a $5,000 increase as a result of this Government's program? Canadian mothers would be leaping with delight.
Let us look at a few other folks who I find a little more interesting. We have heard some of the corporate heads of Canadian companies say that they like the six and five program. They like the idea of imposing the six and five program on the mothers of Canada, on federal civil servants and people working for CN or Air Canada. We hear them say that they are overpaid anyway. Look at who is saying that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is the blue ribbon boys.


Nelson Andrew Riis: One of them is Mr. Bronfman. In 1981 he was Chairman of Seagram's. When he caps his income next year he will only get an increase of $60,000. What about the President of Seagram's Mr. Griffin? By capping his income next year, he will only get an increase of $48,000. What about Mr. Tebbs, Senior Vice-President of Hiram Walker? When his income is capped next year, he will only get a $46,000 increase. We can go down the list. Mr. Ian Sinclair is the Chairman of the Board of Canadian Pacific Enterprises. When his income is capped next year he will get a paltry $35,000 increase. Here is a man who is running across the country saying: "Folks, we have a great idea; enjoy the 6 per cent imposition because we are all in this together".
Whether you are a mother who depends on the Family Allowance cheque to make ends meet at the end of the month, or whether you are Mr. Bronfman making well in excess of $1 million a year, we hear it said: "We are all in this together". That may be. We may all be in this together, but there is certainly no fairness, no equity and no justice in the system as it is implemented. That is why we in the New Democratic Party have opposed this six and five concept since the beginning, and we certainly oppose this Bill.
What about our friends to the right? I remember distinctly that last August the Government brought in Bill C-124, which imposed the six and five program on every aspect of the federal Government system. Who voted in favour of that? The Liberal Party representatives here and the Progressive Conservative representatives in the House of Commons. The only Party who saw the unjust nature of the six and five program was the New Democratic Party and, to be fair, a handful of Tories. But today, the Progressive Conservatives rise in their places and condemn this program. They cannot work both sides of the street at the same time, Mr. Speaker. They have to make up their minds. Either they are for or against it.
I suspect that when Bill C-133 comes before the House, those same Members will rise to their feet to call it unjust and unfair, when they are the ones who voted for the six and five program.
One can elaborate at great length on the details of the Bill. Bill C-132 will result in less income being received by the young people of Canada. Mothers will receive a $50 increase in Child Tax Credit for each of their children for the entire year of 1983, which means an additional $34 over what they would normally receive for each child. They will receive $35 less for each child in 1984. In 1985 they will receive $38 less. In 1986 they will receive $41 less. This trend will just continue.
A more serious consequence concerns the effect this Bill will have on the future generations of mothers and children in this country. When these programs return to full indexing in two or three years, the base on which that full indexing will take place will have been eroded. The implication of this program is that the children and the old age pensioners of this country, for the rest of its history, will receive less income from the Family Allowance Program and the old age pension. The base on which the calculations of these payments is made has been eroded. This causes great concern to some of us in the House, particularly those in the NDP who are committed to the concept of universality.
We wonder whether this is just not the foot in the door to abandoning that principle. I distinctly recall that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), who is a former Minister of National Health and Welfare, stated on November 3 that the Government of Canada may end the universality of Family Allowances. Despite what the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) says, the Minister of Finance unquestionably made these remarks. He will be bringing in a new budget in the months ahead and the Government will be making a Throne speech. Knowing the Minister of Finance's position in Cabinet, I suspect that his remarks should serve as notice to Canadians that the Government is seriously considering abandoning this very basic principle.
December 3, 1982

I want to conclude my remarks today by suggesting that it will be very interesting to see if there are Members opposite who have the courage and the compassion for young children in Canada who will stay out of the House or perhaps even vote against the Bill when we do so later today. If those Members opposite stand in their place to vote against the Bill, they will be telling the people of Canada that the Government is taking a step today which will result in less money being sent to the mothers and children of Canada. If those Members who vote in favour want that on their conscience, so be it. I will guarantee that we in the NDP will be voting to delay this Bill for six months, as the proposed amendment suggests.
We will be opposing this Bill because we will never vote for a measure that takes money out of the hands of children. Children are the human resource of this country and we are very proud of them. We will vote against any measure which begins to erode this right.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am surprised that we have not had from some of the Government backbenchers an explanation of why they are prepared to support this Bill. These measures represent a change in the philosophy of this Government about which we have known of for a long time. These Bills which propose to cap Old Age Security benefits, retired public servant pensions and Family Allowance payments to 6 and 5 per cent are just another example to demonstrate that when times get tough the first thing which the Liberals consider expendable is their supposed commitment to social programs.
We have seen decreasing support for medicare, hospital insurance and other basic safety net programs which were developed in this country over the last 30 years. It is interesting to see our friends in the Conservative benches expressing their opposition to this proposal as well as to the proposals concerning old age pensions. The fact is that when they voted for the 6 per cent and 5 per cent limits on increases to public service wages, they were voting for these measures as well. They are attempting to be on both sides of the fence when they oppose these Bills.
We are witnessing the Government taking deliberate steps during these difficult economic times to scale down the social programs which have been built up over so many years in this country. The Government has introduced measures to cap the indexing of Family Allowances and pensions even though the six and five limits to these increases over the next two years will mean a reduction in the standard of living of old age pensioners and families who receive Family Allowance.
There is no question that the increase in next year's cost of living will be much closer to 9 per cent than the 6 per cent figure which was projected by the Government last June. Furthermore, it will not even be close to the 5 per cent cap which has been proposed by the Government for the following year. At the same time as these cutbacks are being implemented, the reduced revenues of the federal and provincial Governments have resulted in their implementing methods to cut back
Family Allowances Act, 1973
on coverage in such areas as medical and hospital insurance which Canadians have come to expect. The federal Government is forcing the Provinces to cut back the support in certain areas which they give to hospital and medical insurance programs as a result of the reduction in its contributions to the Provinces for those programs.
Therefore, we have seen a decrease in the number of hospital beds in use in almost every city in Canada. We are seeing more doctors opting out of medical insurance plans because the Provinces will not agree to give the doctors the kind of increases they feel they need. We will see a gradual reduction in the standard of service. Indeed, some people who pioneered the health insurance scheme, such as the Hon. Mr. Douglas, the former Premier of Saskatchewan under whose leadership hospital and medical insurance was implemented for the First time in any Province, and Justice Hall, are predicting that if this trend continues we will have a two-track medical system in a few years. People who have the wherewithal to pay the extras which doctors and hospitals will demand will get first-class coverage, while people who cannot afford that will get second-class coverage.
This proposal to cap Family Allowances strikes a blow at the welfare of almost all the families with children in this country. Given the cost of living at the present time and the cost of housing, the very high percentage of a family's income which is needed to pay the kind of mortgage payments required for anything more than the modest home, it is unusual when both a husband and wife are not working these days. That means extra expenses in the way of child care and other family expenses. Very few families do not need the kind of assistance which they have been getting through Family Allowance. We are not alone in that kind of assessment. Yesterday an editorial in The Globe and Mail was entitled "The Society's Charges". Let me put a couple of sentences from that editorial on the record. The editorial begins:
The effects of a weakened economy are being written ominously into the case books of Children's Aid Society workers in Ontario. More and more parents are finding that the squeeze on their budgets is so tight that they cannot afford to keep their children at home. They are turning to the CAS for help in numbers described as "alarming".
"Poverty is back on our doorsteps and some parents just don't have the wherewithal to care for their children", said George Caldwell, executive director of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies.
The editorial goes on to say that record numbers of teenagers are moving away from home and applying for welfare, partly because their parents say they do not have the money to care for them.
Given that that is the situation and the reality, this is the time when the Government proposes to cut back on the Family Allowances received by Canadian families. The United

December 3, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Church, in a position paper released by its Working Unit on Social Issues and Justice, in reference to the principle of indexation, has stated:
As an attempt to offset rapidly-rising inflation in the 1970's, indexation was introduced in the income tax system, and also applied to most of the assistance programs including CPP, OAS, GIS, Spouses Allowance, Family Allowance and the Child Tax Credit. Without this the effect on low-income persons would indeed have been severe.
The United Church group that made that statement knew what it was talking about because the capping of the increases on Family Allowances and other social programs to increases of just 6 and 5 per cent when the cost of living is rising substantially more than six and five, will have a very serious effect on all those families with children.
What is the purpose of this Bill? Its purpose is to cap the increases in the Family Allowance at 6 per cent for 1983 and 5 per cent for 1984, rather than to permit the Allowance to match the increase in the consumer price index. What will be the effect on families which now receive the Allowance? Family Allowance payments now are $26.91 a month per child. This guarantees Canadian mothers some cash in hand to deal with the needs involved in raising children. It has given many mothers who do not work the only income, the only money, which they do not obtain from their husbands or for the receipt of which they are not dependent on someone else's decision-making or goodwill. This enables them to deal with some of the needs of their children, to buy clothing and food and to pay some school expenses. This year the Bill will reduce Family Allowances by $16 in 1983, from $358 for the year to $342 for the year, and will reduce it by $35 in 1984, from $394 to $359.
The Government has argued that those most in need will be sheltered from this real decrease in Family Allowance payments by a one-year increase in the Child Tax Credit of $50. On the face of it, families with children will not lose any money. That is true in an absolute sense, but our national social security system will lose an immeasurable amount because the base of future Family Allowance increases will be lower and, therefore, the reduction will be a permanent one. That, of course, assumes that at the end of two years the Government will go back to full indexation.
1 want to suggest to Hon. Members that we have no guarantee that that will happen. After all, if the Government can reduce the rate of indexation to six and five for two years, it can do the same for the years afterwards. Or, even more disastrous, it could eliminate indexation altogether. After all, if the Government has done it once, why will it not do it again? We have no assurances that the economic situation will be any better in 1985 than it is in 1982. It may, indeed, be worse, and the Government, whether it be Liberal or Conservative or any other, could decide that the needs of the country are so great that capping must be continued or that indexation must be eliminated altogether.
Besides that, the amount lost is paid back on a selective basis. What do I mean by that? Presently, 3.6 million Canadian mothers receive Family Allowances, of which 2.5 million also receive the Child Tax Credit. This country has accepted the belief that Family Allowance is a universal right. At least, we have up until now. With the Child Tax Credit, we have divided those needing help into two camps, those with some need and those with more need. With this Bill, we will move closer still to making the two-class system permanent. I suggest that it is a ghetto-type Family Allowance, similar to what I predict we will likely see in relation to hospital and medical care in the next few years.
Some may say that a ghetto-type Family Allowance will do more for the really poor. The problem is different. As soon as one separates the real poor from the rest of the people, one stops doing very much. As soon as one splits the people of Canada into two groups, those who do, in fact, receive Family Allowance, or part of it, and those who do not, those who do not receive it will lose interest in the Program. Those who do not receive the benefits will feel that they have no reason to support the Program, and the almost unanimous support which we have had for this kind of Program will be reduced, if not eliminated.
Therefore, we are opposed to the kind of selectivity which is implicit in the Bill and in the whole Child Tax Credit idea. If some in the upper income brackets do not need the benefit of the assistance they receive from this Program, it would be a very simple matter to use the income tax system as it has supposedly been used but, in fact, has never been used. The income tax system could simply be used to tax back 100 per cent of the benefits which it is believed that people do not need. This would be the most effective, stigma-free way of accomplishing the objective of seeing that those who supposedly do not need the benefits of this kind of Program do not receive them.
We believe it is illogical and unjust to attack a basic social program such as the Family Allowance Program, which has brought such benefits to the Canadian people, while at the same time we are spending millions of dollars on propaganda kits such as the one that was issued a few days ago extolling the virtues and the benefits which will accrue to the Canadian people as a result of the six and five program. The Government is essentially attacking those who cannot defend themselves.
If I can go back to that study done by the United Church of Canada, they say in this regard:
Poor people are powerless to bargain for more income, they have no access to capital for investment or job creation, they have no control over day-to-day living costs which are imposed upon them, and they have less opportunity to participate in the educational and social structures that might enable them to make it in our highly competitive system.
The poor who receive Family Allowances will never make up the losses in these payments which this Bill will inflict on them
December 3, 1982

because it cuts away at the shelter that those with low incomes and fixed incomes need to protect them from inflation and to meet the day-to-day price increases which inflation represents.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), talked about the food depots which are being established in Kamloops. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper), and I know about the tremendous increase which there has been in the last year in the services of institutions such as the Salvation Army, and in the members of the old, middle-aged and young people who are coming there every day to get food.
1 am old enough to have lived through the period of the great depression of the 1930s-


An Hon. Member:: You were very young.


David Orlikow: I was very young at that time, that is true- and I remember the soup kitchens and the relief kitchens to which tens of thousands of unemployed had to go just to keep alive. From 1940 on, from the period when World War 11 started and we saw that full employment was not only possible but had been achieved, I, like thousands of other Canadians, came to the conclusion that we would never see those kinds of situations again. They are now back for us, and not only in Kamloops or Winnipeg; Vancouver, wealthy Calgary, Regina, Toronto, every city and, 1 suppose, every small town in Canada is experiencing the same situation. That is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that that kind of situation would be permitted to exist in a country as wealthy as Canada, a country with the resources that we have, a country with the well-trained, highly-educated young people that we have. Yet that is what is happening in Canada, and it will get worse because the Government has given up any principle or intention it ever had to see that the people of this country live under decent conditions.
The Government brings forward this Bill, which we say is the beginning of an attack on the whole system of social programs which has served Canada so well since 1945, in order to save $115 million in 1983. This is based on the belief that this Government is determined to promote the idea that it is not a "big spender" in terms of social programs. This country is not one of the big spenders on social programs as compared to other countries. David Ross, in his book "The Working Poor" published in 1981, compared what Canada is doing in the way of social programs to other countries, and he makes the following statement:
Using 1974 data, Canada ranked thirteenth of seventeen OECD countries when expenditures on income maintenance were expressed as a percentage of Gross National Product.
Mr. Speaker, we are not and have never been among the big spenders. We have never been in the same class as countries such as West Germany, Holland, Belgium, Norway or Sweden. Yet this Government which, for reasons which I do not want to discuss today, implemented so many of the programs
Family Allowances Act, 1973
we have-prodded by other Parties, by organizations such as the Canadian Labour Congress, and urged on by organizations such as the Canadian Council for Social Development-is now moving as quickly as it can to mobilize support, not for holding the line, not for improving the programs which we have, but for cutting back.
Once you start this process of cutting back, the Government and this Minister should know how many important, wealthy, influential individuals, how many big organizations such as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, will be happy to join with her in helping to persuade the Canadian public that we need to cut back, that we cannot afford these things.
We do not accept this idea that we cannot afford these things. We believe that this country not only has to maintain the services which we have established over these many years, but that we have to improve the services, that we have to catch up to other countries which have done more for their people than we have.
The Family Allowances Program is the only Program we have that acknowledges the cost of parenting and recognizes the importance of children to Canadian society. It has been estimated that it takes $500,000 or more to raise a child, counting out-of-pocket expenses, the extra hours of labour by the parents and the income that the mother could have earned if she had not interrupted her working career. In the end this huge investment benefits society in general rather than the individual parent.
In comparison to this huge expense the Family Allowance is a very small amount, and to reduce this amount even by a little bit is both illogical and unjust. A couple living in one of Canada's largest cities is poor if they have an income of under $12,000. If they have a child, they require an additional $4,000 income. Family Allowance supplies much less than $400 per year, less than 10 per cent of this requirement. Yet a cut in this amount is precisely what this Minister is proposing in this legislation.
We are going to oppose this Bill, as we are going to oppose the other Bills which call for cutbacks and reductions. We are going to oppose them as we always have because we believe that the people of Canada are entitled to the kind of social programs which they have. We believe they need much more than they are getting. This is not the place, nor do I want to take the time of the House, to say to the Minister and the Government that there are dozens if not hundreds of ways in which, if the Government really believes that it needs to save the kind of money that it will save with this program, it could save it with much less harm to ordinary Canadians.
Let me just mention a couple of ways. Let me remind the Minister that her colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), in a budget proposal last year reduced the marginal rate of income tax to be paid by those in the highest income

December 3, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
brackets from 59 per cent to 50 per cent. That cost the people of Canada several hundred million dollars. Let me remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that we have had a whole series of these kinds of hand-outs to people in the upper income brackets. If the Government feels it necessary to save money, there are many other ways it could do that. For all these reasons, we propose to vote against the Bill.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, what we are debating today is very similar to what we have debated a great deal since October, 1980. Now we are removing the cash flow of families. In 1980 we removed the cash flow from the oil industry. Again, this is a Liberal grab. The Minister is laughing. I do not think she realizes the suffering that many of the unemployed are undergoing today. I am talking about the small people.


Monique Bégin: Speak to the Bill.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I am speaking to the Bill. 1 am talking about those who need the increase next year because they are running out of unemployment insurance.


Monique Bégin: They are getting it. Read the Bill.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Make your own speech in your own time. This is cruelty in a time of spiralling inflation. The Government is doing nothing to curb its own expenditures. I have been sitting on the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee and expenditures are going up. The Government is spending money everywhere it wants. There is no control. Now it is going to hurt the average guy who needs the money to put food on the table.
This is a serious time for our economy. We are dealing with unemployed people. However, not only are they unemployed, but at this time we have surplus labour. I do not know whether they can be employed. This Government has not identified the need to supply jobs for them. This is a serious subject and this is a serious Bill that will take money away from these people at this time.
There are many areas of Government spending that could be cut, but when the Government begins to cut cash flow to the citizens of this country, it is perpetrating a disgrace on this House. There is no way we could support this Bill at a time when people are starving, losing their jobs and not being reemployed.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) referred to the creation of 60,000 jobs. Our Leader referred to the fact that each unemployed worker will get 20 minutes of work. That is not creating jobs for the people who need them; it is an inequity to Canadians. It is unfair to people right across this country, particularly those in areas with heavy unemployment such as Sudbury, where today there is 40 per cent unemployment. Those people do not know when they will go back to work. How can the Government take money away
from them? It is cruelty. This is an absolutely cruel Bill being foisted on the citizens of this country.
In addition to looking at the unemployed, we have to look at the exhaustees. We do not know how many there will be before the next year is out. The automobile industry will not replace that many people; it is installing robots in order to remain competitive. We have the unemployment and surplus labour and this situation is not being dealt with. It is what we should be dealing with today instead of taking money out of the pockets of those who will not have any sustenance.
This is a very brief, short and cruel Bill. I regret that it has come before the House. Again it is the attitudinal situation of a grabbing Government, taking money away from people and grabbing all it can get. The Government believes it can spend the money better. However, people with children need it far more than the Government. The Government does not think of the human suffering that will occur because of this Bill.


Erik Nielsen: They need the money for advertising.


Thomas Scott Fennell: A very good point. Our House Leader says they need it for advertising. They love to sell their great programs across the country with their Maple Leaf and flying swans. They have to use swans because they have worn out the geese. What is happening in Canada is pathetic.


Mr. Evans:: Come on!


Thomas Scott Fennell: I see my usual heckler is here today. He always has something to say when I try to get the point across that he is being unkind to the people of this country. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) has many good points, but he will have a hard time with families the next time there is an election. I know because I happen to live in his riding when I am in Ottawa. The families who will suffer because of the Bill he is approving will have something to say to him when he knocks on their doors. They will remind him that they have not forgotten what he did to them. That Hon. Member hopes the election is far enough away that they will forget all about this. He hopes that by then the Government will come out with a new package of goodies which will double the Family Allowance just before the next election. That is the way to play the game and get elected. They will do that even though we have a $25 billion deficit this year.
In spite of that debt, there are many other places the Government could cut back. 1 plead with the Members on the other side to give some consideration to those who need help now and to vote against the Government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, by popular demand from Members on the other side of the House, I will sum up the position of the New Democratic Party on this Bill and others like it.


John Leslie Evans: That should take all day.
December 3, 1982


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If I could take all day, I would. Since 1924 people in this kind of Party have been fighting in Parliament for universal programs, beginning with J. S. Woodsworth. When the Government of any political stripe impinges on, detracts from or attempts to reduce or destroy the universality and the benefits of universal programs, this Party will always oppose them.
We are in the midst of the worst social and economic crisis since the dirty thirties. This is a depression, not a recession, but a depression of a different kind. It is interesting to read the speeches of Prime Ministers and Ministers of Finance between 1929 and 1939. They show the same state of mind and they are the same kinds of speeches that were being made between 1979 and 1982. I quote one of them:
The policies and measures 1 have outlined are based upon the firm belief ... that this country is soon to enter upon a new era of prosperity-
That was Lyman P. Duff, the Minister of Finance, speaking on March 12, 1931, as reported at page 3 of Hansard. I again quote:
-1 told the electorate that there was one thing of which they could be perfectly certain, and that one thing was that if our Party were elected to power, at the very first opportunity we would enact legislation that would deal not only with unemployment but also with the question of affording to Canadians an equal opportunity with their competitors-
That was R. B. Bennett on March 17, 1931, as reported at page 57 of Hansard. The same right hon. gentleman said on June 29, 1931 as reported at page 3137 of Hansard:
The primary duty with respect to unemployment does not rest with the federal Government-
In Hansard of June 30, 1931, at page 3183, Mr. Bennett said:
For as has been very often pointed out and is generally recognized, the duty rests primarily with the municipalities and with the province-


An Hon. Member:: We heard that last week from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We heard that last week, and we also heard it today from the Minister.
Let me move to another quote. Mackenzie King, at page 1041 of Hansard on February 19, 1937, said this:
During that period much was expended for social services, to the neglect of what should have been expended for the purpose of keeping the defences of our country up to the standard to which they should have been kept.
And then Mr. Bennett, at page 1393 of Hansard on March 2, 1937, said this:
It came to me as somewhat of a surprise that this country had the measure of prosperity that it did have in 1935.
Also at the same page and on the same date Mr. Bennett said:
If we are to make this country attractive to new capital; if we are to induce people to invest their money in this country, we shall have to have regard to the
Family Allowances Act, 1973
fact that taxation is a very important item in the minds of those who are sending their capital to new countries.
Those kinds of speeches have been made in the House just in these past three years, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Bennett went on to say, on March 1, 1937, "that this House regrets that the government has failed to take effective measures to deal with the problem of unemployment". On March 24, 1937, at page 2171 of Hansard, the same gentleman said:
Here we have a complete reversal of policy; here we have blank cheques issued for every form of activity that was contemplated by the relief act to the extent of twelve millions of dollars-
I mention these quotes, and there are many more, to illustrate the kinds of speeches which have been coming from the old line Parties on the matter of universal programs, matters of unemployment and taxation, and how they attack universal programs like the Family Allowances Program, attack it by chiselling on the benefits of a universal program.
I would like to quote the following sentence from the CCF Winnipeg Declaration of 1956, "A society motivated only by a desire for profit is basically immoral." A nation which will put up $8 billion for fighter planes, which my hon. colleague from Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) referred to, at $35 million each, which are of no use to us, instead of investing that kind of money in food production, fishermen, farmers or our children, surely has its priorities reversed. A nation which permits its financial system to invest billions of dollars in new, towering bank headquarters, corporate mergers and fancy office buildings, while people are losing their homes, their farms, their small businesses, and having their Family Allowances reduced, surely that nation is suffering from a conscience which has gone askew.
A nation which permits billions of dollars of investment capital to cross our borders to speculate on foreign currencies and commodities to make quick profits while those billions of dollars are desperately needed here for mortgage rates geared to income for homes, senior citizens' housing, transportation, research and development, and children, cannot be forgiven. A nation which will chisel on the increases for Old Age Assistance, Family Allowances and the poor, is surely failing the test of any civilized society, namely, how well it treats its old, its young and its disadvantaged. We need a national recovery plan that challenges Canadians, that does not pick upon those who cannot defend themselves.
There have been calls from the Government side about more responsibility on the part of the Provinces. Let me illustrate with an example of another old Party government, the Conservatives in Saskatchewan who, by chiselling the public, cancelled the next two planned 25-cents' per hour increases in the minimum wage. When it comes to being cheapskates, they make the Liberals look like amateurs.

December 3, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
I would like to quote from a survey by the National Citizens' Coalition in 1976, because I have been listening to the Official Opposition's speeches, led off by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). All these candidates for the Conservative Party leadership were surveyed in 1976 by the National Citizens' Coalition. The survey reads: "Question: In the case of universal welfare, should any of the following plans be altered to provide for the needy only, unemployment insurance, medicare, Canada Pension Plan and baby bonuses?" The Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), the Leader of the Opposition, said it should apply to the needy only in the case of unemployment insurance and, would you believe it, baby bonuses. The Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) said it should apply only to the needy, UIC and baby bonuses.
A former Member, one James Gillies, said it should apply to UIC and baby bonuses.
The former Liberal Member cum Tory, now cum Liberal, one Paul Hellyer, said it should apply to the Canada Pension Plan. He was a blue Tory. The first three were supposed to be red Tories. He is a blue Tory and he said it might be simpler to tax off the excess on baby bonuses rather than introduce another means test.
Then we have the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands. She said there was only one program which should be provided for the needy only, and 1 listened to her speech carefully about universality. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, she said the program was baby bonuses.
Then there is the former Tory cum Liberal cum Chairman of the CNR, Jack Horner. He said, UIC and baby bonuses.
Then there was another gentleman who came out of the woodwork or from under a rock by the name of R. C. Quitten-ton. He said all four should be restricted to the needy only.
Another blue Tory, the Hon. Member for York-Peel, who, some have said makes Genghis Khan look like a raving leftwinger, was the one who had the real radical left-of-centre proposal. He said, "Universality is preferable to a means test. Means tests are demeaning." That was the Hon. Member for York-Peel, can you believe it? He said, "Income tax tends to equalize all programs."
Out of those eight names of the leadership candidates for the Tory Party, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) was the most progressive, and he can quite justifiably get up and vote against this Bill. And if Mr. Hellyer were here, he could justifiably vote against this Bill. But if the Hon. Members for Yellowhead, Vancouver South, Kingston and the Islands have had a change of heart, have changed their minds, then I wish they would get up and say so. Everyone has a right to change their mind, but, as my colleague said earlier today, this business of continually trying to work both sides of the street has to be shown up for what it is, the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Some Grits are saying, hear, hear. These are the ones who like to brag about how they brought in the law for these universal programs. There were several of them. They had to be politically blackmailed by the CCF and the NDP and J. S. Woodsworth, to get them in. In fact, in the famous elections of 1945 and 1949, when Mackenzie King and the Liberal Party campaigned on the CCF platform, we found it very frustrating, but we are glad they did those things. But in their efforts to get back up in the polls, Mr. Speaker, these so-called Liberals, these middle-of-the-roaders, these progressives who say they have inaugurated these untouchable universal programs, are implementing the Conservative programs. Who is it that is agreeing with the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead and the Hon. Member for Vancouver South? It is the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government, Mr. Speaker. Universality of social welfare programs, Mr. Speaker, has always been a foundation of our party. Improvements in these programs has to be a continuing objective of any government, whatever its political stripe, in this Parliament.
I think there is general agreement amongst all political Parties that to equalize, paying the cost for benefits of those universal programs, we are years behind in having a fair income tax system. I will not repeat the remarks of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, but surely there is something wrong with an income tax system which allows tens of thousands of Canadians to avoid and evade paying their fair share of the cost of running this nation and its universal programs from which they also obtain benefits. Yet the old line so-called free enterprise governments insist on reducing expenditures at the expense of the aged and retired, including retired civil servants.
Later we will be dealing with a Bill concerning retired federal civil servants and their pensions, and I was very interested to hear at a meeting a week or so ago the replies of Members of Parliament from the Tory and Liberal Parties on that one. It is so obvious, Mr. Speaker, that our income tax system needs a thorough overhauling. We need to blow the dust off the Carter Royal Commission report of 1966. Carter started to go public in support of his report, but the poor man died of cancer. However, there again is the most definitive job which has ever been done on our tax system. We collect taxes from Canadians based on the income they earn, no matter how they earn it, in order to pay for universal programs so that our aged, sick, disadvantaged and children are treated with some amount of civility.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, people are more important than profits. Decency has a priority over dollars. If that principle is incorporated in our universal programs and our income tax system, we can then be really proud; we can take our place amongst the nations of the world as a leader. We need not use
December 3, 1982

these small-minded, old fashioned and out of date techniques which the Tories and the Liberals have been bringing out over the last 45 years. They have learned nothing from history and they are in fact repeating it.
1 hope some Hon. Members in this House will join with us in supporting the amendment. If it does not carry, then let them join us in opposing the Bill. All it would take is for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to cancel two of the 138 fighter planes they have ordered, and they will save the money that they are attempting to save with this Bill. That would really make no difference in Canada's capacity or capability in the realm of defence or of our NATO commitments. It would not harm that in the least. The money is there, Mr. Speaker, but it is being taken for other purpose at the expense of mothers and children. Surely no Parliament with any kind of a conscience or some civilized priorities would stand for this kind of legislation, or would support it, and I urge this House to support the amendment and oppose the Bill.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in taking part in this debate is to support the motion made by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). The intent of the motion is to allow the Government to examine the economy of this country for a six-month period to determine if this Bill has to be implemented. If those Members opposite have such a great belief that they are doing the right things, that their programs are going to turn this country around and it is going to blossom and grow and all the good things that the Liberal Party can do will be seen by the people of Canada in a very short while, would this Bill be necessary? We are told it is necessary because Government must restrain its spending. The motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Calgary West would allow all these great programs the Liberal Government is proposing to take effect. Then perhaps we would not have to deprive people of the Family Allowance. We would not have to deprive the single income families who make up about 60 per cent of the people who receive benefits from assistance programs.
All we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that Hon. Members on the Government side show some belief in their own Government rhetoric. We would like them to say: we know our policies are going to work, therefore, we will support that motion and take the six months, because it may not be necessary to humiliate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). It may not be necessary to make it appear as though she is not in charge of her own Department. It may not be necessary to make it appear that she is deferring the matter to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) who says that we do not have enough money. Think of it, please. Is what you are saying that nothing is going to change in six months? Is that what you are saying?
Family Allowances Act, 1973
All we hear is rhetoric. Are the people who are unable to defend themselves, the families and pensioners in Canada, the people who will have to try to bring this economy around? Surely that is not the Liberal way; there must be another way. Why do we not take six months to consider the Bill? We will be here and we can review it then. I do not understand the rush to become involved in something that every Member on the Government side believes will not be necessary. Our economy is going to grow so much in the next six months. We are going to start the engines of industry again.
I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) I should like to point out to him and his Party that last night the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) spoke on a subject on which he has spoken often in at least the last nine or ten years, and that is, the relationship of Family Allowances to the people under the age of 18 who do not have parents. He has fought that battle with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She has said that she agrees with everything he put forward but that the Minister of Finance told her there was not enough money available to implement the program. Not once in those nine years has any Member of that supposedly compassionate, socially aware Party, stood in this House and supported the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. Not once have they voted with him on this subject.
The people of the country do not believe that only one Party is socially aware and socially concerned. The difference between the Party of which I am a Member and the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party, is that this Party is aware that there is a great necessity for generating revenue so that the Government can make a further commitment to those people who have to receive assistance and a little bit of help from the Government. No Member of this Party is any less aware than Members of the New Democratic Party or of the Liberal Party, of the social conscience that is a necessary part of the parliamentary process. It is necessary in order to protect those individuals who, through no fault of their own, cannot protect themselves.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said, with regard to the changes proposed to the Family Allowances Act, that those people in the income brackets affected will not suffer because other Government programs will make it up to them. If that is true, then why are we going through this process? Why are we taking the time of the House and causing concern and alarm in every home in Canada if this is not going to make any difference? If the Minister is correct and those people will not be affected by the Bill, why are we debating it?
The Government has continued to say that these changes in the Family Allowances are necessary in order to recover income for the Government. The Government has a horrendous tendency to be more concerned about its own income than that of taxpayers.
21276

December 3, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
The Government knows full well that all it does is print money; it does not generate money. It has forgotten that a form of social care, aid to individuals and aid to families, is required. The family unit is not changing as drastically as is the Family Allowances Act. The family unit is still the most integral and important part of Canadian society.


James Duncan Schroder: That's right.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister say that it is right, that it is not going to cause a hardship. Why are we having this debate if not to save money for the Government? If the people in this income range are not to receive any more or any less funds from the federal Government, why is this legislation necessary? If the Parliamentary Secretary has the time, I should like him to tell the House why we are going through this exercise, if it does not make any difference.
1 ask Members of the Government to consider the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Calgary West. If they believe the Government is doing the right thing for Canada and that this will help the economy grow, then why do we not just suspend this Bill for six months and consider it then? Nothing is going to change in that time. If they do not have faith in the Government and its programs, then I will expect them to vote against the amendment. If they have faith in the Government and the Minister, then they will believe the rhetoric. They will believe the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and they will know that six months from now it will not be necessary to take income away from families with children under 18.
I hope Members of the Government will support this motion. 1 conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by asking for the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
Messrs.
Althouse	Gass	McLeanAndre	Greenaway	Mitchell (Mrs.)Baker	Gurbin	Mitges(Nepean-Carleton)	Gustafson	MurphyBeatty	Hamilton	MurtaBenjamin	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	NeilBlaikie	Mountain)	NickersonBosley	Hawkes	NielsenBradley	Heap	NowlanBroadbent	Hees	NystromCardiff	Hovdebo	OberleClark	Howie	Orlikow(Yellowhead)	Huntington	PaproskiClarke	Jarvis	Parker(Vancouver Quadra)	Keeper	PattersonCooper	Kempling	ReidCorbett	Kilgour	(St. Catharines)Cossitt (Mrs.)	King	RiisCrombie	Knowles	RoseCrosby	Korchinski	Sargeant(Halifax West)	Kristiansen	ScottCrouse	Kushner	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dantzer	Lambert	ScottDarling	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)Deans	Lewis	Skellyde Jong	MacDonald (Miss)	SpeyerDick	(Kingston and the Islands) TaylorEllis	MacKay	ThackerElzinga	Mazankowski	TowersEpp	McCain	VankoughnetFennell	McCuish	WaddellFraser	McKenzie	WenmanFulton	McKnight
NAYS Messrs.	Wilson Young-90.Allmand	Desmarais	HudeckiAppolloni (Mrs.)	Dingwall	IrwinAxworthy	Dion	IsabelleBachand	Dionne	KaplanBeauchamp-Niquet	(Chicoutimi)	Kelly(Mrs.)	Dubois	Killens (Mrs.)Begin (Miss)	Duclos	LachanceBerger	Dupont	LalondeBlais	Dupras	LandersBlaker	Erola (Mrs.)	LangBloomfield	Ethier	LanielBockstael	Evans	LapierreBossy	Ferguson	LapointeBreau	Fisher	(Charlevoix)Bujold	Fleming	LapointeBurghardt	Flis	(Beauce)Bussieres	Foster	LeBlancCampbell (Miss)	Fox	Leduc(South West Nova)	Garant	LefebvreCampbell	Gauthier	Loiselle(Cardigan)	Gendron	LumleyCollenette	Gimaiel	MacBainComtois	Gingras	MacEachenCorbin	Gourd	MacGuiganCorriveau	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	MackaseyCosgrove	Gourde	MacLarenCdte (Mrs.)	(Levis)	MacLellanCousineau	Gray	MalepartCullen	Guilbault	MaltaisCyr	Harquail	MarceauDaudlin	Herbert	MasseDawson	Hervieux-Payette	Mastersde Corneille	(Mrs.)	McRaeDeniger	Hopkins	Nicholson (Miss)
December 3, 1982

Family Allowances Act, 1973
Messrs.
Olivier	Reid	SavardOstiguy	(Kenora-Rainy River)	SchroderOuellet	Roberts	SimmonsPepin	Robinson	SmithPeterson	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)	TardifPinard	Rompkey	TurnerPortelance	Rooney	VeillettePrud'homme	Rossi	WatsonRoy	Weatherhead Yanakis-118.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment lost. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Erik Nielsen: No bells.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Public Bills, Notices of Motions, Private Bills.
Gun Control



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
All items preceding No. 451 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East) moved that Bill C-451, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Gun Control) be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to move second reading of Bill C-451, a Bill designed to bring about more effective gun control in this country.
First, 1 would like to explain to the House the provisions of the Bill. I think this is extremely important because the exact provisions of the Bill have been distorted beyond belief by various circulars which have been distributed throughout this country.
This Bill deals principally with only two matters. The first is to change the presently existing firearms acquisition certificate, which was introduced in 1977, to a firearms possession certificate containing the same criteria as the firearms acquisition certificate.
Before 1977, there was little or no control over long guns, rifles and shotguns in this country. One could go into a hardware store or sporting goods store and buy a shotgun or rifle without any requirements, testing or screening. Under the 1977 legislation, to buy a new long gun a firearms acquisition certificate must be obtained. This means that those with a criminal record or a history of violence, instability, or alcoholism, could be refused this firearms acquisition certificate by the police in the local community.
Even if one might qualify under those criteria, because it takes a few days between the application for and the granting of the certificate, there is a cooling off period. This could be beneficial in a situation where one might want the gun for the purpose of doing something violent, on the spur of the moment.
When I presented Bill C-83 in 1966, the provision that I put forward was one whereby the principles of the firearms acquisition certificate-
Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order. This is one of the few times that private Members get an opportunity to speak. I think it behooves the House to be listening to the one who is speaking.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's point is very well taken.


Mr. Allmand:: As I was saying, when I presented Bill C-83 in 1976 as Solicitor General, that Government Bill contained principles with respect to the firearms acquisition certificate whereby it would have applied to all those who possess long
December 3, 1982
guns and not just to those who purchase new guns. Bill C-83 was not passed because the session came to an end. When the Bill which came after it, Bill C-51, was introduced, it was watered down to the extent in that the firearms acquisition certificate licensing proposal only applied to new guns. This Bill intends to apply the criteria of the firearms acquisition certificate to all those who possess weapons. It would mean that those who possess long guns, rifles and shotguns, must have what would become the firearms possession certificate.
The only other provision and change that it makes in the law is that not only would you have to produce the firearms possession certificate when you buy a gun as you now do with the firearms acquisition certificate, but whenever you purchase ammunition, you would also have to produce your firearms possession certificate.
Those are the only two things that this Bill attempts to do. It does not do most of the things put forward in a circular that was distributed throughout this country and which provoked a lot of opposition and concern. I agree with the concern that was expressed, but this is a very dishonest circular, not signed by any individual or association. It shows the cowardice and the dishonesty of not all, but many of the groups dealing with the issue of gun control.
1 want to go through some of the items in the circular and to state whether or not they are in the Bill. The first thing it says about Bill C-451 is this:
All retail sales of firearms to be handled through a new Government agency only.
False. There is nothing in the Bill on that point.
Applications must be made to purchase any firearm, and must be posted and published before approval, to allow people who oppose the application to register a complaint.
There is nothing in the Bill on that.
Possession of any firearm by police permit only.
That is one of the few things that is correct. In order to possess a firearm, you would have to get a firearms possession certificate. That is one out of three that is correct.
Compulsory registration of all firearms by serial number.
Absolutely false. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill about that.
Permit holders must file annual reports as to the use and condition of all firearms in their possession-
Absolutely false, there is no such thing in the Bill.
No firearm may be disposed of by sale, barter, gift or bequest.
Absolutely false. It also states it must be turned over to the police. That is absolutely false.
I could go on. There is a whole list of submissions in this circular that was sent everywhere in this country. I must say it was even sent on by some Members of Parliament. Of the ten items in the circular which are meant to describe Bill C-451, only one is correct. On the basis of this circular, people all across this country, some with justification, have written thousands and thousands of letters to protest the Bill.

December 3, 1982


Mr. Corbett:: Thousands and thousands?


William Warren Allmand: There are thousands and thousands. I read a lot of the letters. Unfortunately, most were based on the circular and not on the Bill. Why this Bill?


An Hon. Member:: Why?


William Warren Allmand: If the Hon. Member will listen, I will explain it, and 1 will be glad to listen to his arguments in opposition later.
There are still too many crimes with guns being committed in this country. According to all the evidence I have seen, it has been shown very conclusively that in states and countries where there is stricter gun control law, there is lesser crime with guns. The principal purpose of this Bill is to implement stricter gun control. First, to control the general availability of firearms, and, second, as much as possible to prevent the potential dangerous user from gaining access to weapons. 1 said that that was the purpose. There are too many crimes with guns. If that is the case, we should tighten our present laws to make them even more effective.
Those who complain about a law like this, whereby those who want to use guns must have a licence showing that they are competent, not dangerous, do not have criminal intentions and so on, seem to be obsessed with that type of law and oppose it at any expense or cost. What is very inconsistent with most of these people is that for years in this country in order to drive an automobile, which is a potentially dangerous object, you have to obtain a licence. If you have a history of drunkenness, poor driving or dangerous driving, your licence is taken away.
The purpose of the automobile is transportation. Here you have a situation where you have a gun, the purpose of which is to kill. It has no other purpose but to kill animals and, in certain circumstances, individuals. If there is good rationale for licensing individuals to drive automobiles and trucks, certainly the same reasons and logic apply to that consumer good, the principal purpose of which is to kill.
We licence people who deal with other types of dangerous substances. A pharmacist must get a licence to sell prescription drugs. I apply the same logic to guns. I feel it is necessary in order to reduce the number of crimes with guns in this country.
I also want to point out to the House that there is nothing in this Bill which outlaws guns altogether. There is nothing in the Bill which would take guns away from responsible, law-abiding hunters and sportsmen. I have never introduced a measure that would do that. I believe that hunting by responsible Canadians is a legitimate sport. I feel that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are responsible and will get a licence to possess a gun, just as they get a licence to drive an automobile. However, we would screen out those who are criminally or otherwise dangerous. Therefore, I accept the legitimate use of guns.
I want to deal with a few of the arguments that will no doubt be raised by some Members in the House. They will probably come up with the old saw that guns do not kill, people kill. Of course there is always an individual involved in
Gun Control
a killing. As I said before, the possibility of killing with a gun is much greater than with any other type of weapon. A recent study in the United States shows that the capacity to kill with a gun is five times greater than with any other weapon. Show me the individual who would not rather have somebody go after him or chase him with a knife than with a gun. No doubt, if we have any kind of mobility at all, we would agree that the chances of being killed with a gun is much greater than with another weapon. You hear people arguing that you can kill with a baseball bat. Of course you can, but the purpose of the baseball bat is to hit baseballs. The purpose of most knives is to cut meat, paper, wood, or whatever. The purpose of the gun is to kill animals and to kill people.
Another old saw you hear is that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Again, that statement is based on a complete ignorance of the facts with respect to murder. In this country, two-thirds of the murders are committed by people who are not professional criminals or gangsters. Two-thirds of the murders are committed by people who are not involved in crime, who killed in the context of family emotions or in the context of some problem which has arisen. These are the people who very often go out looking for a gun, and find it in some cases too easily.
While it is true that no matter how strict you make gun laws, the professional criminal, the gangster, will still find guns, my point is that making guns less available will cut down on those two-thirds who are not professional criminals.
There was a young man in Ottawa a few years ago who went out one afternoon, bought a shotgun in a local hardware store, went back to his school and killed two or three of his classmates. He was in a severe emotional state and was able to get that gun without much difficulty. We hear the argument, Mr. Speaker, that by implementing stricter gun laws we are going to enable extreme political movements, such as the communists and the fascists, to take over the country. One has a picture of people with shotguns and rifles shooting at tanks as they roll down the street in Czechoslovakia, thereby stopping some kind of communist takeover. That is a specious argument.
I am coming to the end of my speech, and I want to repeat that of all the consumer goods sold in this country, the most dangerous is the gun. It is the only consumer good the purpose of which is to kill animals and kill people, the one consumer good with the greatest potential to criminal violence.
I would ask Members of Parliament to consider the measures of this Bill seriously. I would ask them not to consider this ridiculous circular which was sent around. If they are going to debate this issue, they should debate the Bill, not the circular. At the beginning of my speech I was afraid Hon. Members were trying to howl me down as if they were afraid to hear any argument on the question. If they are really serious, I would ask them at least to let this matter be sent to committee where it can be given serious study. If their arguments are so good as

December 3, 1982
Gun Control
they say they are, they will stand up in committee. If they are no good, they will not, and logic will prevail.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise to speak in the House on Bill C-451 on gun control. It is not only of concern to my constituency but of concern to people all across this country.
I want to congratulate my colleagues for being here in the House today, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett), the Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), I can go on and on. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass), the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer), the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish), the Hon. Member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff), the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway), the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), and so on. These people are very concerned-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) rises on a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: I only want to stop the Hon. Member for a moment. I want to hear what he has to say, but I do not think he should name Members who are not in their seats. He has named at least three who are not.


William John Vankoughnet: That is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I really believe that these people are here in the lobby. They are in and out. They have stayed here specifically this afternoon to protest this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William John Vankoughnet: 1 have listened to the former solicitor general's comments, and I can say with certainty that Canadians do not believe the former solicitor general when he states the "purpose" of his private Member's Bill. I ask the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), what is the hidden agenda of his Party? This Bill suggests police state tactics which are foreign to Canada and Canadians. This Bill attacks the right to own private property, penalizes law-abiding citizens, gives the police powers which are not necessary, and does not address the real problem, which is the misuse of firearms. If the former solicitor general wants to implement a deterrent to criminals, he should be introducing a private Member's Bill which has tougher laws against those who misuse firearms, not against law-abiding citizens. If he is really serious about the intent of his Bill, he should urge his Party to reintroduce capital punishment, which
is a more meaningful deterrent than the increased harassment he now proposes.
I am particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be able to speak to this Private Member's Bill when I think back to a Friday earlier this year, on July 9, when a Private Member's Bill was introduced in this Chamber at four o'clock which changed the name of our July 1 holiday. This was done in an underhanded manner. No way will this Bill be allowed to go any further. On this side of the House, Friday is a difficult day on which to be in attendance, because, unlike Members of the Liberal Party which is centred in Central Canada, my colleagues have had to travel far because of their representations in the vast areas of this country. They cannot be here. I would like to mention, particularly, the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble), the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), and the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave). They would have liked to take part in this debate, but due to previous commitments they could not be in the House this afternoon.
I have stated publicly previously, and still believe, that Bill C-451 is a trial balloon to test public reaction. We have a former solicitor general sponsoring this Private Member's Bill. He is the same individual who introduced the original Bill C-51. I was heartened to hear the present Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan) make the following comment publicly here in the House as well as in the press: "I would like to make it very clear that Mr. Allmand's Bill is not a Government Bill, and the position of the Government has not changed in that there will he no substantive amendments to the current legislation until after the review". The Solicitor General also stated that his review would be available in late 1982 or early 1983. Is Bill C-451 a preview of that report, depending on current public reaction? And will the Solicitor General withdraw any recommendations in that report which allude to the substance of Bill C-451?
Guns used by the professional criminal element will always be acquired, and no amount of gun control will ever control that. If the intent is to control the illegal use of guns, look to the courts, our laws and the complete disregard of justice. Today a murderer can expect a few years in jail. Mandatory supervision sees to it that he is back out on the street quickly. The murderer can try again because he knows he will not spend a long time in jail. There are no complaints from previous victims because they have been buried. Capital punishment is a deterrent.
It is clear that we have had a form of gun control in this country for years. Handguns have been restricted since the 1930s. As well, restrictions on automatic weapons are certainly necessary. We can all agree on that. Bill C-451 will only serve to harass those law-abiding citizens who use hunting and sporting rifles for peaceful purposes.
The new Constitution, which the Progressive Conservatives fought so hard to make humanistic, does not contain the right
December 3, 1982

to own private property. Responsible gun owners recognize that guns are not toys and must be used with care. But surely Canadians have the right to own private property and exercise that right freely. When we talk about property rights, some have a tendency to think about real estate only. As we all know, however, a rifle or a shotgun is private property. As well, the provisions in Bill C-451 extend also to the possession of ammunition, which presents the possibility of extreme abuse. I stated earlier that this Government seems intent on creating a police state.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) relished the taste of repression when he instituted the War Measures Act in 1970, and his Government has been trying one way or another ever since to recapture that taste. The present gun control section of the Criminal Code is cumbersome, expensive to administer and effective only to harass law-abiding individuals. It does not restrict the use of firearms by the criminal element, nor does it affect their ability to secure restricted weapons illegally.
1 and Members of my Party have advocated and continue to stress the need for a detailed review of the firearm control provisions in the Criminal Code by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The evaluation study commissioned by the Solicitor General's Ministry will not allow public input until after it is written. The evaluation study has no credibility without direction and public input. The Justice and Legal Affairs Committee could conduct hearings across Canada, at which time the public, particularly in rural areas, could give their views and suggestions for any changes pertaining to gun control in the Criminal Code. The Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland's (Mr. Lawrence) motion asking for this public review has come before the House previously, and before this House should ever consider more legislation added to current gun laws, I believe a conscious effort should be made to iron out the flaws in the current gun legislation. The time for a review of Bill C-51 is now, and it will most properly be done by a parliamentary committee.
If the purpose of Bill C-451 is to reduce the number of gun crimes in Canada then let us take an accurate accounting of the state of current gun legislation. This would be more effective and appropriate than what Bill C-451 will accomplish by adding to the already cumbersome and time consuming process that now exists. The proposals in Bill C-451 would be a curse to all law-abiding rifle and shotgun owners throughout the country.
It seems that the former solicitor general is still conducting his misguided crusade against legitimate, law-abiding gun owners. Bill C-451 will succeed, if passed, in making criminals out of a great many honest people. If someone is found with ammunition and they do not possess a firearms possession certificate or even a gun with which to fire the ammunition, rendering it virtually harmless, he could be sentenced to two years in a federal penitentiary, not a county jail. In the same vein, if a person is an occupant of a vehicle in which there is ammunition and no one has a firearms possession certificate, that individual could receive a sentence of five years in prison.
Gun Control
The burden of proof is on the individual to prove that he is innocent in that he was unaware of the existence of the ammunition, or that someone else in the vehicle possessed a firearms possession certificate. I repeat, Bill C-451 will make a great many law-abiding citizens into criminals.
While I am confident today that Bill C-451 has no chance of becoming legislation, I also recognize the distinct possibility of this Government introducing future legislation. There has been a considerable amount of confusion about this private Member's Bill. This arose, I believe, in the time it took from when it was first introduced to the time it took to be printed. Also, the resemblance of the Bill number of the current gun legislation, Bill C-51, to the Bill number of the private Member's Bill C-451, is just too coincidental for me not to be skeptical.
The party of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) has a history of reversing previous positions and claiming this has not occurred. During the metric debate the Progressive Conservatives were prepared to negotiate concessions to the Government's demand only if the mandatory element was removed from the legislation. The Libearl Party has been misinterpreting our position ever since. My stand on the issue of gun control has been very consistent. The review which the previous Liberal Government made a commitment to undertake, which the succeeding Progressive Conservative Government actively undertook, has now been abandoned. On previous occasions I have risen in support of caucus colleagues who had made a similar request to the current Government.
A recent evaluation of the present Canadian gun control legislation by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) reveals points worth mentioning. Lirst, there is an inability to find any relationship between gun prohibition and firearm incidents; second, there is evidence of abuse of the power of search and seizure without a warrant; and third, the return procedure for confiscated firearms was not being adhered to, with this report specifically mentioning those sections as potential areas of abuse in the future.
These are all sound reasons why a review of Bill C-51 is necessary, and it is also a sound reason for not allowing Bill C-451 to go any further than the floor of this House. Bill C-451 represents a further erosion of rights we all take for granted. The significance of the right of every lawful citizen to acquire private property for peaceful purposes is a fundamental cornerstone of our system. A majority of citizens, including gun owners; support some form of gun control measures. In practice, Bill C-451 would serve only to impede law-abiding citizens.
In closing, I would like to state that the real losers in Bill C-451 are the Canadian people. Yes, it is conceivable that people possess firearms for peaceful purposes and the need to acquire a firearms possession certificate is just one more regulation in an over-regulated lifestyle.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my Party has had a tradition of supporting the concept of reasonable and

December 3, 1982
Gun Control
safe control of firearms. We do not have that element in this particular Bill before us. Rather, we have a bureaucratic nightmare which will harm ordinary Canadian citizens who enjoy hunting. There are many native Canadians in my riding and the ridings of my colleagues who still hunt as part of their traditional way of life. So we have to speak in opposition to this Bill.
We believe there should be adequate training courses sponsored by the federal Government, much more than there are at present. While 1 am sure it was not intended, this Bill has harmed real efforts to provide adequate gun control in this country because it is too extreme. In the same way, those people who have ranted and raved against the Bill have also harmed their own cause. Having seen some of the ads and circulars which have gone out over the past two years, I am ashamed of what some of my fellow Canadians have said against this Bill. It is creating here an American type of paranoia which we see there whenever it comes to gun control legislation. We do not want to become like that. We do not want to have groups running around the country sponsoring one person or fighting another person on this issue and giving great hunks of money to one person or one Party. Gun control is a serious issue, one which must be covered by adequate legislation, and it is up to us to make sure that such legislation is reasonable.
I am concerned that many Canadians will get the firearms possession certificate that is called for in the Bill and, as a result, will become criminals. We should never make laws that make ordinary Canadians become criminals by an action which, in itself, is not harmful to other Canadians.
People who live in cities often do not understand why people who live in the North or in other rural areas or parts of western Canada, want guns. I do not believe that Canadians have the right to bear arms at all times in all circumstances, but in a riding such as mine or that of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) or that of the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), or of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), there are vast areas where, just a few miles from home, people can go hunting. Hunting has become part of the tradition. I am not referring only to native people but also to white residents of those communities.
It is very hard for some people to understand that others enjoy hunting or that by hunting the food bill can be cut. Unlike someone who lives in Toronto or Montreal or even Vancouver, those of us from rural ridings do not have to travel great distances in order to go hunting, nor do we have to put up at an expensive lodge. In my riding 1 can walk across the street into the wilderness. These are aspects of the question that should be debated seriously. However, Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed of some of the things I have heard said about the Bill.
The Hon. Member who introduced the Bill said guns-he was referring to long guns, a term I have not heard for a long
time-were the only commodity that can be bought by Canadian civilians which will harm other people. In saying that, he is raising the level of debate on this issue.


An Hon. Member:: He is lowering it.


Rodney Edward Murphy: A lot of people have a rifle for some purpose other than killing. Killing is not often taken as referring to birds or moose or other animals but as killing people.


Mr. Hopkins:: He was lowering the level of debate. You said he was raising it.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I am sorry. He certainly was lowering the level of the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I was glad to see that Members of the Official Opposition did not take a highly partisan position in the debate, because it is true that when the original gun control legislation was introduced, the three opposition Parties in the House at that time opposed the Bill for some of the reasons 1 have mentioned. It is interesting to note that even at that time only 30 Conservatives showed up to vote against the Bill. On July 18, 1977, the recorded vote was yeas 95, nays 40, of whom 30 Members were Conservatives.


An Hon. Member:: How many NDP?


Rodney Edward Murphy: There were eight in the House and at that time there were only 15 NDP Members, so it was more than half.
If the Government is to bring in any Bill similar to C-451, it is important that such legislation be acceptable to Canadians in that it recognizes the different regions in the country. It is important that it be legislation that most Canadians can accept, not just some people in some urban areas.


Mr. Ellis:: How about giving someone else a chance to speak? There are 18 Members waiting.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Hon. Member asks me to give someone else a chance to speak. That is interesting because I listened to the Members of that Party who spoke already, and I hope they will extend me the same courtesy. There are Members of all Parties who wish to speak on the Bill, I am sure. One of the problems with Private Members' hour is that it is just that, an hour. As I indicated the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap wishes to oppose the Bill, the Hon. Member for Skeena wishes to speak in opposition to it and some other Members of this Party wish to speak as well. 1 find it interesting that the Hon. Member who spoke ahead of me listed more Conservatives who wished to speak against the Bill than voted against a similar Bill some years ago.
It is important that crime be controlled, Mr. Speaker, especially crime committed with firearms. I do not think the Bill will achieve that. Rather, it will create a massive bureaucracy where people in the areas I have mentioned will, first of
December 3, 1982

all, have to get a temporary possession form and later a permanent possession form. That will mean they will have to go through the bureaucracy twice in order to keep a weapon that could have been in the family for 40 or 50 or even 60 years. This creates a problem for people who want to live within the law.
As 1 said, Mr. Speaker, this Party opposes the Bill. If the Hon. Member had offered reasonable gun control legislation we might support it, but certainly the Bill before us would hurt a lot of ordinary Canadians. It is completely unacceptable to this Party for the reasons I have stated.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to be taking part in this debate and to have this opportunity to respond to Bill C-451. I was not sitting in the House at the time Bill C-51 was passed, but I am sure Hon. Members will recall that the passage of this bill was accompanied by some controversy. The implementation of the legislation has been smooth, however. Since 1977, new penalties for misuse of firearms were introduced and changes were made in the restricted weapons system on January 1, 1978. A successful Amnesty/Recall program took place in November 1978, and the introduction of the Firearms Acquisition Certificate and Business Permit systems took effect on January 1, 1979.
As significant as these changes were, I think they should be viewed in the context of the history of firearms control in Canada. It is not widely appreciated that Canadian law has controlled firearms in one manner or another for more than 100 years. The first permit system for the carrying of a small arm outside one's residence or place of business was introduced in 1892. By 1934, the law required the registration of all hand guns. Changes to the law in 1968, created three classes of weapons in Canada: prohibited, restricted, and unrestricted.
I bring this brief history to the attention of the House because I believe it sheds some light on why, although a frontier society that depended to a large extent on firearms, Canada has generally enjoyed a history of responsible use of firearms.

Mr. Speaker, the changes enacted by Parliament in 1977 continued in the same Canadian tradition, the most important change being the Firearms Acquisition Certificate system. As I mentioned, the 1968 law created three classes of weapons: prohibited, restricted and unrestricted, while conditions were attached to the acquisition and use of handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles-all restricted weapons. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1977, introduced controls of long arms to the extent of requiring that individuals wishing to acquire them in any manner after January 1, 1979 must be screened by police
Gun Control
to ensure that they do not have a criminal record or history of mental illness associated with violence.
Mr. Speaker, it has now been three full years since all the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and in particular the Firearms Acquisition Certificate system have been in force. Although there are some eencouraging indications that the misuse of firearms is declining, it is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the success of the firearms control program. The most recent report by Statistics Canada shows that homicides and the use of firearms in homicides has continued to decline. I would submit, however, Mr. Speaker, that it would be wrong to amend the legislation in the manner suggested by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), or in any other way, until we have fully assessed the impact of the existing legislation. It may well be that no further changes are justified, or indeed that some of the present law is unecessasry from the point of view of public safety.
Because of the extent of public interest in the firearms control laws and because of the sensitive and complex nature of the legislation, the Government decided, when Bill C-51 was tabled in Parliament in 1977, that a thorough evaluation of the program would be carried out. The purpose of the study, which is now underway, is to ensure that legislators as well as interested members of the public will have full and objective information with which to assess the effectiveness of the firearms control program.
Now, as the Hon. Members are, I am sure, aware, the Ministry of the Solicitor General has engaged an outside objective consulting firm to carry out a three-year evaluation study to gather information which will allow us to gauge the impact of the legislation on the frequency and nature of firearms incidents, both criminal and accidental. In addition, the study is collecting data on the implementation of the legislation and the Firearms Acquisition Certificate system so that we will have a much clearer idea of which aspects of the legislation are most effective and which might require amendment. The consulting firm has established co-operative arrangements with provincial and municipal agencies to enable the efficient collection of information relating to the legislation.
The reports from this study will be available to all interested parties in order to ensure that all the facts are available when forming conclusions about the effectiveness of these legislative and administrative measures. The final report will be available in April 1983 for public distribution. I am sure all Hon. Members will appreciate that the accurate measurement of the effect of a complex legislative program such as this must be carefully conducted over a reasonable period of time before reaching definitive conclusions. The final report will permit us, as legislators, to have outside objective material to provide a basis on which we may draw some sound conclusions and make decisions as to whether the program is meeting the objectives set out in 1977 or whether it is in need of revision. In response to thousands of letters received concerning Bill C-451, the

December 3, 1982
Gun Control
Solicitor General stated that upon completion of the evaluation study, he will be conducting a full public review of the present law. Until that review has taken place and the public has had the opportunity to comment fully, the Government will not consider or support any substantial changes to the current legislation. The Hon. Member's proposals in Bill C-451 are of a very substantial and controversial nature, and I submit it would be wrong to support such measures in this debate.
As this debate is coming to an end, Mr. Speaker, I should like to stress the fact that several colleagues had asked me to rise on their behalf in the House to express their complete disagreement. They are the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson), the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield), the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Bossy), the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), and the
Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail). Mr. Speaker, I am using the same ploy as my hon. friends opposite a while ago. There are other Hon. Members who are now in the House and who would have liked to express their complete disagreement with Bill C-451.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, 1 trust that you will allow me a brief point of order in order to put on the record that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Tardif) did exactly as the Government promised and talked out the Bill brought in by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time allotted to private members' business has now expired. It now being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock on Monday afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 6, 1982